|
Possibly, but even in that case the midterms would have been a bloodbath, and McConnell would just hold all the seats open for 8 years then. Or 12 or 16 or whatever, even the New Deal Democrats lost the presidency eventually
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
I feel like under a Clinton presidency we'd have seen red states outlaw the vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Possibly, but even in that case the midterms would have been a bloodbath, and McConnell would just hold all the seats open for 8 years then. Well, we sure can't argue with this poo poo you made up from whole cloth and pulled out of your rear end! No, seriously, there's literally nothing to argue with. It's pure fanfiction. This goes well beyond what-ifs (which are usually dumb in the first place) and straight into completely fabricating possible alternate universe future poo poo to get mad at.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Yeah can we cut it out with the dueling counterfactuals in this thread please?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I keep thinking about what people will do when Roe is overturned explicitly next year, and I can’t see any outcome other than people shrugging and accepting it after some large liberal-respectable protests where Biden or Pelosi says something like “the answer is ‘keep fighting’! Vote!” and maybe they sell tshirts of it later. Since the middle class can just travel out of state to get one it doesn’t surprise me. The one thing I don’t get is why republicans are so pro birth. It’s the minorities they hate who are getting abortions, and those who cannot afford kids. Those demographics growing doesn’t help them long term. I suppose they believe democracy will be dead by then with universal republican rule?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 05:42
|
|
|
You can't go to heaven if you don't lord something over other people
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 06:48
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:Since the middle class can just travel out of state to get one it doesn’t surprise me. Minorities being required to have children via outlawing abortion, but then cutting the social safety nut from beneath them, is a "great" way to keep them amongst the lower social echelon. Especially when they're often living in (liberal) cities and thus pushing any resource burdens onto the city instead of the state/federal government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 08:13
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:On the other hand, if people did vote for Hillary Clinton the court would be 6-3 Liberal right now, if Kennedy retired regardless of replacement; or 5-4 Liberal if he retired in exchange to get Kavannaugh to replace him in exchange for Hillary's pick to also get a vote. Goddamn you really drank the koolaid huh
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 11:18
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Goddamn you really drank the koolaid huh
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 11:33
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:What's the koolaid in this instance? Well for one, clinton won the popular vote so blaming her loss on people not voting instead of the system which allows that to happen is the first thing. The fanfiction about her choices for replacement justices is another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 11:42
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:Since the middle class can just travel out of state to get one it doesn’t surprise me. https://twitter.com/choo_ek/status/1129938254998822912?s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 12:21
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:Since the middle class can just travel out of state to get one it doesn’t surprise me. It’s just a thing they believe to affirm their identity—they’re not thinking about the consequences of it. Some of them probably abstractly imagine white babies that thank them for being born. This doesn’t stop them from accusing anyone defending abortion of racism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 12:51
|
|
|
I'm sure many of them earnestly believe that abortion is a terrible moral ill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 13:20
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Minorities being required to have children via outlawing abortion, but then cutting the social safety nut from beneath them, is a "great" way to keep them amongst the lower social echelon. Especially when they're often living in (liberal) cities and thus pushing any resource burdens onto the city instead of the state/federal government. Yup. Stripping basic family planning and sexual health options is an explicitly fundamental method to keeping the poor as poor as loving possible. You’ve got to keep them desperate and hungry so there’s a large pool of unskilled laborers to raise your kids or clean your house.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 13:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm sure many of them earnestly believe that abortion is a terrible moral ill. Until their mistress needs one anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Yup. Stripping basic family planning and sexual health options is an explicitly fundamental method to keeping the poor as poor as loving possible. And fill your prisons so you can exploit them for slave labor since it wasn't a coincidence that post-CW amendments included an exception where slavery can still be applied.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:And fill your prisons so you can exploit them for slave labor since it wasn't a coincidence that post-CW amendments included an exception where slavery can still be applied. Greatest Country In The World  I’m not sure what actual justifications for this poo poo can be made but it’s insanely apparent that this demon cracker rear end nation is on par with gulag era USSR in terms of sheer disregard for humanity. Our mythos doesn’t hold up to even the mildest critical view—which is certainly why public education has been perpetually under all-out assault. What a squandered opportunity we had with all these resources. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Until their mistress needs one anyway in the abortion-providing world we say there are three exceptions most anti-choicers are cool with: rape, incest, and mine
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2021 08:11
|
|
|
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/572698-clarence-thomas-warns-against-destroying-our-institutions-defends The fact that Thomas is also going on this charm offensive to argue that the court's reputation is so important and the justices need to work so hard to make sure the court's integrity is protect the same week Barrett did is pretty interesting. Is this an attempt to brainwash people into thinking their overturn of Roe is going to be a legitimate unbiased Ball-v-Strike Call and totally not them imposing their ideology on the nation, or they trying to lay out a rationale for why they're not going to do it to try and soften the backlash if they demure? God knows it has to be one of those two things because there's not a single honest word anywhere in either of their statements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1438732208257343488
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 06:19
