posted 3 days ago with 1,913 notes via

“It sounds to me, if I may, you’ve declared for president,” the comedian said.

Mrs. Clinton laughed. (x)

cartoonpolitics:

A new study suggests “discriminatory intent underlies legislative support for voter identification laws.” .. (more here) .. also (good background here)

cartoonpolitics:

A new study suggests “discriminatory intent underlies legislative support for voter identification laws.” .. (more here) .. also (good background here)

posted 1 week ago with 573 notes via

#lollll #voter discrimination

cartoonpolitics:

refers to the story that House Speaker John Boehner, in a piece of political theater designed to pacify the more extreme elements of his party, is threatening to sue the President over his use of executive orders .. (more here)

cartoonpolitics:

refers to the story that House Speaker John Boehner, in a piece of political theater designed to pacify the more extreme elements of his party, is threatening to sue the President over his use of executive orders .. (more here)

posted 2 weeks ago with 1,239 notes via
Middle class families can’t wait for a Republican Congress to do stuff. So sue me. As long as they’re doing nothing, I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something.

It’s not crazy; it’s not socialism. It’s not the imperial presidency. No laws are broken, it’s just building roads and bridges like we’ve been doing.

President Obama addressing partisan disagreement over The Highway Trust Fund 

The latest bout of congressional gridlock is putting 877,000 jobs and $28B at risk 

(via micdotcom)

Reminder that “imperial presidency” was a phrase that Karl Rove and Dick Cheney used to describe the doctrine the Bush administration openly subscribed to and followed.

But, no. It’s President Obama who goes too far every time he does anything.

(via blue-author)

posted 3 weeks ago with 1,427 notes via / source
posted 3 weeks ago with 27,006 notes via
posted 3 weeks ago with 253 notes via

#news

can you explain the hobby lobby case to me? — Anonymous

I can try!  To be honest, as a disclaimer, I am no expert on the Supreme Court.  At all.  I don’t know if this was sent before the decision came out or not, so as you may or may not already know SCOTUS sided 5-4 on the side of Hobby Lobby.  

The question was whether or not a corporation with religious owners can deny coverage based on their religious beliefs.  In this case, certain types of contraceptives were in question.  The court ruled that “closely held corporations” (definition of closely held here in case you were wondering) with religious owners can not be required by the government to provide contraceptive coverage.  This ruling was narrow in the fact that “this decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious belief.” (x)

The narrow nature of this ruling is causing a lot of controversy because many believe it is mostly an affirmation of privilege…by not opening the door to various religious claims (which would be absolutely insane) and making it only about contraception aka women’s repro health care….it’s really only about one thing: conservative sexual morality. Additionally, it’s causing quite a stir due to the fact that it falls in line with the current Court’s penchant for giving corporations rights while simultaneously steamrolling over an actual group of people’s rights.  The government can pay for coverage itself and the Obama admin is “almost certain” to provide contraception coverage to woman covered by today’s decision. (x x)  That being said, it’s not necessarily about the coverage or the denial of the actual birth control in this case, at least not for me (although I obviously have issues with that).  It’s more the implications of the ruling and the trend this SCOTUS has continued to support that worries me the most.   

rcsolstice:

choctawaukerman:

Today the US Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts bill that gave abortion/family planning clinics as 35 foot protection zone in which protestors could not harass clinic patients, opening patients to the possibility of harassment, verbal and physical attacks, and even death threats as they attempt to enter a clinic.

This is ridiculous. 


Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D-SD 10) filibusters SB5, a bill that would ban all abortions in Texas after 20 weeks and close all but 5 abortion clinics in the state of Texas. 

#it’s been a YEAR this filibuster is still so important#the sense of power and community and democracy that it inspired in young women is so important#still p emotional abt it tbh#love her mind love her shoes etc

Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D-SD 10) filibusters SB5, a bill that would ban all abortions in Texas after 20 weeks and close all but 5 abortion clinics in the state of Texas.