|
Magic Underwear posted:Fetal personhood declared by an unaccountable political cabal would be like the fugitive slave act on steroids. Something would have to give, either scotus or the country. How many years between Dred Scott and the burning of Atlanta? I don’t want to live through those years.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:How many years between Dred Scott and the burning of Atlanta? I don’t want to live through those years. 7 (1857-1864)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Fetal personhood declared by an unaccountable political cabal would be like the fugitive slave act on steroids. Something would have to give, either scotus or the country. How many people who carry a gun for a living would take the blue state side against the legitimate US government over abortion? This is a pipe dream, we have a warrior class and it's dark, dark red.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:38
|
|
|
I think the question is more over what happens to a federal system when half the states refuse to obey a ruling that ostensibly binds them in a way that can’t be ignored.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
I'm a pessimist by nature and I think this Court is going to declare "fetal personhood" making abortion illegal in the US. I think they'll go after birth control and gay marriage next. Antifa Turkeesian posted:I think the question is more over what happens to a federal system when half the states refuse to obey a ruling that ostensibly binds them in a way that can’t be ignored. I can see Biden on the side of California, but the next Republican President would have no issued arresting whoever possible. Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Dec 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Hard to imagine the court would reverse course on 4 decades of status quo when they could land a similar effect without agitating the normies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:Hard to imagine the court would reverse course on 4 decades of status quo when they could land a similar effect without agitating the normies. Roberts seems like he has enough of a brain to realize this but the other five conservatives simply do not give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I'm a pessimist by nature and I think this Court is going to declare "fetal personhood" making abortion illegal in the US. They're not going to enshrine fetal personhood. Your second sentence is more correct. They're not going to rule that Roe was wrongly decided while still leaving Griswold in place. Griswold v. Connecticut was the precursor to Roe. It was a suit over whether Connecticut's law requiring a husband's consent for a woman to get birth control was constitutional. This is where your privacy rights first get read into the 14th and incorporated against the states. It's legal theories are the core underpinnings to Roe. If Roe was wrongly decided, Griswold most certainly was as well. Likewise any such followon case that is built off of said privacy rights is likewise kaput such as Obergefell. The federal government is going to continue to get smaller as conservative courts throw out chevron, destroy our administrative state, and overturn all civil rights jurisprudence. Good luck if you live in a shithole state! e: I shouldn't say they'll explicitly overturn Griswold because I don't think they'll mention it specifically. Any reasoning that invalidates Roe likewise invalidates Griswold, though. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Dec 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:How many people who carry a gun for a living would take the blue state side against the legitimate US government over abortion? This is a pipe dream, we have a warrior class and it's dark, dark red. Yeah that's what Jefferson Davis thought too Turns out having a higher population and all the money and industry is a bigger advantage in modern warfare than having a higher percentage of turkey hunters or whatever. But a civil war isn't going to happen anyway It's all Clancy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 23:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They're not going to enshrine fetal personhood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
They can just wait until 2024, when republicans have the presidency and supermajorities in the legislature. Then all they have to do is say it’s constitutional after it’s challenged in court. They’ve been waiting 50 years. What’s a few more, especially after you get to overturn Roe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
Magic Underwear posted:Fetal personhood declared by an unaccountable political cabal would be like the fugitive slave act on steroids. Something would have to give, either scotus or the country. Conservatives know that they have to seize power if they want to stay in power because their old racist base is dying off while younger generations are more diverse and are rejecting them in greater numbers (though those who embrace the right are more and more radicalized). To answer your question, the country's going to give because the SCOTUS conservatives are not going to give an inch of ground and as they dismantle rulings that undermine the basic ability for the US Government to function, blue states are eventually going to reject those ruling and attempts to enforce them. At that point you'll have fascists like Tom Cotton drop their little remaining pretense and start directly calling on right wingers to murder politicians who oppose their insane theocratic dreams. If we had a POTUS or Dem leadership that weren't also rich, old, and center-right they'd have rejected some past SCOTUS power grabs as well but the fact of the matter is that Biden, like Obama and Clinton, just don't give a gently caress about actually confronting the constitutional crisis before them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:They can just wait until 2024, when republicans have the presidency and supermajorities in the legislature. Then all they have to do is say it’s constitutional after it’s challenged in court. They’ve been waiting 50 years. What’s a few more, especially after you get to overturn Roe? Roberts might be crafty enough to worry about backlash and the  of the court to hang back and do it "properly". But the other five? He has no leverage over them now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Roberts might be crafty enough to worry about backlash and the Roberts penned a concurrence and it is basically him warning that if laws that are blatantly set up to bypass SCOTUS are allowed to stand then it undermines the legitimacy of the court: quote:The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the “fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” and “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme. Court in our constitutional system that is at stake. Roberts absolutely wants to overturn Roe, or at a minimum gut it so badly that it's functionally worthless, but he doesn't want to happen because Texas found one weird trick, judiciaries hate them! Not that it matters, his viewpoint is clearly in the minority and the rest of the conservatives give no fucks about appearing partisan if it means they can finally push their awful agenda.