4.2 Of Cheating, Stealing, Never Feeling The Pain Of A Brother, Your Dirty Mother, HA HA HA, Now Look How Far We Are Are Are, Perfect!

1.   Why are these types of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts controversial?

2.  What do Section 4  and Section 5 of the Georgia RFRA allow businesses to do?

3.  How would Georgia's laws and Atlanta's laws potentially conflict in this case?

4. Why do legal scholars doubt that these RFRAs would have a large impact?

5. Which protections exactly are given by RFRAs and how do those limit the government's powers?

6. Which types of groups typically benefit from RFRAs?

7. How do RFRA laws apply to the provisions of ACA (Obamacare)?

8. Why might the real legal issues be civil rights issues instead of civil liberties issues?

1. The controversy in religious freedom restoration acts is that they permit a certain level of discrimination against the LGBT community to take place. Many say that they are a threat to LGBT rights.
2. Sections 4 and 5 allow religious nonprofits to deny service based on their religious beliefs and protects the rights of these nonprofits to be able to only hire people who support and practice their faith.
3. Atlanta has a law that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, which conflicts with the bill in Georgia.
4. These RFRAs wouldn't have a large impact because having a large impact would hurt business interests in the state. Many businesses don't want to be associated with such states and will move out, thereby decreasing funding to the state. 
5.  RFRAs allow businesses and nonprofit organizations to provide certain services to certain people. It limits the government because the government cannot interfere in a person or religious organization's religious rights.
6. Religious minorities and groups are typically the ones that benefit from RFRAs.
7. They apply to contraception and the birth control mandate of Obamacare. Some religious groups do not want to provide birth control through company insurance plans.
8. The issues seem to be more about anti-discrimination. The real controversy is whether RFRAs allow people to discriminate against those in the LGBT community. 

4.1 If You Like Causin' Trouble Up In Hotel Rooms

1.  How does the death of Antonin Scalia impact the likely outcome of this case?

2. How does the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) deal with contraceptives?

3. How does this possibly interfere with the Free Exercise Clause?

4. How did the ACA provide for this potential conflict?

5. What concessions did the Hobby Lobby corporation get from SCOTUS?

6. What are the arguments for Little Sisters of the Poor and similar groups?

7. How do the religious demographics of the Court potentially impact the decision in this case?

8. What are the arguments of the Solicitor General (arguing for the United States)?

9. Why is the US Government so adamant in defending this provision of the ACA? 

10. Why are LGBTQ interest groups involved?

11. Why is it unacceptable for there to be separate plans for contraception only?

12. Explain how this case represents a struggle between the religious liberty of the plaintiffs and the religious liberty of their employees.

1. The supreme court decision will probably come out as a 4-4 tie because Scalia is dead. This means whatever decision is made by the lower court directly previous to the supreme court will probably stand.

2. Employers have to provide contraception, unless a fully single belief holding owner organization does not want to, in which case they can find a provider that does not provide contraception. The employees then have to find a 3rd party organization to get their goods, if they really want them.

3. It is seen as unfair. There is a conflict in the idea of free exercise when certain accommodations are made that don't follow a certain belief's standings, but which may technically be favorable for another belief.

4. The ACA lets religious groups opt out of birth control mandate, if they fill out certain paperwork.

5. If the owner of a closely held for profit organization wants to be exempt from providing contraceptive coverage, they should be according to the Supreme Court.

6. They are a group of Catholic nuns who run nursing homes in Maryland Colorado. They and subsequent groups believe that just having to be accommodated is a violation of their beliefs. It implies an association with something, which religious groups want to avoid.

7. Most of them are old white men who are more likely to side with Hobby Lobby.

8. He argues that the accommodation plan works in parallel with the provisions in the ACA. As long as the plaintiff doesn't need to pay for plans that include contraceptive coverage, what the government tells them to do should not matter.

9. The are rock solid in their defense because otherwise the administration would have to make a different plan for them. These changes would over-complicate the ACA.

10. They are concerned for the people in their group who use contraceptives. They are also worried about the coverage of medications that many take to prevent HIV.

11. Two plans is too complicated for the supplier and the supplied. It is very impractical and probably would not even be accepted.

12. Hobby lobby's religious liberty is being able to opt out of birth control, while the employee's religious liberty is how they will be able to get health care if not from Hobby Lobby.

3.9 Beach, I'm Talking Ca-Ca-Ca-Ca, then more Ca-Ca-Ca-Ca, then I Hit Your Roof Up 'Till I Pop Your Top Up, Then More Ca-Ca-Ca-Ca, 'Till I Know I Gotcha!

