- Posts
- 5,635
- Reaction score
- 9,255
If Manchin and Sinema can’t protect fundamental rights, what’s the point of calling them democrats? Disown them and start the long slow process of eventually electing enough actual Democrats to get stuff done.
Roe vs. Wade overturned
- Thread starter Chew Toy McCoy
- Start date
If Manchin and Sinema can’t protect fundamental rights, what’s the point of calling them democrats? Disown them and start the long slow process of eventually electing enough actual Democrats to get stuff done.
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
Agreed. Still, I'm not convinced the Dems (or the Rs either!) should try to pack the high court. All that does really is exacerbate the partisan feelings that make either the American left or the right at any given time figure that the court is hopelessly biased towards views of the opposition.
What has definitely become more biased as time has gone on is certainly the judicial confirmation process. Maybe we should start by sorting that out a bit before tinkering with the structure of our Supreme Court.
If Congress can't even improve on its own rules for advice and consent to the judicial nominations made by a US President, I don't see how packing a court will be a constructive move.
What I mean by that is not to suggest that we change how the process itself is designed. I mean for the pols of the Senate to get a grip and set aside their godforsaken insistence on trying to destroy judicial independence.
How does it help the USA to have hyperpartisan hearings for the seating of a new associate justice of SCOTUS to join those already seated on a bench of 15, or 19, or 129 such figures?
Saying F it, just pack the court is so tempting. But the grass is not really any greener on the other side of that line.
Start rant.
We're still who we are, citizens disunited by deliberate hardball partisanship engaged in by the national and state leadership of both major parties and now long since filtered down to county level.
What we have been trained to want is so much winning, and it doesn't matter if we're fighting over a sweater on sale on Black Friday or a "conservative" or "liberal" associate justice of SCOTUS.
What does that even mean any more? The right is no way conservative, and the left is certainly not liberal. We need to quit buying into all this hyperpartisan crap. The media are no help either: most of the decisions made by the Supreme Court are actually 9-0 calls, but news media don't often enough remind us of that fact.
Yeah. The constitution is not all that unclear, and it's the lawmaking that leaves loopholes the size of a cargo plane: Congress doesn't have the integrity to take a stand on anything without putting in a little fine print, in case next year they have to be against what they were for this year, or vice versa... and anyway, how pass any laws at all when the whole idea is for one side to win and the other side to lose what we the people have been led to believe has to be a zero sum game?!
End rant.
We're still who we are, citizens disunited by deliberate hardball partisanship engaged in by the national and state leadership of both major parties and now long since filtered down to county level.
What we have been trained to want is so much winning, and it doesn't matter if we're fighting over a sweater on sale on Black Friday or a "conservative" or "liberal" associate justice of SCOTUS.
What does that even mean any more? The right is no way conservative, and the left is certainly not liberal. We need to quit buying into all this hyperpartisan crap. The media are no help either: most of the decisions made by the Supreme Court are actually 9-0 calls, but news media don't often enough remind us of that fact.
Yeah. The constitution is not all that unclear, and it's the lawmaking that leaves loopholes the size of a cargo plane: Congress doesn't have the integrity to take a stand on anything without putting in a little fine print, in case next year they have to be against what they were for this year, or vice versa... and anyway, how pass any laws at all when the whole idea is for one side to win and the other side to lose what we the people have been led to believe has to be a zero sum game?!
End rant.
Even Chief Justice Roberts has noted that Congress doesn't write clear laws. How does packing a court either way fix that? It won't.
We need to start electing more moderates to the Senate instead of effectively drumming them out of both major parties by letting the most money decide who gets the loudest voices. More listening and less top-decibel transmission are how the USA will finally exit a totally destructive era of "culture wars" incited in the 90s by the likes of Pat Buchanan.
America doesn't need to be "taken back" to any time or by anyone. We need to put one foot in front of the other and show up together for whatever needs to be done. It's all right in front of us. Been there all along.
Ranked choice voting might help us get there, time to give it a real chance and meanwhile work on turning out the vote. Time for apathy is over.
On this particular issue: vote for someone who thinks Roe v Wade had the right idea but wasn't clear enough. Start the ball rolling towards legislation to that effect. Even people who are against abortion themselves --for whatever reason-- are not all in favor of making that decision for another woman in different circumstances.