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Roberts wants to overturn Roe without explicitly saying SCOTUS is doing it, so he'd prefer a ruling where the court says "States can't outlaw abortion, but banning it after 2 weeks, limiting abortions to only being done on February 30, and requiring providers to have both a Nobel Prize and a Grammy is fine." Unfortunately for Roberts, Handmaid's Tale and Rapey McBeerface mean that he has no control over the court now, so the best he can do is try and moderate some of the insanity so he can keep getting fawning WaPo editorials.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
I definitely never expected that we would see nullification become a thing again in my lifetime, but we're headed that way and fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I definitely never expected that we would see nullification become a thing again in my lifetime, but we're headed that way and fast. I’m sure Afghanis were hoping to never have to deal with Taliban again and look how quickly that turned on them. This culture will most likely be the same with the oncoming minority rule of the oligarchs. But just like prisons, school shootings, local natural disasters, or now the plague, it won’t directly affect most people so the masses wont care, until somehow it does affect them— but then they become the minority for the majority to not care about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I definitely never expected that we would see nullification become a thing again in my lifetime, but we're headed that way and fast. It's time to call a continental congress to unwind the union. It's better to do it on purpose than slouch into it like we are doing now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 03:59
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It's time to call a continental congress to unwind the union. It's better to do it on purpose than slouch into it like we are doing now. This is an actual (and scary) goal of the right: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584835-conservatives-prepare-new-push-for-constitutional-convention
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
Yeah, they'd love to have senators permanently appointed by governors again, to cement the minority rule. I'm pretty sure it is the main goal of Republican constitutional conventions now, but I am sure the check shall be quite blank otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:This is an actual (and scary) goal of the right: Along with the 15 Republican-led states that have approved ALEC’s model legislation, another five Democratic-led states — Vermont, California, Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island — have approved calls for a convention focused on campaign finance reform. The group behind that proposal, called Wolf-PAC, was founded a decade ago by the progressive commentator Cenk Uygur." Cenk continues to be human trash, I see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
Sub Par posted:This is an actual (and scary) goal of the right: I mean, if the Right tried to call a unilateral constitutional convention controlled by 34 states that would probably have around 2/5ths of the nation's population, its not like any of the blue states/the majority of the nation's population would go along with its outcomes. It's scary in that it would be the end of the United States, but not for anything they might actually pass there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 09:56
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Yeah, they'd love to have senators permanently appointed by governors again, to cement the minority rule. I'm pretty sure it is the main goal of Republican constitutional conventions now, but I am sure the check shall be quite blank otherwise. Imagine Josh Hawley and Eric Grietens (a rapist/kidnapper/impeached governor who is about to win Blunt's seat) being in the Senate for life. Oh wait, they will anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I am very curious how leaving abortion to the states doesn't turn into a complete clusterfuck where anti-abortion states start trying to extradite women who have traveled or moved or medical providers in abortion-legal states who have provided abortion services or abortion-related advice to those women. The fugitive
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 16:30
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I mean, if the Right tried to call a unilateral constitutional convention controlled by 34 states that would probably have around 2/5ths of the nation's population, its not like any of the blue states/the majority of the nation's population would go along with its outcomes. It's scary in that it would be the end of the United States, but not for anything they might actually pass there. What would "not going along with its outcomes" look like in this case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
