Glad to see you are in favor of opening Pandora's box on routine military promotions via holds. I'm sure you'll be in favor of this tactic when a Democratic senator does it in a Republican-held Senate for one of their pet issues.
I am sure the stress of a coach are just the same as a military leader... tuberville has so little respect for our military, such a disgrace to the state that elected him...
He could just pass legislation to get what he wants.... Oh that's right, he can't because he doesn't have the votes. Instead it's just one guy inserting his own extremist viewpoint upon everyone else.
That's what Tuberville claims as well – that the Pentagon's policy is illegal. The Supreme Court is very conservative. Why isn't he suing the administration if it's not consistent with the law or if it's illegal? Your brain has been broken by consuming stupid tweets.
The easier route is to sue. Of course, it's a load of BS for their audience, which has been proven to love swallowing BS without any question.
He doesn't have standing. He cannot sue. It would be hard to find a person with standing. Maybe if you could find an infant the survived an abortion attempt by one of the women that used this policy.
Glad all Republican aren’t as stubborn as you and this dumbass former coach. There may be hope for your party after all and don’t give me that libertarian nonsense…you’re GOP through and through…
I don't know why people are so obsessed with my voting habits. I vote Libertarian and am registered No Party Preference. You and others can continue to push lies about me. I am happy to correct the record. It's telling that people feel the need to make false ad hominem attacks against me instead of addressing what I actually say. Apparently, you had no response to the actual point of standing, so you had to deflect and make up fantasies about me.
Don't care about standing and I didn't bring it up. I have yet to see you defend any positions that aren't GOP sponsored and when challenged you either ignore the question which is your choice or claim to be a victim of some outrageous falsehood. Ashli Babbett? Oh she's a victim of police brutality... Jan 6th? Not a insurrection... Trump? You proclaim high and low how you didn't vote for him... Stop lying and acting like a b**** and maybe people will stop treating you as one. I'll give it to @Salvy at the minimum he doesn't mix words and states what he believes regardless of how insane it is to some people. Find your balls and take note...
I've advocated or defended plenty of positions that aren't GOP sponsored. You don't notice those, because it doesn't fit your narrative. For example, I am for the legalization of all drugs (not decriminalization, full legalization, like chicken or coffee). I am against increased government spending on the military (in fact in favor of significant cuts). I am against foreign aid to Israel. I am for increased legal immigration, including just recently calling for massive immigration from Gaza. You don't like two of the positions I took (which are both from one incident). I don't know how either of them are any different than libertarianism, but go off.
Just no. It seems you aren't even aware of what Tuberville is claiming is illegal. You can have the last word; I won't bother responding to your responses. Republicans have sued and let the court decide if standing is even an issue. The idea that now they are shy about suing is a useful excuse that doesn't pass the BS test. The policy in question relates to Pentagon rules on reproductive health care access for service members, not abortion specifically. Bringing up abortion survivors is irrelevant. The core legal issue is whether the Pentagon needed Congressional approval before implementing these personnel policy changes. The GAO determined these rules fall under personnel management exceptions that do not require Congressional review. Tuberville is arguing the rules violate bans on federal abortion funding and should have been approved by Congress first. But the GAO undercut his position. Even if Tuberville tries claiming Congressional standing, the GAO report affirms the Pentagon did not need approval in this case. These rules do not restrict access to abortion or cause direct injury that could confer standing. This is a procedural policy dispute over agency authority. Hypotheticals about abortion survivors have no bearing on standing to challenge these military personnel rules or whether the Pentagon overstepped bounds. Your abortion survivor example is irrelevant to the actual legal and policy issues in dispute. EDIT: add link for those that care to read about the legal review https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2023-09-28/pentagon-abortion-rules-report-11520649.html
The article addresses the specific point about whether Congressional approval was required, but not the point that the funding itself could be illegal regardless of the mechanism by which it was enacted. Finding someone specifically harmed by the new policy would require finding someone who suffered an actual injury due to the policy. Maybe you could argue it on equal protection grounds, but that's tougher where there is an added benefit that applies situationally instead of a specific harm. The policy has several provisions that address abortion specifically, so that argument is nonsense. The fact that the rules don't restrict access to abortion is why you have to look elsewhere to find an injury that could confer standing. I am suggesting that an abortion survivor who was injured because the mother utilized these benefits to travel to another jurisdiction on the military's dime to try to kill her baby would have suffered just such an injury. Regardless of whether the reason is standing or because he doesn't think he can win, he has found another path to take to try to protect the unborn, and I think that is good.
Yet another unserious person elected to a serious position who is unprepared when his unserious theatrics end up having real world consequences.
