Here is a pretty direct admission of who is it that they are waging a war on:

<< Kavanaugh is just one part of a much larger plan by conservatives to fundamentally change the American political structure so that it enshrines and protects white male power
....
the constant pining about justices who will interpret the “original intent” of the Constitution feels far bigger than single issues like gun control....
....
The founders, a bunch of rich, powerful white men, didn’t want true democracy in this country, and in fact were dreadfully afraid of it.

Now, a bunch of rich, powerful white men want to return us to this sensibility, wrapped in a populist “follow the Constitution” rallying cry and disguised as the ultimate form of patriotism.
....
We have to learn to see everything around us, all that is happening on the political front, through that lens. This is what the extreme measures on illegal immigration and even the efforts to dramatically slash legal immigration are all about.
....
The effort to demonize the lottery program is an effort to preserve America’s white majority, against the statistical eventuality, for as long as possible. >>

https://www.nytimes.com/…/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.htm…

"statistical eventuality"? Or concerted and purposeful efforts?

Of course, there is not much logic in this argument. For example, how can it be said that the conservatives want to _change_ the political structure so that it will protect the white male power, if the Founders already framed it to be this way? This reminds me of the good old "Cabaret" quote: "If all the Jews are bankers, how can they also be communists?" But never mind, who cares about logic, right?

Ballot measures in Massachusetts

Ballot measures in Massachusetts: Question 1

<< Question 1 was designed to establish patient assignment limits for registered nurses working in hospitals. Limits would be determined by the type of medical unit or patient with whom a nurse is working, and the maximum numbers of patients assigned determined by the limits would apply at all times except during a public health emergency as declared by the state or federal government. The measure would require these patient limits... to be met without reducing staff levels, such as service staff, maintenance staff, or clerical staff. >>

So, here is what's happening. First, the hospitals are told that they must service everybody. Including people without emergencies who cannot pay and illegal aliens. Hospitals cannot increase their staff numbers as these patients - well - do not pay. And so, the number of patients per nurse is pretty high. In fact, it is extremely difficult to get needed care at night, as all sorts of people come to the hospitals to get free care or, in some cases, just to spend the night. Then the government decideds that the problem is that there are not enough government regulations. And so, they are going to control the number of patients per anurse. Obviously, the number of nurses will not increase, as there will be no additional money. But it will become even more difficult to get care. FInally, we will be told that "the market could not solve this problem", and that the answer is a completely government-run healthcare.

I am voting 'No' on Question 1.
 

Ballot measures in Massachusetts: Question 2

<< Question 2 would create a citizens commission composed of 15 members. The commission would propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, specifically regarding overturning Citizens United and defining inalienable constitutional rights as belonging to individual living human beings, not artificial entities or collections of human beings. >>

Do you remember what the "Citizens United" decision was? It was not about direct campaign c...ontributions by corporations. It was about the right of companies to produce materials (such as films) that could be deemed related to elections. Essencially, the SCOTUS decision defended the First Amendment. Moreover, it defended the right of people to spend the money they earned the way they want, albeit in a limited sense. Which this ballot measure is designed to fight against.

In addition, such an amendment can, of course, be applied very selectively.

I am voting 'No' on Question 2.
 

Ballot measures in Massachusetts: Question 3

<< A "yes" vote on Question 3 supports upholding a law that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in public places. The law requires access to areas segregated based on gender—such as bathrooms and locker rooms—to be allowed according to an individual's self-identified gender identity. >>

I do not like it when men are allowed into girls' bathrooms and changing rooms.

I am voting 'No' on Question 3.