California will likely fold very quickly in the face of a Republican Federal Trifecta.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:What would "not going along with its outcomes" look like in this case? They could just not recognize it and keep sending representatives to govern themselves under the old constitution (secession basically). That was what happened with the first one, the states that ratified it used it and the states that didn't, didn't take part at first. There's no way the corn states can conquer the rest of the country and force them into a new constitution, the reason the Union was able to do this to the Confederacy was because they had all the people and money and industry. But since the new Republican constitution would be brought to you by Lockheed Martin and Tyson chicken, Democratic politicians would all get visits from their donors warning them that the gravy train stops unless they sell the all new new Goldman Sachs And Subway Sandwiches Bring You The Eat Fresh® Constitution to the people. Plus I'm sure it will have carveouts to entrench the wealth and power of aristocrats like Pelosi and Schumer so they'd have little reason to oppose it anyway and would happily get on board. Any kind of resistance to JP Morgan Chase and a tiny sliver of Bible thumpers creating a new government for us without any popular legitimacy would have to be a mass popular rebellion from below, party leaders on both sides would be all for it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Dec 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But since the new Republican constitution would be brought to you by Lockheed Martin and Tyson chicken, Democratic politicians would all get visits from their donors warning them that the gravy train stops unless they sell the all new new Goldman Sachs And Subway Sandwiches Bring You The Eat Fresh® Constitution to the people. Plus I'm sure it will have carveouts to entrench the wealth and power of aristocrats like Pelosi and Schumer so they'd have little reason to oppose it anyway and would happily get on board. I highly doubt they'd even need to be bribed. Democrats are too chickenshit to stand for anything and the two sides in the ruling class don't significantly disagree on the basic project of "more money for us; gently caress you" anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Republicans would make your votes count proportional to your net worth, and MSNBC will bring out Donna Brazile to say that anyone opposing this is a racist trying to disenfranchise successful women of color.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Papers of record like the NYT and Washington Post would roll out editorials to the effect that only wealthy Americans choosing candidates for office is good, actually and what the founders intended*. CNN would present both sides as equally valid and treat those who think it's a terrible idea as extremists. * Sadly, they would not be completely incorrect with this argument either, most likely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah that's what Jefferson Davis thought too This is ahistorical in the extreme, there was barely a military and certainly no large standing internal security apparatus outside the largest cities, to say nothing of the intelligence agencies etc. All of these forces are blood red even in blue states, and the fact that you couldn't scrape together so much as a blue platoon is why we will never have a civil war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
Wang Commander posted:This is ahistorical in the extreme, there was barely a military and certainly no large standing internal security apparatus outside the largest cities, to say nothing of the intelligence agencies etc. All of these forces are blood red even in blue states, and the fact that you couldn't scrape together so much as a blue platoon is why we will never have a civil war. Military Times poll: Biden holds 4-point lead over Trump among troops The military is a pretty diverse place. E: but this is all academic since replacing the aristocratic constitution with an even more aristocratic one would be enthusiastically supported by the leadership in both parties anyway so you'd need a popular movement to keep blue states out of the new union. That's the real reason we wouldn't have a civil war VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Dec 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
A civil war in this country is about as plausible as one in China right now. The military would side with whoever they are told to, ie: the rich. It would be a pretty one sided conflict. Pretty laff that RBG's legacy is this stuff like this thread talking about civil war outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Civil war in this country would probably be more militia / irregulars than anything Pentagon backed. Just years of Wal-Mart bombings and McDonald's IEDs with different culture warriors claiming responsibility, while regular folks still need to go to work, half the country prevents it isn't happening, and record profits. Just remix our covid response with Afghanistan and set it domestically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 23:18
|
|
|
jeeves posted:A civil war in this country is about as plausible as one in China right now. lol yeah the musings of shut-ins on a dead forum is 100% the legacy of RBG
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
moths posted:Civil war in this country would probably be more militia / irregulars than anything Pentagon backed. Just years of Wal-Mart bombings and McDonald's IEDs with different culture warriors claiming responsibility, while regular folks still need to go to work, half the country prevents it isn't happening, and record profits. There already is a "soft" civil war going on IMO, just at a low level. A regular spate of mass shootings, rampant radicalization, etc. Bach to SCOTUS talk: did a deep dive on the Texas ruling, and you know poo poo's about to get real when a justice cites one of the very first rulings by the supreme court as a precedent for "why we shouldn't gently caress with this." I don't think it'll be overturned and made illegal nationwide like an evil inverse of Obgerfell, but who knows what horrors 2022 will hold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:There already is a "soft" civil war going on IMO, just at a low level. A regular spate of mass shootings, rampant radicalization, etc. At this rate? All of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
I have to wonder how long until a blue state uses the SB 8 model to effectively outlaw some or all gun ownership. SCOTUS will find some excuse to negate it, of course, but it will throw everything into even sharper contrast than before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I have to wonder how long until a blue state uses the SB 8 model to effectively outlaw some or all gun ownership. SCOTUS will find some excuse to negate it, of course, but it will throw everything into even sharper contrast than before. Does ANYONE want to disarm at this point? Look at suburban gun sales in a year where the burbs swung blue
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
And here we go https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1469865007517089798?s=20
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 04:38
|
|
