(b) this opinion, faulty as it may be, distinguishes the circumstances between Chicago and Portland as to whether the deployment is warranted. I think it's bullshit, but they at least *tried* to justify the difference.
Yes, but (a) they're in a different circuits, and circuit courts not infrequently rule differently (a "circuit split" is, in fact, one of the key reasons the Supreme Court may take up a case, in order to resolve that split), and ....
It's not that it doesn't matter. It's that it basically has no inherent power. Even its accrediting power for law schools exists only insofar as schools consent to seek it (as we're seeing in Texas) as I'm sure you know.
All Andrew seems to have taken away from the history of his title is "sexual indiscretions" as though they were good things, and not the fact that Yorks helped recover from, not commit, those things.
The previous Duke of York, his grandfather, became King because of the reigning king's sexual indiscretions. The one before that became King because his older brother, heir to the throne, died after a series of sexual indiscretions himself that gave him gonorrhea.
It's the same indictment. But her confusion seemed to stem from the fact that the pages were misnumbered and the indictment counts were off because the grand jury declined to indict on one of the three counts. She was too inexperienced to proof them herself so she missed it.
And in any event, "Let's elect her anyway, and maybe we'll luck out and she'll die and we'll have a Democratic governor to replace her and s/he'll appoint a more progressive person" seems like a really big gamble.
I'm saying stuck with Mills. If she wins, we're (that is, the entire country is) stuck with her unless (a) she resigns/retires (unlikely), or (b) she's expelled (even more unlikely). You seem to think senators have a habit of resigning/retiring for matters of health. They do not.
Not just the only signatory, but as I recall, reports were she was the only attorney presenting to the grand jury. So even if they cut her office a little slack to get a different signature on the indictment, the whole GJ vote would seem to be invalid.
Especially since Senate seats are six years, so unlike a House seat (where we can press to the left more readily) we're stuck for a while. And while Mills has said she'll serve only one term, I've seen that before, repeatedly, get jettisoned.
My point is, it's one issue of several, as another person has pointed out here too. She's definitely not liberal, and her past record suggests she's eager to reach across the aisle, which is something we DON'T need in the US Senate. As we should have learned from WV/AZ/PA by now.
As for Obama and gay rights: he didn't ignore shit. He opposed same sex marriage with a wink and a nod but pushed hard for ending DADT and any number of other punitive measures. And he flipped on SSM long before the Supreme Court ruled.
Opposing legalization in 2008 and in 2025 are two different things. And again, she's against DECRIMINALIZATION - making small amounts a civil offense. That's far milder than legalization and yet she opposes it.
The political consulting class wouldn't sneeze on a Graham Platner. They SALIVATE over people like Mills because they can bring in big money to line the consultants' pockets. This is the stupidest comment you've made yet.
That's what WV thought with Manchin. That's what AZ thought with Sinema. That's what PA thought with Fetterman. The first two obstructed Biden's agendas repeatedly and the last is happily going along with much of the Trump agenda. At some point you have to take a stand.
I see this pro-Mills opinion to be more of the same from the appeasement wing of the Democrats - establishment always better even when it delivers shit.
I'm from away, too. But it affects me too, because unless we get rid of Collins there's no hope of retaking the Senate, not that we have a great chance this round anyway. And yes, I fear her being another Manchin/Sinema/Fetterman, killing progressive bills to please big money.
The problem I foresee is that the Collins type of GOP makes a big show of pretending to be bipartisan but almost always caving to the party. The Mills type of Democrat makes a big show of trying to work with the Republicans and frequently delivers them what they need in the name of "cooperation."