1. According to the article, how do drug makers typically decide what price to charge?

2. How do insurance companies respond to this?

3. Who has the authority to decide what is medically necessary?

4. How do Medicare & Medicaid decide who gets care? Is it any different than insurance companies?

5. Explain how negotiating drug prices would work to lower prices.

6. Why doesn't Medicare or Medicaid (as the largest insurers) negotiate prices of drugs?

7. ISNT THAT INSANE??  Who do you think is responsible for that little gem of a policy?

8. Why would a tax increase to support single payer not hit taxpayers as hard as some opponents argue?

9. What is the author's "simple pitch" for single payer?

10. Who would be considered "winners" if single payer was implemented?

11. Who would be considered "losers" if single payer was implemented?

12. What groups worked to prevent a "public option" from being added to ACA (Obamacare)?

13. How does SCOTUS act as a potential hurdle to a single payer system?

1. Dealers determine what price to sell drugs based on the market and demand as well as the manufacturing price. If access to drugs is rationed, then companies will have a chance to grossly over-inflate the prices.

2. They can only respond to more serious cases, since there wouldn't be enough drugs to help everyone.

3. Insurance companies get to reserve that right,

4. Medicare and Medicaid decides who gets what all based on cost. If something necessary costs too much, regardless of how necessary it is, it is not being administered. A lot of insurance companies do this too. Going away from what we are using as our source, there are insurance companies that will pay regardless of price, and they pay for things based on need rather than if they can afford it or not.

5. If you can negotiate that the rationing of a certain drug be decreased, then you will have the opportunity to pay less to receive the same drug. This controlled factor of rationing gives power to keeping stability, even when the necessity of a certain drug changes quickly.

6. There are laws that protect against this from happening for some reason.

7. Interest groups working with the medical drug companies, to maximize profit over valuing human lives.

8. It would only slightly increase taxes, while increasing the benefits at a better rate, so people would not really feel a financial blow. (Especially in better health)

9. Th government covers all legal citizens/residents, by mailing them a Medicare Card. Helps legal people whil destroying  illegal people.

10. Winners would be the people who need the healthcare the most, but can't get it right now due prices being too high, or the people who are missing certain treatments now, since the money has to be used carefully.

11. People who already have solid health insurance that covers them even if the cost is too high are the ones who are most likely going to be hurt by this.

12. Medical groups, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, and community hospitals all worked together to make sure it didn't happen.

13.There is a good chance SCOTUS will prefer that the federal government branches distance themselves a little from the health care field and policy.

3.8 When I Switch Lanes, Phantom Doors Swing Arm Out the Window Screaming Money Ain't a Thang

1. Compare the voter turnout of the 2008 and 2016 Nevada Caucus.

2. Which kinds of voters was Sanders counting on that failed to show up at the caucus?

3. How is turnout different between the Republican and Democratic primaries?

4. In what ways does Bernie Sanders say that his presidency would be better than Obama's?

5. What is the main way that Jeb!'s departure from the race changes the Republican nomination?

6. Why were the results in South Carolina particularly bad news for Ted Cruz?

7.  Rubio hasn't won anything. What contests is his campaign counting on?

8. Why is Kasich still hanging around?

9. What assumptions can you make about the fact that Trump & Rubio have not been attacking each other?

1. The 2016 Nevada Caucus has 2 for every 3 less voters that the 2008 Nevada Caucus had.

2. He needed more low and middle income voters to show up to support his cause.

3. Democratic primaries are seeing drops in attendance, where as republican primaries are setting records for attendance.

4. He claims that he can keep the energy he has now and focus it on the topics that he wants to reform. He, as soon as he became president, would start fighting corporate interests in congressional and state elections.

5. Marco Rubio has more channels of support, so now he has a much better chance of being able to compete with Trump.

6. Cruz should have won, since the demographic is southern, conservative, and evangelical, which is what his voter base comes from. He now has to worry about other states that he has "locked down" cause he may not really. His campaign is now gonna suffer from less hope/belief in him and more support to the Trump Bucket.

7. He is hoping to win on the primarily democratic and moderate states for his support.

8. He believes his campaign still has hope, mostly because of how well he did in New Hampshire.

9. I think they have not yet, since they want to keep their appearances somewhat good for the media and the people by not sending personal attacks. Soon enough, Trump will stop to care and do it anyway, and Rubio will fire back, so let's hope for the best.

3.7 When I Die, Throw a Couple BAD Bi$$$ES In My Casket, Woah!

1. How has Mitch McConnell's announcement of plans to prevent Obama's replacement of Scalia shifted the debate over the choice of a replacement?

2. Why does the coming election make this position even more dangerous for Republicans?

3. What predicament are conservative Senators in when deciding how to respond to an Obama appointee?

4. WHAT'S UP WITH MITCH McCONNELL'S FACE?!

5. How often have SCOTUS justices had to be replaced in election years?

6. What claim is Senator Chuck Grassley making?  What truth is in this claim?

7. What are the problems with Democratic claims that replacing a judge in an election year is normal?

8. Why was Anthony Kennedy confirmed so late in Reagan's last year as president?

9. How has party polarization changed the confirmation process?

10. What solutions does the Constitution have for gridlock over judicial nominees?

1. The Senate Republicans seem obstinate and unfair after McConnnell's biased statement in that he says he would block ANYONE that Obama nominates. This ain't gon' be good for the Republican Senate, ifyaknowwhati'msaying.