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I keep thinking about what people will do when Roe is overturned explicitly next year, and I can’t see any outcome other than people shrugging and accepting it after some large liberal-respectable protests where Biden or Pelosi says something like “the answer is ‘keep fighting’! Vote!” and maybe they sell tshirts of it later. The good part comes when you start applying your observed systemic failures to another problem that requires action on a national or world wide scale, namely climate change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/572698-clarence-thomas-warns-against-destroying-our-institutions-defends It's the same thing as always: they claim not to be doing <thing> the whole time they are doing <thing> right in front of everyone and will then proceed claiming they never did <thing> while also saying any attempts to undo <thing> are in fact everyone else doing <thing>. So expect them to say "we're not ruling on personal politics" all over the place inside the majority opinion and lengthy concurrences where they make poo poo up to overturn Roe precedent and either outlaw abortion overall or allow it to be outlawed by state and county governments. Then they'll take a victory lap and pat themselves on the back about what a good and apolitical thing they did for america and anyone against it is just a big ol' political meanie with corrupt intent and not anything like the clearheaded, doe-eyed pure constitutional jurisprudence golems of the present majority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 08:40
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/572698-clarence-thomas-warns-against-destroying-our-institutions-defends “I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. So if they think you are antiabortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out,” Thomas, who is Catholic, explained. If our media wasn't completely worthless maybe someone would've asked Thomas for some examples of when he ruled in contradiction with his person preference and watch him come up empty (and then he'd complain and the GOP would blackball that outlet while demanding the reporter be fired). Can't wait to see what sort of idiotic reasoning the SCOTUS uses to overturn 116 years of precedence and gut a core function and purpose of government. Especially since the mandate has a religious exception and IIRC, Jacobson didn't even make that exception which is the right call because 99% of religious 'exemptions' are bullshit personal stubbornness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 13:20
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/572698-clarence-thomas-warns-against-destroying-our-institutions-defends Gaslighters gonna Gaslight. And they'll do so harder when they realize you aren't buying it. Next they'll probably start talking about America just isn't mature enough to accept a Court as "impartial" as this one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
The fact that they're addressing it at all is an indicator of how hosed they know things are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
I don't want to call it a charm offensive but it's certainly the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 15:04
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:I don't want to call it a charm offensive but it's certainly the latter. its certainly a harm offensive
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ProfMMurray/status/1439226459709714434
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
That's the brief where he also says women won't be adversely affected by a full abortion ban because they can always just choose not to have sex.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Don't amicus briefs don't hold any real legal weight? They're just "friend of court giving their 2 cents" and anyone can file them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Don't amicus briefs don't hold any real legal weight? They're just "friend of court giving their 2 cents" and anyone can file them. Correct, but amicus briefs are considered by the court as evidence given, and sometimes cited in a decision. And consider who this brief is coming from: the lawyer who drafted the Texas 6-week abortion thing, which despite being blatantly against precedent is enough of Calvinball Law that the SC didn't see any problem in letting it stand. And he's explicitly saying he wants to overturn protections for LGBT+ people. It's worrying, to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
What does gay marriage or anti-sodomy legislation have to do with abortion? Like, shouldn't an amicus brief at least THEORETICALLY stay on the loving topic at hand instead of flying off into lala land?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:What does gay marriage or anti-sodomy legislation have to do with abortion? Like, shouldn't an amicus brief at least THEORETICALLY stay on the loving topic at hand instead of flying off into lala land? The brief is from an extreme (even by US standards) right wing theocrat. You shouldn't look for logic where none exists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:What does gay marriage or anti-sodomy legislation have to do with abortion? Like, shouldn't an amicus brief at least THEORETICALLY stay on the loving topic at hand instead of flying off into lala land? They're all rights "invented" by the courts (logically applying a consistent interpretation of the constitution to all people). The brief invites the court to declare that the "traditional" view that constitutional rights only apply to straight white Christian men should be the guiding principle of justice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:What does gay marriage or anti-sodomy legislation have to do with abortion? Like, shouldn't an amicus brief at least THEORETICALLY stay on the loving topic at hand instead of flying off into lala land?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
Mikl posted:Correct, but amicus briefs are considered by the court as evidence given, and sometimes cited in a decision. Amicus briefs aren’t quite evidence, they’re advisory to the court. (They may cite social science evidence and sometimes that’s relied upon but typically they’re either supporting a party’s position or elaborating on some aspect of what’s being considered that the amicus is more interested in than the parties.) And the Texas bill wasn’t allowed to stand - the Court said that it couldn’t be challenged in that way. That’s not “this is constitutional”, it’s “this isn’t the case to decide it.” I wouldn’t be particularly worried by this amicus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And the Texas bill wasn’t allowed to stand - the Court said that it couldn’t be challenged in that way. That’s not “this is constitutional”, it’s “this isn’t the case to decide it.” It was the court deciding "gently caress it we like what the bill does despite being extremely Unconstitutional but we're going to kick the can on this since we're getting ready to gut abortion rights anyways."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And the Texas bill wasn’t allowed to stand - the Court said that it couldn’t be challenged in that way. That’s not “this is constitutional”, it’s “this isn’t the case to decide it.” If that wasn't the case to "decide it", what do you think would be an appropriate case will be? Texas abortion clinics are basically shut down and women are being denied access to critical, time-sensitive constitutionally-guaranteed medical service, which is exactly what every involved knew would happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And the Texas bill wasn’t allowed to stand - the Court said that it couldn’t be challenged in that way. That’s not “this is constitutional”, it’s “this isn’t the case to decide it.” You can't "One Weird Trick" the Supreme Court, and if it looks like someone did "One Weird Trick" SCOTUS, it's because 5 justices wanted it to look that way. Allowing right-wing Texas Calvinball is not evidence of thoughtful jurisprudence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Stickman posted:If that wasn't the case to "decide it", what do you think would be an appropriate case will be? I think it was an appropriate case, to be clear - I’m on the dissenter’s side here. But it’s important to distinguish between a merits decision - the law is fine - and a procedure decision - the law may or may not be fine but we’re not making that decision because there’s a flaw in how the case got to us. If they’d ruled it constitutional, it’d be much harder to get it struck down in the future. The court will probably wait for it to be actually enforced against someone before being willing to take it up on an emergency basis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2021 22:14
|
|