This morning the Supreme Court heard arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis, an important free speech, and religious liberty case. I was glad to support Lorie Smith’s right to speak and create in accordance with her faith, leading an amicus brief with Congressman Doug Lamborn and Senator Ted Cruz asking the Court to uphold her First Amendment rights.
[….]
“Newer and bluer Meanies have been sighted in the vicinity of this theatre. There’s only one way we can go out!”
Comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted.
Vicky Hartzler (r) [2021 file photo].
Earlier this week:
Family Research Council @FRCdc
“There is no [religious freedom] protections for the ordinary Christian in the workplace.” @RepHartzler sounds the alarm on the (Dis)Respect for Marriage [….] 9:59 AM · Nov 22, 2022
Only three responses:
Your freedom is not dependent upon someone else’s oppression.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in the constitution already and has been held up and expanded over the past decade. Yes even in the workplace.
What. The. Fuck.
Are you fucking joking? America is nothing BUT religious freedom for Christians. Everyone else has to FIGHT for what you take for granted.
I’m so excited to see the end of your political career.
You know what makes you #heartlesshartzler is when you tweet crap like this. How many Missouri small businesses could have benefited from the $450,000+ you took in PPP loans?!? You’re a multimillionaire, you didn’t need the $$$, you took it, checks notes, “because you could”!
just a reminder that Vicky Hartzler has received millions in government handouts she has not had to repay to help support her supposedly businesses.
I didn’t get any benefit for the Trump Tax Cut. You grifted over $450,000 on a PPP loan, so when are you paying it back? Oh yeah, it was FORGIVEN.
[….]
Replace “student loans” with “PPP loans” and you wouldn’t send that tweet.
I don’t have a farm but, evidently, I had to pay for yours.
The 330 million Americans who do not have a farm should not have to pay for those who do.
It is inherently unfair and will be challenged in court.
That’s what you sound like.
You should pay back the government loan you received. That sounds fair to me.
I’m not a farmer, why should I pay for crop subsidies? I don’t have kids in schools, why should I pay school taxes?
I didn’t file for PPP loan forgiveness for almost non-existence companies, why should I pay to forgive those loans?
Why are you a hater and a liar?
I’m not a member of Congress who got a free PPP loan that they didn’t have to pay back, and I should not have to pay for the ones that did.
What about the members of Congress who received PPP loans and didn’t pay them back? Can you talk about the fairness of that for a moment, as you appear to have first-hand knowledge of it.
Blah blah blah.
Hmmmm…. wall street bailouts? Tax breaks for the top 1%? PPP loans? Airline bailouts? The list goes on and on. Crazy how when funds go to help everyday people instead of “trickling down”, it’s a big problem.
You voted for Trump’s 2017 tax giveaway to the 1%.
You have no talking room about making people pay for others’ financial responsibilities.
Vicki Hartzler (R-MO) $451,200
Almost ALL of us are not billionaires. So why should we pay for their tax cuts? Talk about “inherently unfair”.
What a hypocrite
Why is it that the professional victims of the Republican Party get to bail out on their loans, bail out their businesses and their friends (that sweet campaign money)- but help actual struggling citizens and “oh woe is us”.
Explain you PPP of $451,200.
I’d rather my tax money went to help people than subsidize corporations.
And, your talking point is getting stale already. [….]
Oh, lord, lady, I pay for a lot of things through the government that I will never receive any benefits from. I don’t have a business that got PPP loans that were forgiven either.
Glad I’m not your neighbor. Are you a “christian” too? It’s not “unfair”. It’s not “illegal”. You are showing what kind of a representative you really are. For the rich!
Senator Roy Blunt @RoyBlunt
Supreme Court Justices appointed by both Democrat and Republican presidents have shared the view that 9 is the right number of SCOTUS seats. 9:38 AM · Apr 11, 2021
Did you ask Merrick Garland?
Putz.
As always, there’s much hilarity in the responses:
After the Jan 6 2021, I don’t believe too many of us care what you think anymore. @RoyBlunt #InsurrectionHasConsequences
MERRICK GARLAND!
Say his name. Say his name a few hundred times if you have to. Learn it. Any time you say anything about Democrats and the Supreme Court, this should pop into your mind:
Merrick Garland.
Uh, yep.
This statement is blind to the entire history of the court, in the hopes of swaying the public in what seems a purposefully dishonest stance by a man who is supposedly a public servant.
But you’re cool with denying Obama’s pick in 2016 and packing the Court with 5 justices picked by presidents who lost the popular vote. So gaming the system is 100% OK when it benefits conservatives. Got it.
Well, now that you mention it.
You forgot to mention how 6 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republicans even though a Republican has gotten more votes than the democratic candidate exactly once since 1988. So please explain to us how the court is representative of the American people
There are 13 circuit courts. When the number was set at 9 – there were 9 circuits. Butt out.
