|
Sydin posted:Why do you keep bringing up parliaments? Because the whipped voting you keep trying to wish into existence for Congress is the way it actually does work for important votes in most Westminster parliaments. Caucus members get told how to vote, and know they'll be expelled (and almost certainly lose the next election) if they defy their party on anything important. There is nobody who can threaten Democratic representatives and senators with not being able to run in the next election as a Democrat if they don't vote the party line. That is more or less the entire reason why locally popular senators and representatives can openly defy the will of the majority of their caucus, the majority of Democrats, and the majority of Americans—because the party has no way to send them packing. Manchin voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. Do you think replacing him with a Republican would yield the same result?
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:Manchin voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson. Do you think replacing him with a Republican would yield the same result? From where I'm standing, it doesn't seem to have made any difference.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 05:54
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:US party politics is confusing to me, is it true that parties can't actually stop someone running under their banner? Parties in the US are more like governing coalitions in most parliamentary democracies, just the coalitions are formed before elections instead of after, because democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 06:22
|
|
|
Sydin posted:You can claim run as whatever you want, but to actually get printed on the ballot affiliated with your party of choice you generally need to have received a party nomination to do so. The laws very state to state but in a lot of cases this doesn't actually mean that you need to get the state level party folks to officially bless you, it just means you need to submit a petition to be placed on the ballot that has [x] number of verifiable signatures from registered voters of the party you're trying to affiliate with. So yeah if you can get enough rubes to sign you could run declared as party of a party you share zero platforms with, although good luck when the state and national level party will almost certainly extend zero resources to you and plenty to the candidate(s) they've actually blessed. Has this been used by people trying to run spoiler votes? Get a bunch of people to join a party, then put in a candidate who would split the Dem/Rep vote in close races? (I'm in Australia, so while we're generally very familiar with the high level structure of your politics, the more local/ground level stuff is often a bit of a mystery)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 06:36
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Has this been used by people trying to run spoiler votes? Get a bunch of people to join a party, then put in a candidate who would split the Dem/Rep vote in close races? Spoiler candidates are a thing in primaries, sometimes they'll even get someone with a very similar name to try to trick people
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 09:23
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:From where I'm standing, it doesn't seem to have made any difference. Great forward thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
What would be Congress' jurisdiction for passing a law protecting abortion rights short of a Constitutional Amendment? Just tuck it under the 9th Amendment?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 12:00
|
|
|
Medicare funding
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 12:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1522044847254872064?s=20&t=oh6_X_zQ3zgbWM87DQp3rw
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:04
|
|
PeterCat posted:What would be Congress' jurisdiction for passing a law protecting abortion rights short of a Constitutional Amendment? Interstate commerce.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:04
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:(a) you have to do some pretty crazy logical cartwheels to find a right to abortion in the Constitution and . Eh I don't think they're that crazy or cartwheely. It's pretty straightforward logically that the fourth amendment protections against, say, searches are meaningless if the government can just make anything they want a crime and search your home for that. We can't go on fishing expeditions searching your house constantly for no reason until we find evidence of a crime. But we can make sex illegal and well hey you're living with your wife and kids well that's probable cause now we can search your house for sex paraphernalia anytime we want, and charge you for other crimes over anything we find. Or eating donuts, are you walking out of your house with crumbs on your shirt, crime in progress don't need a warrant. Or smelling weed. Some of these examples are pretty wild (although less wild laws that were used as an excuse to gently caress with people were common like laws against homosexuality, or the aforementioned "is that weed I smell"), but the idea that governments can arbitrarily restrict and ban anything they want as long as it isn't mentioned in the constitution by name is also pretty wild.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:34
|
|
|
Even if the decision in Roe were the most airtight ironclad decision in Supreme Court history the conservative legal movement would've come up with some bullshit reasoning to overturn it. Alito "deals" (I use the word as loosely as it can possibly be used) with the equal protection argument in like a paragraph. They didn't go after Roe all this time because it was a legally shaky decision they went after it because they hate women.
Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 13:53 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Even if the decision in Roe were the most airtight ironclad decision in Supreme Court history the conservative legal movement would've come up with some bullshit reasoning to overturn it. Alito "deals" (I use the word as loosely as it can possibly be used) with the equal protection argument in like a paragraph. Yes, the legal reasoning behind it is irrelevant because it is an expression of political power. The Republicans finally got their reactionary majority so they could get rid of the salami slicing and just get the full repeal they've wanted for the last 50 years. Even if Roe was airtight, they would have just written something like "fetuses have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, therefore Roe is overturned" and it would have the same effect.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Interstate commerce. The feds cannot even force states to accept free money to expand medicaid. They can definitely prohibit states from punishing women who seek abortions in different states, as that is explicitly interstate activity, but they do not have the authority to force states to allow abortion. Also,  at anything like that ever getting passed when the Hyde Amendment exists.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:57
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yes, the legal reasoning behind it is irrelevant because it is an expression of political power. The Republicans finally got their reactionary majority so they could get rid of the salami slicing and just get the full repeal they've wanted for the last 50 years. Even if Roe was airtight, they would have just written something like "fetuses have the right to life, liberty, and happiness, therefore Roe is overturned" and it would have the same effect. Alito's argument is far weaker than the Court's decision in Roe. If it was such a weak foundation you'd think they'd come up with better. But he can't and they don't have to. https://twitter.com/scottjshapiro/status/1522192925647646722?s=20&t=xmqMm-imsY8AYZ0V9EoOEw
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:58
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Alito's argument is far weaker than the Court's decision in Roe. If it was such a weak foundation you'd think they'd come up with better. But he can't and they don't have to. https://twitter.com/jaywillis/status/1521874632776634369
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 13:59
|
|
|
This is how you get people like Lisa Murkowski (JD, Willamette University, 1985, 11 years as a practicing lawyer in Alaska) who still either don't get it or pretend not to get it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1522044847254872064?s=20&t=oh6_X_zQ3zgbWM87DQp3rw I can't believe Republicans are doing the exact thing that we've said for years they'd do the second that Roe was overturned. As soon as this is challenged in court it's going to get fast-tracked to the SCOTUS so that they can rule "yes actually a fetus is a person" and then the US will have a de-facto nationwide ban on abortion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Alito's argument is far weaker than the Court's decision in Roe. If it was such a weak foundation you'd think they'd come up with better. But he can't and they don't have to. I read the summary of the leak that was done by someone a few pages back. In non lawyer speak, what is the flaw in the leaked document's argument?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The feds cannot even force states to accept free money to expand medicaid. They can definitely prohibit states from punishing women who seek abortions in different states, as that is explicitly interstate activity, but they do not have the authority to force states to allow abortion. Yeah it's pretty ridiculous to claim it's originalism or whatever blocking the Democrats from federally protecting abortion rights when they vote for federal restrictions on abortion in every single budget. I don't think the people voting to keep abortions away from poor women almost every year want to protect abortion rights fam
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I read the summary of the leak that was done by someone a few pages back. In non lawyer speak, what is the flaw in the leaked document's argument? Alito's basic theory is if it isn't expressly listed in the constitution or "deeply rooted in tradition and history" then it can't be a right. This is nonsense and entirely made up (far more than the supposed shaky ground of Roe which draws from multiple different amendments). To Alito, if it wasn't allowed in the late 1700s then it can't be a right now.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I read the summary of the leak that was done by someone a few pages back. In non lawyer speak, what is the flaw in the leaked document's argument? A right not having some long history means it can't be recognized isn't a good argument since it means we never should've given women the right to vote or considered Black people people at the time those rights were recognized. He cites some guys who died over a century before America was even a country. If I'm remembering right it's even the argument made in Dred Scott and the dissent pointed out the canned history was wrong then too since Black people had been recognized as citizens since the founding. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:17 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I read the summary of the leak that was done by someone a few pages back. In non lawyer speak, what is the flaw in the leaked document's argument? In my non-lawyer opinion, the biggest flaw is assuming that any right not in a document written 200+ years ago is not a right you should have. edit: also, history only applies to American as it was from 1776-1973, or whatever his dumb idea of "history and tradition" is.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
Oh, he's also willing to grant "history and tradition" status to English church officials from the 1500s that are on record as witch burners, too
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
All that plus a dash of "also abortion is special, so the rules don't apply to it and I can make the law whatever I want"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:18
|
|
|