- Posts
- 5,635
- Reaction score
- 9,255
How could the federal government legislate abortion rights? Where does the constitution let them do that? It ain’t the commerce clause. It ain’t the 14th amendment (the supreme court’s draft opinion cuts off that avenue). It would seem to have to be done by constitutional amendment. Which is why the only real choice is to take care of it at SCOTUS.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Abortion was a constitutionally protected right for the last 50 years. And then suddenly it’s not?
Neither you nor I are arbiters of the constitution. What I can say is that Congress CAN pass a law protecting the right to abortion nationwide. Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law? We’d have to wait and see. Their current argument seems to be that it’s up to the states because Congress has no national law. That would change if there were a National law.
- Posts
- 5,635
- Reaction score
- 9,255
Well they can pass a law about anything, but that doesn’t make it constitutIonal. And the constitution grants congress the right to pass laws only relating to certain things (interstate commerce, defense, international issues, issues relating to protectorates, issues relating to certain amendments, etc.). The only hook anyone has identified is the 14th amendment. But the draft opinion we are all bitching about expressly states that the 14th amendment doesn’t cover the right to abortion. So my question, again, is where in the constitution is there any text that would allow congress to pass a law relating to abortion? The draft opinion is carefully worded to sweep the legs out of any attempt, like the WHPA.
The SCOTUS argument is not that it is up to the states because congress has no national law. The SCOTUS argument is that there is nothing in the constitution which grants such a right, and therefore there is no basis to overturn state laws to the contrary (because states are supreme absent enumerated rights in the constitution or federal laws passed to codify those rights).
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
Yeah, well a constitutional amendment starts with legislation.
Bring legislation. It fails. Revise, bring it again. It fails. Revise, bring it again. It passes. Start the ratification process. It can take a long time. We have as long as the earth doesn't fry meanwhile.
An amendment will be ratified eventually because women in America do actually have the vote, and so do their doctors, spouses, partners, parents... enough of whom are equally in favor of a woman's right to choose TO SOME DEGREE, for some reasonable period of time after conception and before viability.
A total ban on abortion forever in America is a pipe dream, even notwithstanding laws that states are passing right now in eager anticipation of the overturn of Roe v Wade.
In the meantime of a gone and unclear Roe v Wade protection, and assorted state bans, we will become what? Well, a nation of abortion-law scofflaws, because there's no way every woman seeking an abortion in a state that outlaws abortion can afford the average 220-odd mile trip to a state with a clinic.
But there's also no way to force every woman to forego an abortion if she has decided not to carry to term. Americans had already been there and proven that well before 1973. People flew to Sweden or took a cab up Park Avenue or rode the bus to Camden, NJ. Some died, most didn't, and most don't regret their decision.
So what's next? Banning morning-after pills? Banning the Democratic Party? The Republicans have landed in overreach territory already. Installing a high court that flips Roe v Wade off the books is not going to do them any favors in the long run, even if they manage to flip both house of Congress during the 2022 midterms. And they should be careful what they wish and scheme for with respect to 2024.
All the Dems who were yawning their way to the midterms are fully awake now, just as some clerk on the high court intended, although it's unclear yet which partisan or personal view may have motivated that clerk.
- Posts
- 5,635
- Reaction score
- 9,255
Unfortunately based on my experience with family members and their neighbors who live in states like Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, women *are* voting against choice.
Eric
Mama's lil stinker
Here's some polling data on that from ABC News:
With Supreme Court poised to reverse Roe, most Americans support abortion rights: POLL
Majorities of Americans support upholding Roe v. Wade, and say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
abcnews.go.com
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
Fortunately more women are pro choice than not. And fortunately there are plenty men who are also pro choice. The numbers slide around from year to year but about 70% of Americans overall don't want Roe v Wade overturned in its entirety.
And sure, the SCOTUS can ignore that. Nine folks in black robes can ditch the thing... at the peril of the Roberts Court's legacy. Maybe it's too late for Roberts to save that court's reputation. I wouldn't bank on it though.