So if 9 is this magical number that is sacred then why was it 8 for over a year from January 2016 to February 2017?
The number of Justices is neither outlined in the Constitution, nor historically stable or inflexible. If the leaning of the court were reversed you would be first in line to loudly call for more justices. Quit trying to mask your partisanship with weak justification
Thanks Senator, can you point me where in the Constitution it says the Supreme Court is made up of 9 justices? I can’t seem to find that part…
If Republicans can do anything they please with Supreme Court nominations, then Democrats can, too. That’s the way this works. MERRICK. GARLAND.
You and the GOP lost all credibility on this after you refused to seat Merrick Garland.
It’s hilarious that you think the SC isn’t partisan when you’ve gone out of your way to make it so…
Um. I’m sure you won’t mind if we don’t pay much attention to what your party has to say about the Supreme Court.
There is no “right number.” There have been more, there have been less. It is only the number it is now. That’s all.
Having nine Supreme Court Justices seems correct to you because six of them are conservative. I’m sure that fact has nothing to do with your opinion.
According to the Constitution it is not up to the Supreme Court’s justices to decide the appropriate number.
On May 30th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll taken in Missouri from May 16th through the 18th which shows that Matt “baby” Blunt’s approval numbers continue to reside in the realm of the lame duck. The margin of error is 4.1%.
The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City and KSDK in St. Louis.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Matt Blunt is doing as Governor?
All
41% – approve
55% – disapprove
4% – not sure
Democrats [44% of sample]
24% – approve
72% – disapprove
4% – not sure
republicans [28% of sample]
71% – approve
27% – disapprove
2% – not sure
Independents [23% of sample]
33% – approve
59% – disapprove
7% – not sure
There’s been a definite drop in support among Independents (they are a smaller part of the sample when compared to the April poll). The “not sure” responses are also up a bit.
Gender
Male [48% of sample]
42% – approve
55% – disapprove
2% – not sure
Female [52% of sample]
40% – approve
54% – disapprove
6% – not sure
There doesn’t appear to be any significant gender gap. These numbers are very similar to Blunt’s overall approval numbers.
Self identified conservatives give him a net approval of 20% (constituting only 32% of the sample). Moderates and liberals take up the slack, with liberals giving him a net disapproval of 50% (while constituting only 15% of the sample).
Regionally there is some variation in Blunt’s approval numbers, but they are still all at some level of net disapproval with his weakest numbers in St. Louis (at 40% of the sample).
It’s hard to be liked when you’ve accomplished all that you’ve set out to do. And Sarah Steelman and Kenny Hulshof want to continue his “good” work?
On April 25th SurveyUSA released a 600 sample poll taken in Missouri from April 11th through the 13th which shows that Matt “baby” Blunt continues his slide beyond lame duckdom. The margin of error is 4.1%.
The poll was sponsored by KCTV in Kansas City.
It’s probably a good idea (for republicans) that he decided to not run for re-election.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Matt Blunt is doing as Governor?
All
42% – approve
56% – disapprove
3% – not sure
Democrats [39% of sample]
23% – approve
76% – disapprove
1% – not sure
republicans [24% of sample]
70% – approve
27% – disapprove
3% – not sure
Independents [29% of sample]
44% – approve
53% – disapprove
3% – not sure
Ah yes. Fewer undecideds. Nothing fails like failure.
It continues to be the economy….
Overall Matt “baby” Blunt’s disapproval numbers have increased by six points since last month. Gas prices moving their way to $4.00 a gallon will coat almost anybody’s rose colored glasses with sludge.
The good news for the governor is that his numbers are 12 points better than dubya’s in Missouri.
Top Issues for Next President (“baby” Blunt’s approval numbers within each group)
Economy [44% of sample]
42% – approve
56% – disapprove
2% – not sure
Health Care [12% of sample]
30% – approve
67% – disapprove
2% – not sure
Iraq [11% of sample]
35% – approve
62% – disapprove
2% – not sure
Terrorism [9% of sample]
64% – approve
35% – disapprove
1% – not sure
Immigration [6% of sample]
63% – approve
33% – disapprove
3% – not sure
Environment [6% of sample]
23% – approve
77% – disapprove
0% – not sure
Education [4% of sample]
53% – approve
44% – disapprove
4% – not sure
Social Security [4% of sample]
41% – approve
58% – disapprove
1% – not sure
Okay, that massive shift in the “education” numbers to the positive has to be because of the miniscule subsample. The “frequency” (actual number of responses in the category – 13 individuals approve of “baby” Blunt, 10 disapprove and 1 is undecided). Does that put it in some perspective?
The republican “fear” base (terrorism and immigration) continues its faithful support of all things republican. Matt “baby” Blunt has net disapproval among those who consider either the economy, health care, Iraq, Social Security, or the environment as the most pressing issue for the next president.