Piell posted:Alito's basic theory is if it isn't expressly listed in the constitution or "deeply rooted in tradition and history" then it can't be a right. This is nonsense and entirely made up (far more than the supposed shaky ground of Roe which draws from multiple different amendments). To Alito, if it wasn't allowed in the late 1700s then it can't be a right now. It also outright dismisses historic use of abortion (including in the 1700s) because he's not capable of addressing that while defending his own nakedly political desires. Groovelord Neato posted:A right not having some long history means it can't be recognized isn't a good argument since it means we never should've given women the right to vote or considered Black people people at the time those rights were recognized. He cites some guys who died over a century before America was even a country. That's the point, yes. Return to the days of only white men being able to vote and the GOP gets to firmly establish its desired corporate theocracy since any uprising by the masses will be brutally crushed by our heavily armed and extremely right wing police force (which will also deputize their right wing militia buddies). The GOP has chosen violence, the Dems have chosen subservience.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:19
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:A right not having some long history means it can't be recognized isn't a good argument since it means we never should've given women the right to vote or considered Black people people at the time those rights were recognized. He cites some guys who died over a century before America was even a country. It doesn't mean that because those rights weren't inferred judicially, they were debated on in society and eventually everyone came to a consensus and amended the constitution to add it which is what originalists say needs to be done for any new right. Well women's rights were passed that way, black people's right to vote was decided on by the loyal states after the Civil War then imposed on the rebel states by force which is kinda a problem for originalism. As well that the theory is contradictory. Something can't be in the Constitution unless we all get together as a country and pass an amendment with supermajorities in congress and state governments, but also if something is tradition then it doesn't need to go through that process at and it's just automatically in even though it never had enough consensus to make it into the constitution and a lot of these legal traditions come from a time when almost everybody was excluded from participation in law and government? Why? It's just conservatism for its own sake. If it's tradition it gets to be implied the constitution because it's old and you have to go through a long difficult process to get it out. If it's not tradition it's automatically out unless you go through a long difficult process to get it in. So you can't infer a right to abortion because the authors didn't put that in and you can't read in anything they didn't explicitly write. But you can infer that equal protection has an "except gay people" clause because discriminating against gay people is tradition so come on the authors must have meant to put that in there but just forgot or thought it was too obvious to mention or something so we should totally read that in. Oh weird the stuff I'm reading in or out just happens to align precisely with my personal religious beliefs, huh what a coinkidink, not my fault the founders all agreed with me on everything VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:32 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:27
|
|
|
haveblue posted:All that plus a dash of "also abortion is special, so the rules don't apply to it and I can make the law whatever I want" He added that little chestnut because he doesn't want his logic to be used to take away rights derived from the due process clause that he actually likes. It's a protection against unforeseen consequences that might affect lovely old white men; he fully intends to use this same argument against other things in the future, at which point they will also become "special cases" because that's just what the supreme court does when they're doing something stupid that they want to pretend is a one time deal -- see also: Bush v Gore.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
The document is more flaw than reasoning.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:31
|
|
|
Even with a completely arbitrary and meaningless standard Alito managed to gently caress up. The smart folk have noted that in those old laws he cites, the anti-abortion laws didn't apply pre 'quickening' (~mid 2nd trimester). Meaning his cites literally contradict the argument!
TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 15:40 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:How is it not already? SCOTUS is not supposed to be unchecked and unbalanced. In what way is SCOTUS unchecked? All they've done is overrule themselves, it's not like Congress passed a law on abortion. Just like Congress could pass a new VRA but chooses not to. Democrats refuse to use the tools at their disposal because of imaginary limits from "legitimacy", presumably because setting a precedent of Congress doing things would raise uncomfortable questions about inaction on other issues. There's no constitutional crisis conflict, SCOTUS is just filling the power vacuum left by Democrats.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I can't believe Republicans are doing the exact thing that we've said for years they'd do the second that Roe was overturned. I don’t see how fetal personhood would necessitate that? States define murder including what constitutes justified homicide on their own. Maybe congress could do some fuckery with the civil rights legislation that gives the feds a “second shot” at otherwise state murder charges?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:In what way is SCOTUS unchecked? All they've done is overrule themselves, it's not like Congress passed a law on abortion. Just like Congress could pass a new VRA but chooses not to. Democrats refuse to use the tools at their disposal because of imaginary limits from "legitimacy", presumably because setting a precedent of Congress doing things would raise uncomfortable questions about inaction on other issues. There's no constitutional crisis conflict, SCOTUS is just filling the power vacuum left by Democrats. I'm as dems useless as they come but how do you craft voting rights legislation with preclearance which Roberts won't just overturn without a constitutional reasoning like he already did. Shelby County is about as blatant a "we won gently caress you" as any Supreme Court decision can be. I would've liked the Democrats to force the Court's hand but even if they did they'd just go "oh ok" once Roberts did it again. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:49 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I don’t see how fetal personhood would necessitate that? States define murder including what constitutes justified homicide on their own. Maybe congress could do some fuckery with the civil rights legislation that gives the feds a “second shot” at otherwise state murder charges? I may be wrong about this, but a federal fetal personhood acknowledgement would supersede the states' own rights to work around it. For the US, a justifiable homicide is a pretty well-defined thing, and you need to meet specific criteria that wouldn't really be reachable without some egregious reading. But I guess, comedy option, one could justify the homicide of a fetus on the merits that it would be committing property damage to the uterus it was inhabiting? 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:49
|
|
|
Castle doctrine for the uterus!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:In what way is SCOTUS unchecked? All they've done is overrule themselves, it's not like Congress passed a law on abortion. Just like Congress could pass a new VRA but chooses not to. Democrats refuse to use the tools at their disposal because of imaginary limits from "legitimacy", presumably because setting a precedent of Congress doing things would raise uncomfortable questions about inaction on other issues. There's no constitutional crisis conflict, SCOTUS is just filling the power vacuum left by Democrats. It's not a constitutional crisis in the most technical sense, the constitution gives us clear guidance on how to get out of this situation. But it is definitely a crisis that our society has reached a point where that guidance cannot realistically be implemented. The constitution is going to self-destruct because it let the government be taken over by a cross-organ alliance that doesn't respect it Ershalim posted:But I guess, comedy option, one could justify the homicide of a fetus on the merits that it would be committing property damage to the uterus it was inhabiting? You could make trespass a capital offense if the site of the crime was a uterus
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:In what way is SCOTUS unchecked? All they've done is overrule themselves, it's not like Congress passed a law on abortion. Just like Congress could pass a new VRA but chooses not to. Democrats refuse to use the tools at their disposal because of imaginary limits from "legitimacy", presumably because setting a precedent of Congress doing things would raise uncomfortable questions about inaction on other issues. There's no constitutional crisis conflict, SCOTUS is just filling the power vacuum left by Democrats. Congress shouldn't need to pass a new VRA because Congress is explicitly the ultimate authority on voting rights, not the SCOTUS. Passing a new VRA that the GOP doesn't like would also result in it being struck down by this SCOTUS and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool at best. hobbesmaster posted:I don’t see how fetal personhood would necessitate that? States define murder including what constitutes justified homicide on their own. Maybe congress could do some fuckery with the civil rights legislation that gives the feds a “second shot” at otherwise state murder charges? Because without laws at the State and Federal level that explicitly state abortion is legally permissible homicide every abortion will by default be a murder. Even if a blue state passes a law protecting abortion it's still going to be aggressively prosecuted at the Federal level by Republican administrations and since there's no statute of limitations on murder, that means even if the Dems don't lose the WH in 2024 if they lose it in 2028 the Republican who comes into office could still go back and prosecute everyone who'd performed an abortion over the prior years. There is precisely zero chance of a Federal law ever being passed that protects abortion service in this way. There isn't a pro-choice majority in either chamber of Congress and the usual garbage Dems have already made it clear they will not kill the filibuster for this. After the midterms the Dems are unlikely to have a majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future, if ever due to voting restrictions the GOP continue to aggressively implement. Their current majority is only due to an absolutely fluke and Trump managing to self-sabotage the party in the GA runoff.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:There is precisely zero chance of a Federal law ever being passed that protects abortion service in this way. There isn't a pro-choice majority in either chamber of Congress and the usual garbage Dems have already made it clear they will not kill the filibuster for this. After the midterms the Dems are unlikely to have a majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future, if ever due to voting restrictions the GOP continue to aggressively implement. Their current majority is only due to an absolutely fluke and Trump managing to self-sabotage the party in the GA runoff. Sure but California would probably pass that law. Not certain about any other state though, even “blue super majority” states like NY and Illinois have a lot of anti choice democrats in government.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It's not a constitutional crisis in the most technical sense, the constitution gives us clear guidance on how to get out of this situation. But it is definitely a crisis that our society has reached a point where that guidance cannot realistically be implemented. The constitution is going to self-destruct because it let the government be taken over by a cross-organ alliance that doesn't respect it That's not a constitutional crisis, that's just a flaw in a constitution rooted in ancap libertarian principles. It's basically the constitution working as intended.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:04 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I can't believe Republicans are doing the exact thing that we've said for years they'd do the second that Roe was overturned. Fetal Personhood is also a de-facto ban on IVF and embryo donation. Vahakyla posted:Great forward thinking. If you're going to have to burn the house down to fix it putting up new wallpaper first doesn't do anything.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 16:05
|
|