D
Deleted member 215
Guest
Republicans have always prioritized Supreme Court nominations more than Democrats. Some of them vote just to increase the chances of more conservative justices being appointed (a strategy that played out more successfully than many of them could've imagined). Democrats never seemed to care. Guess they should've cared more.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
A reminder of what some justices said during their confirmation hearings:
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521449170309193730/
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1521449170309193730/
- Posts
- 3,009
- Reaction score
- 7,222
Kind of like how she must have been shocked after Trump didn’t “learn his lesson”.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ouimetnick
Power User
- Posts
- 187
- Reaction score
- 415
I'm sure shaky Susan Collins is tRoUbLeD about this. I wish the Democratic Party would return to its roots. AOC, Bernie and others like them are such a turn off and are ruining the party. People like my parents are more likely to vote republican due to the Democratic Party turning to socialism. Yet the Republican Party is turning into a fascist party with Trump, DeSantis, etc.
Imagine if democrats stayed focused on the issues that impact the majority of the population instead of pronouns, gender identity, "men" having babies, and wiping out ALL college debt that someone willingly took out a loan for. I can tell you that most of my friends don't care about the gender identity, pronouns, etc, they care about everyday life.
What if the democrats focused on inflation, crime, drugs, etc. What if republicans focused on all of those, but in good faith w/o trying to "own the libs"? Our country would be a better place.
I'm sure if democrats were focused on appealing to the majority of the population, these things wouldn't have happened.
Imagine if democrats stayed focused on the issues that impact the majority of the population instead of pronouns, gender identity, "men" having babies, and wiping out ALL college debt that someone willingly took out a loan for. I can tell you that most of my friends don't care about the gender identity, pronouns, etc, they care about everyday life.
What if the democrats focused on inflation, crime, drugs, etc. What if republicans focused on all of those, but in good faith w/o trying to "own the libs"? Our country would be a better place.
I'm sure if democrats were focused on appealing to the majority of the population, these things wouldn't have happened.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Sorry, where is it you are getting the idea that Democrats are focused on personal pronouns or men having babies? Can you point to certain politicians using it on the campaign trail? How about bills introduced?
Or is this all just regurgitation of Fox News talking points, which accuse Democrats of focusing on these things, when it’s actually right-wing talking heads that are fixated on them?
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,960
- Reaction score
- 3,850
The filibuster is here for the foreseeable future.
So let's say the Dems removed the filibuster. And pass a law codifying the right to an abortion.
What would stop the GOP from using a filibusterless Senate to simply reverse it?
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
They would have to win the House and the White House too. And such a law is only supported by 1/4 of Americans, so they’d have to take a chance on something unpopular in order to appease part of their base. It’s a political loser.
Many democracies don’t have a filibuster and somehow they manage just fine.
If SCotUS rules to allow states to prohibit temination in all cases, the RW religious freaks will be almost satisfied, which means their motivation to go vote for the person who will save babies has been rinsed away. Some will shout that we need a human-life-amendment, to protect every single fetus across the nation, but I suspect that such a rallying cry will not have much traction – Roe has been upended, what more do you want?
And the nutcase justices are not ignorant of this concern. As much as they are insulated in their positions from politics and public opinion, they would still prefer to have the country controlled by nutcases. Hence, this draft was leaked as a feeler: there are other RW drafts that frame a slightly different opinion, and the nutcase justices want to sign on to the opinion that will least throttling effect on their preferred party.
Thus, the issued ruling may ultimately converge on a different document, just to keep the country from losing too much precious batshittery due to the fundy fanatics not feeling as compelled to go vote for nutcases.
And the nutcase justices are not ignorant of this concern. As much as they are insulated in their positions from politics and public opinion, they would still prefer to have the country controlled by nutcases. Hence, this draft was leaked as a feeler: there are other RW drafts that frame a slightly different opinion, and the nutcase justices want to sign on to the opinion that will least throttling effect on their preferred party.
Thus, the issued ruling may ultimately converge on a different document, just to keep the country from losing too much precious batshittery due to the fundy fanatics not feeling as compelled to go vote for nutcases.
Eric
Mama's lil stinker
Funny how Republicans are more upset at the leak than they are defending their positions on it. I get the SCOTUS will likely still overturn it but right now their backs are against the wall and they deserve to be called out on it.
- Posts
- 5,635
- Reaction score
- 9,255
Remember the entire first year of the Trump presidency? The problem was never that Trump was doing crazy things and incompetent - it was always “those damned lawbreaking leakers!”
Remember how the head of the EPA was getting all that super security in his office so that no one could find out what he was doing?