![]() ![]() ![]() And that is the party’s message that makes the 2022 midterms a referendum on Roe: “Give us the House and two more senators, and we will make Roe law in January 2023.” If my math is right and there are 48 Senate Democrats ready to make that pledge, they need two additional Democratic senators in the next Congress. Getting a list of holdouts down to a publicly named handful is the first step to persuading them to fall in line. But if any do have misgivings, that’s why the public commitments are so important. Some claim that Senators Manchin and Sinema are just taking the public heat for a number of other Senate Democrats who are also unwilling to change the filibuster rules. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are dead set against any changes to the filibuster - a fact you likely know because most of President Biden’s agenda has been bottled up behind their refusal for the past year. Here’s one way to do that: get clear public commitments from every Senate Democrat (and candidate for Senate) not only to vote for the Roe bill in January 2023 but also to change the filibuster rules to ensure that a majority vote would actually pass the bill and send it to the White House for the president’s signature.Īt present, there are likely 48 Senate Democrats who can make that pledge. ![]() To make the 2022 elections a referendum on Roe, Democrats have to put protecting Roe and abortion rights on the table. But you can’t make an election into a referendum on an issue if you can’t point to anything winning the election would accomplish. Unfortunately, their current plan is almost sure to fail.Īfter the Democrats came up with just 49 votes to bring a Roe-protecting bill before the Senate on May 11, they promised to keep fighting and, in the words of Senator Amy Klobuchar, “take that fight right to the ballot box” in November. What’s more, polls showed a rising number of voters listing abortion as their top midterm issue after news of Roe’s imminent demise leaked in the form of a draft court opinion published by Politico. ![]() Polls show that roughly two in three Americans oppose overturning Roe and almost 60 percent support passing a bill to set Roe’s protections in a federal law. Wade, the linchpin decision upholding abortion rights, which the Supreme Court is almost certain to strike down this summer. In both those plays, we get examples of them putting to practice the tendencies they have been instructed to execute when they are put in these scenarios.Įven with this in mind, it will never not be fun and mesmerizing to see the two of them (and all the other talented perimeter defenders in the NBA) pull off plays like the two we just spotlighted.Democrats hope to make November’s midterm elections a referendum on Roe v. Both Marshall and Leonard are fundamentally instinctive defenders who know how to maximize their physical tools out on the court. In all seriousness, though, players are taught to show their length (i.e., spread their arms out) whenever they are playing off-ball defense, especially when there is even a sliver of a chance that the ball may be coming in their direction.Īnd that’s exactly what happened in both of these instances. Like, do some athletes really just have eyes in the back of their heads? It’s moments like these that make us fans question the boundaries that exist between fantasy and reality. In both instances, Marshall and Leonard were able to make the play without even seeing the ball as it was coming toward them. Tough loss last night, but Naji Marshall channeled his inner Kawhi Leonard on this no-look steal right here: /uGJKaKQbxZ ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |