|
Discendo Vox posted:He's given a number of speeches and statements championing the codification of abortion rights, endorsed the codifying legislation (which passed the House last September and is held up in the Senate), and the DoJ has gotten involved in the various state abortion law cases, including filing a pro-choice amicus brief in the very case at issue. People are mad that all he's done is lip service, yes. People are mad that it seems that's all Democrats are willing to do.
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:He's given a number of speeches and statements championing the codification of abortion rights, endorsed the codifying legislation (which passed the House last September and is held up in the Senate), and the DoJ has gotten involved in the various state abortion law cases, including filing a pro-choice amicus brief in the very case at issue. thank god, an amicus brief. we are saved
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:31
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:The problem is people DID vote. And nothing changed. It just got worse. "Vote harder next time" isn't acceptable. I don't disagree with this sentiment in a lot of ways, but in this particular case, three of the five justices that are about to kill Roe were appointed by a guy who won an election that was close close enough that the contingent of people who didn't vote because "it doesn't matter anyway" might actually have swung things. jetz0r posted:https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1180506681459040256 Joe Biden is neither the dictator of the country nor the Democratic party. e: Zoran posted:There is no mechanism whatsoever* to press the Dems to do the right thing if they’re going to receive your vote 100% of the time regardless. Of course there is, it's called a primary election. It's not perfect, but it certainly exists. raminasi fucked around with this message at 06:33 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:31
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:No, the problem is that people didn't vote in 2016, and voting in 2018 and 2020 is not enough to erase that mistake even if the Democrats pulled off a virtuoso election performance. I would have thought "repairing the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation" was a more effective campaign slogan than "try and pull off some semblance of damage control," but I guess I don't understand the Rust Belt mentality. I suppose the people of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan can just send the women of America an apologetic fruit basket. People voted in 2008. People voted in 1992. People voted in 1976. Elections apparently don’t have consequences lol
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:35
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Of course there is, it's called a primary election. It's not perfect, but it certainly exists. Doesn't work all that well when incumbent dems pull every trick in the book to gently caress over progressive primary challengers and then the response of the majority of the electorate is "dang well that sucks but I guess I gotta support the incumbent in the general anyway because the alternative is the GOP." And hell even if the progressive challenger wins the primary that won't stop them sometimes. Take a look at what happened to India Walton if you want to see just how far the Dem establishment is willing to go to subvert democracy to keep the left down and their own in power.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
Carillon posted:I wish I had your confidence that this won't benefit the conservative turnout and election results. I have confidence in nothing except this being absolutely loving nuts It could be one of those lightning strike galvanizing once in a lifetime opportunities for the dems and you'll never catch me insisting that it'll shake them into meaningful action lol But what's extra super crazy about it is that the Supreme Court just dead-handed themselves into being a nakedly partisan institution, in the eyes of the general populace. Like they literally did the wizard court thing, that's what this does. Illegitimate supreme judiciary is not something to look forward to
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:42
|
|
|
I do have to admit I thought they would be more gradual. Like Roberts probably would rather have whittled down Roe and wait to strike it down completely until after a few rulings weakening its precedent. I mean he’s the probably gonna write a separate pro-life dissent for this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:46
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I do have to admit I thought they would be more gradual. Like Roberts probably would rather have whittled down Roe and wait to strike it down completely until after a few rulings weakening its precedent. Like he’s the probably gonna write a separate pro-life dissent for this Roberts flat out doesn't have control of the court any longer. When the majority was 5-4 he could force whatever narrow ruling he wanted but now as long as  doesn't get squeamish or the conservative bent to the ruling at hand doesn't run afoul Gorsuch's libertarian idiosyncrasies the ghouls can do whatever they want and run with it and all Roberts can do in response is side with the liberals and write a separate concurrence about how sad he is that the ruling isn't more narrow. ABC's appointment severely curtailed Roberts' power.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:49
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:More people are going to vote against the Dems because of inflation and high gas prices than those who will vote against the GOP because of this ruling that everyone knew was coming the moment RBG died. I don't know that there's any reason to think it will be decisive, but this is definitely going to motivate Democrat leaning voters more than Republican leaning voters. Zoran posted:There is no mechanism whatsoever* to press the Dems to do the right thing if they’re going to receive your vote 100% of the time regardless. You can, however, primary lovely Dems. The framework may be extremely unfair and far more than a majority is likely required for change, but that's the time to tell the establishment Democrats to go gently caress themselves. When they're up against Republicans it's too late and yeah, if you care at all about anything, you're going to have to vote for them 100% of the time. Alternately you could try to start up a third party. Preferably on a local level or in congress before you shoot for the presidency and gently caress everything up in our dumb system. Those are actual ways to hold the Democrats accountable, and if you think they're infeasible or difficult, sure. They're practically impossible. But they're a heck of a lot more plausible than somehow trying to advance your agenda by letting the Republicans win. Sydin posted:Doesn't work all that well when incumbent dems pull every trick in the book to gently caress over progressive primary challengers and then the response of the majority of the electorate is "dang well that sucks but I guess I gotta support the incumbent in the general anyway because the alternative is the GOP."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:49
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I do have to admit I thought they would be more gradual. Like Roberts probably would rather have whittled down Roe and wait to strike it down completely until after a few rulings weakening its precedent. I mean he’s the probably gonna write a separate pro-life dissent for this. When/if we learn the how and why of the leak, the calculi of each of the people involved are going to be extremely interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:49
|
|
|
"If you really wanted your rights protected, you would get a supermajority of states to vote for it"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 06:54
|
|
|
It would be nice if we could keep the tedious voting discussions to places that aren't the SCOTUS thread.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It would be nice if we could keep the tedious voting discussions to places that aren't the SCOTUS thread. It's rather hard to not talk about politics when the Supreme Court has become so blatantly partisan.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:11
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:It would be nice if we could keep the tedious voting discussions to places that aren't the SCOTUS thread. Unlike the president with legislation, you have the ability to take unilateral action on this, and you're choosing not to. It is entirely within your power to enforce the rules and at least hand out probations. The abuse that is now occurring is something you have socialized and facilitated by choosing to not punish it. You've trained these users to do this, and given them the ability to derail any thread they want, on a whim, for as long as they wish.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:15
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:
The Wisconsin republican legislation's already on the third draft of their wide sweeping anti-abortion bill and waiting for our weak, centrist, democratic governor to lose power so they can ram it in day one.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
Carew posted:These people do not believe in anything. Her mother, someone with actual power, is putting in work to support the anti-abortion Cuellar over the pro-choice Cisneros, while she wastes her time scolding leftists on twitter for failing to stem the tide of misogyny. Incredible. Cool. How many SCOTUS justices has Cuellar confirmed?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:26
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Roberts flat out doesn't have control of the court any longer. When the majority was 5-4 he could force whatever narrow ruling he wanted but now as long as Roberts is hosed and will be placed alongside Fuller and Taney on the list of the worst chief justices to ever hold the position.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
Mustard Iceman posted:Cool. How many SCOTUS justices has Cuellar confirmed? The national-level Democratic Party's continued waffling on abortion is certainly relevant to the fact that abortion rights have been left to the courts rather than being handled as national legislation.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The national-level Democratic Party's continued waffling on abortion is certainly relevant to the fact that abortion rights have been left to the courts rather than being handled as national legislation. I was looking for a number. What you provided is not a number. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:29
|
|
|
Mustard Iceman posted:I was looking for a number. What you provided is not a number. Your rhetorical question's premises were faulty. That number isn't relevant. Don't get huffy when people treat your rhetorical questions as the statements they are.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:31
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah just peaking at this map Florida, Virginia, Montana, Wyoming, Missouri, potentially Wisconsin and Iowa could all quickly see full bans on abortion sweep into place as well. Give it a few months and New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine will be on that list as well A few years after you can add Pennsylvania and then Illinois.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:42
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I do have to admit I thought they would be more gradual. Like Roberts probably would rather have whittled down Roe and wait to strike it down completely until after a few rulings weakening its precedent. I mean he’s the probably gonna write a separate pro-life dissent for this. Roberts is the most terrified by this event because his legacy was to keep the Supreme Court legitimate and his actions were precise in adhering to this goal and this is the moment where it is clear he cannot do this and he has failed
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:45
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Give it a few months and New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine will be on that list as well The wording on the repeal says states can allow abortion "but" consider the life of the fetus, so it won't be long before texas v california with supreme court gutting california's abortion law.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 07:46
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:Roberts is the most terrified by this event because his legacy was to keep the Supreme Court legitimate and his actions were precise in adhering to this goal and this is the moment where it is clear he cannot do this and he has failed Yeah, this has been my take. If ginsburg had retired in 2012 and been replaced we wouldn't be here because Roberts, for all his shittiness, wanted the court to be seen as legitimate. It's why he signed on to gay marriage, didn't kill the ACA directly, etc. He'd be garbage on poo poo like citizens United, but he was trying to thread a line. Now the court is 6-3 and he can't do poo poo. The lunatics are running the asylum and the best he can do is to try and salvage his own personal legacy, because there is more of this poo poo sandwich coming down the pipe.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:02
|
|
|
.....The thread takeaway about this leak is 'Those loving democrats!'?? Christ. You know, this is terrible news, is it really necessary for the #1 priority to be figuring out the ways by which its the Democrats fault instead of the people actually doing it?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:04
|
|
|
Yeah. It's not like there's anything the Democrats could have done in this scenario. And even if they could, it's not like passively allowing someone to do something you can try to prevent makes you culpable in any sense.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:10
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:.....The thread takeaway about this leak is 'Those loving democrats!'?? Nah gently caress everybody actually. gently caress the Republicans and their theological hellscape bullshit putting these ghouls in a position of power to strip away fundamental human rights. And gently caress Democrats for swearing up and down that if given power they'd use it to protect a woman's right to choose only to completely fail to do so with the excuse of "uh well  you should have voted for us harder also this is really the left's fault for failing Hillary in 2016."And before you think I just threw in that last point, that is actually what is happening right now: https://twitter.com/bryanbehar/status/1521296928771764227 https://twitter.com/sfpelosi/status/1521294980488204289 The whole thing is completely miserable and awful and hosed and there's apparently just not the will in the halls of power to pull out all the stops and do everything possible to push back against this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:13
|
|
|
Sydin posted:And gently caress Democrats for swearing up and down that if given power they'd use it to protect a woman's right to choose only to completely fail to do so with the excuse of "uh well
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:25
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that Supreme Court seats are for life and the balance was already 5-4 in favor of the apocalypse, so the 2016 election was, to borrow a legal phrase, the last clear chance to head off this decision. But the prospect of turning that 5-4 into a 4-5 just wasn't enticing enough for some people. This was foreseeable! Nevertheless, Democrats did not use their political power to head it off with legislation, over the course of decades. For the reason why, it may be helpful to look at the political histories of Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, or the continuing political career of the son of the "Casey" in Planned Parenthood v Casey.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:30
|
|
|
Is the leak 100% confirmed? It's a huge deal of course but some of that opinion looks suspicious, like "abortion is not in the constitution" is something the dumbest pro-lifer would argue
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:30
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Is the leak 100% confirmed? It's a huge deal of course but some of that opinion looks suspicious, like "abortion is not in the constitution" is something the dumbest pro-lifer would argue CNN was reporting anonymous sources that it's real, and lots of outlets are reporting that everyone on the inside of the Supreme Court's deliberations are pissed. Plus, Alito is in fact the dumbest pro-lifer.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
states will still be able to individually allow legal abortion, right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:34
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Is the leak 100% confirmed? It's a huge deal of course but some of that opinion looks suspicious, like "abortion is not in the constitution" is something the dumbest pro-lifer would argue At least four sitting Justices fit that description, possibly five. roomtone posted:states will still be able to individually allow legal abortion, right? Until Texas sues California over it and SCOTUS decides that California allowing people to get abortions impinges on their rights or some bullshit. What's going to fall next? Casey? Obergefell? Griswold? Devorum fucked around with this message at 08:38 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:35
|
|
|
roomtone posted:states will still be able to individually allow legal abortion, right? That's probably going to depend on the specific wording of whatever ruling ends up handed down. Some people were arguing that Alito's wording leaves open the possibility of later striking down pro-abortion laws that place insufficient emphasis on preserving the rights of a fetus, but that's a hypothetical built on a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:37
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:I'm pretty sure that everyone is aware that Supreme Court seats are for life and the balance was already 5-4 in favor of the apocalypse, so the 2016 election was, to borrow a legal phrase, the last clear chance to head off this decision. But the prospect of turning that 5-4 into a 4-5 just wasn't enticing enough for some people. We are straying well off course of the thread but I will say that Hillary lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by something like a combined 100K votes between all three states. Had she won these, she would have won the general. You can blame third party voters, but you could also blame her for not focusing any attention whatsoever into these states because her camp considered them locked down Dem victories based on polling, all the while Trump was hitting rustbelt city after rustbelt city telling them they'd gotten a bum deal because of NAFTA and he'd bring the manufacturing jobs back. Strategic voting for SCOTUS is easy when you're in a good position, not so much when you're impoverished and only one candidate is telling you they'll bring your livelihood back without demanding you go to a Code.com bootcamp.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:38
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Yeah. It's not like there's anything the Democrats could have done in this scenario. And even if they could, it's not like passively allowing someone to do something you can try to prevent makes you culpable in any sense. The Democrats could pass a law to make Roe v Wade the statutory rule nationwide on any given day, as has been the case for years. You can ask your least favorite Democrats why they aren't doing this! I know I have! The answers may shock you!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:40
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The Democrats could pass a law to make Roe v Wade the statutory rule nationwide on any given day, as has been the case for years. You can ask your least favorite Democrats why they aren't doing this! I know I have! The answers may shock you! you are replying to a sarcastic post by someone who agrees with you fyi
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:41
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Yes, this is true. You literally described what just happened today. Republicans won 2016, got three SCOTUS appointments and a couple hundred Federalist Society approved judges into lower courts. Since conservative judges are a trailing indicator for the disease of Republican presidencies, that damage lingers for years after the initial symptoms clear. Even before this happened we had plenty of Trump appointees at all levels of the court aiming to slap down even modest improvements by the incoming administration, some of which already floated up to the conveniently 6-3 SCOTUS. sounds like symptoms of a sick system any ideas for how to fix it? perhaps voting?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:you are replying to a sarcastic post by someone who agrees with you fyi I probably should have just replied directly to the guy he was replying to but I am still shying away from direct confrontation for whatever reason. It's a flaw of mine.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:That's probably going to depend on the specific wording of whatever ruling ends up handed down. Some people were arguing that Alito's wording leaves open the possibility of later striking down pro-abortion laws that place insufficient emphasis on preserving the rights of a fetus, but that's a hypothetical built on a hypothetical. the wording does set the ground for that being possible,
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 08:47
|
|