2. The Republicans face the harsh reality that this debate over Scalia stuff has only been hurting them, and they have to now very really fear the possibility of loosing the Senate. This would be even more detrimental, if they lost the presidency to a Democrat as well. 

3.If they deny Obama's appointee, they look bad for obstructing and being biased to their own beliefs not looking for the betterment of the nation or whatever). If they agree to an Obama appointee, they lose anyway, since a liberal justice, which they really, really don't want would be on the court.

4.That man can't believe what's happening. LOLS (It's okay fam, things might get better. Probably not. You a thot.)

5. They have been replaced more than a dozen times in election years.

6. He claims that there is an 80-year tradition of not approving a justice in an election year. This is not true, however, since Justice Kennedy was approved in an election year, It is true, though, that a justice seat was not vacated and replaced in an election year for 80 years.

7. In modern times, it virtually hasn't happened. A situation similar to this has not happened since a very long time ago. It as been at least 80 years since the last time something like this has happened, so it is hard for the Democrats to claim that something like approving a justice this fast is normal and happens all the time.

8. He was approved so late, since Reagan tried to appoint someone else, but the democrats in the senate rejected him. 

9. The confirmation process has become much more intricate and difficult when polarization leads to opposite parties in the presidency and senate. The two parties have to work together somewhat to get someone approved in the court, who "works" for both parties. Although this is true, the president has more influenc in the swing of the judge than the senate can.

10. There is really nothing written in. We just have to hope that the parties can agree and get someone in (of qualified standards). (We learned earlier this year at some point, however, that for the Supreme Court to operate, there must be at least six judges present. So, if a situation got really bad, where the appointed judges by the president were not approved, I guess the Supreme Court could shut down or something for a while? I could see how that could be a potential problem,)

3.6 Tell 'Em Holla At a N***a G, G, Riding On My Enemies, This My Ghetto Symphony

1. What does Senate Majority Leader McConell mean when he says ""The American people‎ should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,"?

2. What happened to Reagan nominee Robert Bork?

3. What statements have Democrats made in the past that are similar to those made by Republicans now?

4. What controversial issues with the Court deal with in this term?

5. What does President Ted Cruz think will happen if Obama appoints Scalia's replacement?

6. What actions have Democrats taken recently that are seen as exceeding constitutional authority that allow Republicans to justify their position now?

7. Why is it important that the Senate have the ability to check Obama's power on this issue?

1. He wants the American people to wait until the next president comes in to nominate/choose the next justice.

2. The Democratic Senate of 1987 was able to prevent him from being put on the supreme court.

3. They are arguing that the current president would nominate someone too radical, and this will ultimately throw off the balance of political ideology present on the court.

4. Abortion, Birth Control, and Voting Rights will all be big issues coming up very soon. ( I feel like gun legislature stuff will be too)

5. Cruz believes that the appointee will throw off the core ideology of Americans, and guarantee the removal of core American liberties.

6. The Democrats filibustered the approval of the Iran Nuclear Deal.

7. Since the senators are representative of the opinions of people where they come from, they help represent the ideology of the nation as well. This helps make sure that not only one person is in charge of the process, but instead different opinions of people who the nation voted for can all have a say as well.

3.5 I Thought I'd Probly Die In Prison, Expensive Taste In Women

1. Why does the number of Senators retiring and becoming lobbyists vary more than the number of House members doing so?
2. Why does  this data underestimate the number of Congressmen  who leave the legislature to become lobbyists?
3. Which Congressmen are most likely to become lobbyists?
4. Why do they typically end up being generic “lobbyists for hire” rather than lobbying for very specific causes?
5. What effect do these “revolving door lobbyists” have on policy making?
6. Describe the disparity in the amount of money involved in corporate lobbying and public interest lobbying.
7.  The author suggests that this is not an easily solvable problem.  What does he say would improve the situation?

1. It varies more since fewer senators retire each year making percentages more easily affected by small changes.

2.Since the data only shows registered lobbyists, while many preexisting lobbyists choose not to register.

3. Retiring congressmen, and congressmen who do work similar to that of the lobbyists, are more likely to become lobbyists.

4. Former members usually specialize in access, leaving "them" to sell to multiple clients.

5. It was shown that the side with more former government official lobbyist won more often than not. It was also shown that the side which had revolving door lobbyists was more likely to get earmarks, than the other side.

6. For every one dollar that public interest lobbying spends, corporate lobbying spends thirty four dollars. At least some of this is due to corporate lobbying spending money on the former, experienced members of Congress.

7. It would help if former congressmen use their connections and experience to help public interest lobbying rather than corporate lobbying (but if they did this, we all know they wouldn't make as much guap).