Monkeybomber

Monkeybomber t1_j6ihsu7 wrote

My wife is 7 years in, and it hasn't been too bad, other than one issue when the servicing company changed. In doing so, they reset the number of payments she'd made to zero, which was not correct. We filed an appeal, waited three months only to be told that no, zero was correct, despite our mountains of evidence that we'd made payments.

Called our congressmans constituent services office. A week later, payments reset properly.

2

Monkeybomber t1_ixdnrtl wrote

Jesus christ, did you even read the article before you went all cynical "both sides are the same"?

"To reach next November's ballot, the measure would have had to win legislative approval. There were two ways to do that. The quick route would have been to have it pass it with three-fifths support of the Legislature next year, a move that would have required strong bipartisan support. Republicans already declared that they had no intention of providing the votes.

That left Democrats with a second, longer route: winning a simple majority in both houses in two consecutive years. That meant they would have needed to win approval by the end of this year. But to do that, the measure would first have had to sit on legislators' desks for 20 days once it was introduced, and then face a public hearing.

That meant a very tight schedule to meet during the holiday season. Sinha, of the ACLU, said it left little time for the careful inspection and debate that such a critical step requires.

"Any time you introduce new language into the constitution, you've got to get it right," he said. "And it requires a careful deliberative process involving legal scholars and constitutional experts to ensure that it will safeguard existing rights without adding restrictions or creating limitations to future protections."

The ACLU has generally been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. So I doubt they're saying this just to play stupid electoral games.

9