|
Stereotype posted:It’s weird that the democrats are perpetually hamstrung by arbitrary procedural rules but republicans just barrel through them. The republicans serve a donor class that wants things broken and removed so they can become richer, and their voters are blood-hungry atavisms who will accept any decline in their quality of life so long as they believe liberals are mad about it and minorities are being harmed. The democrats serve a donor class that demands that certain elements of the status quo be preserved so they can become richer, and their voters are people who want things made better. So they’re expected to try to make things better but nothing they deliver can actually satisfy the needs of their voters (with some exceptions). That’s both harder for them and less essential to their mission than preserving the status quo. So, they are different from the republicans in that they have to try to do something, whereas the republicans just stop and disassemble things, and they’re pretty ready to just give up if it’s too hard, because the donors don’t really want it anyway. And a lot of them still have 1990s neoliberal brain fever and genuinely believe that markets are best and that everything should be time-limited and means-tested to the point of uselessness.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"voting rights" was never the only thing that could have prevented this. Voting could have prevented this. Had to be the right voting in very specific places, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:They had 60 (59 after about 6 months), they definitely would have if they had killed the filibuster. I remember the ACA whipping they had to do, there was only like 3 idiots holding out for garbage legislation that could have been ignored entirely without the filibuster and the same would probably have held true for other things. They may not be a block but they could probably whip 51 nerds consistently to pass stuff, even decorum poisoned compromises would have been better than the 7 and a half years of stonewalling. For the record, Al Franken wasn't seated until July 7th, and Tedward Kennedy died on August 25th. That's a lot to accomplish in less than two months.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:DoE yes, military I'm not sure. Military is directly in the Presidents power to run as needed. Chevron going away wouldn't affect military
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
External Organs posted:Would overturning Chevron also gently caress the military? The department of energy? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the military doesn't regulate firms, it just purchases from them. It exercises its authority over private firms by deciding whether or not to buy from them based on whatever policies it sets for eligible vendors, which overturning Chevron wouldn't affect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the military doesn't regulate firms, it just purchases from them. It exercises its authority over private firms by deciding whether or not to buy from them based on whatever policies it sets for eligible vendors, which overturning Chevron wouldn't affect. Correct. The closest thing the military does is place restrictions on contracted firms that they have to adhere to certain laws/policies/regulations, but as that's part of the contractual activity, I don't believe it's covered by Chevron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Correct. The closest thing the military does is place restrictions on contracted firms that they have to adhere to certain laws/policies/regulations, but as that's part of the contractual activity, I don't believe it's covered by Chevron. I actually don't think the military gets much actual say in that either, I think its more the civilian administration of the DoD.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
Obama himself said they codifying RvW into a federal statue was not a legislative priority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Obama himself said they codifying RvW into a federal statue was not a legislative priority. Alito and the other conservatives were going to get rid of it no matter what, they would have just said the federal law was unconstitutional, or whatever other reason he needed to create.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 01:49
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I honestly don't think it would have mattered. Assuming Trump still won and the same justices put into place, they would have still done away with abortion. However it does seem that at least trying would help the Democrats have an example to point to of "we need at least X seats in Y to get this to stick" to show to voters, rather than the current situation where they have been saying it was important to them but not actually following through on that in their actions of the candidates they put forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:11
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Obama himself said they codifying RvW into a federal statue was not a legislative priority. There is no federal statute codifying Roe that this court would not strike down, it’s pointless
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
Its not even difficult to come up with a plausible way to strike it down. 10th amendment seems obvious, especially since we no longer believe in the commerce clause. (except for marijuana, we definitely can still ban that). If anyone complains about inconsistency, Alito can just get red faced and yell "this is different because we are talking about life!" again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:21
|
|
|
You know, not to hand it to him, but reading what Roberts wrote it did struck me how _remarkably_ different his stance is from his looney peers.quote:“The Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system—regardless of how you view those cases,” And, in quote:"woman’s right to abortion should extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose.” He writes the word "right", acknowledging that there is such a thing. Is this him being coy, or are the loonies just so much loonier?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
Roberts correctly sees this decision as potentially undermining a much longer period of more impactful conservative jurisprudence on the court that could have potentially included the same overturning of Roe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:You know, not to hand it to him, but reading what Roberts wrote it did struck me how _remarkably_ different his stance is from his looney peers. Roberts in his heart is a far right crazyman and if he wasn't running things in the center chair he'd probably vote accordingly. But for some reason he takes being chief justice extremely seriously and cares A LOT about how he will be remembered in history books. This is the man who wrote the opinion to strike down Obamacare, but then flinched at the last moment because he thought taking away coverage from millions of people would cause him to be damned by historians and law schools forever, so he went "uhhh... wait never mind, its a... I guess its a tax somehow, so its ok" and abandoned his own opinion. (the 4 dissenters were pissed and left his opinion mostly unchanged causing it to be unsigned and weirdly triumphant-sounding for a dissent)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Roberts correctly sees this decision as potentially undermining a much longer period of more impactful conservative jurisprudence on the court that could have potentially included the same overturning of Roe. What is he afraid? Court packing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
He's probably concerned about his "legacy", and he's very concerned that this might mean fewer fawning NYT op-ed's about how brilliant and moderate he is, along with fewer invites to cocktail parties where the attendees dawn over him. If Biden and the DNC weren't absolutely useless, Roberts might worry about the federal or a state government responding to a ruling dismantling Roe v Wade, the VRA, or the administrative state by going "lol, nope!" and refusing to follow it, but since the current Democratic leadership has approximately as many balls as a eunuch convention, that'll never happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Roberts might worry about the federal or a state government responding to a ruling dismantling Roe v Wade, the VRA, or the administrative state by going "lol, nope!" and refusing to follow it It's not an abortion ban my dude. It's an allowance of abortion bans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 04:05
|
|
|
Grape posted:It's not an abortion ban my dude. It's an allowance of abortion bans. It is, like many things the court has done recently, creating circumstances to which Congress will have an entirely predictable reaction (inaction until 2024, then either more inaction or a federal ban depending on how the election goes)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:What is he afraid? Court packing? Besides what azflyboy said, he also wanted to keep the court's crazy on the downlow, so they could continue to fly under the radar, gutting important doctrines and protections while leaving the empty husks in place for the sake of appearances. It's hard for anyone but politics nerds to care about things that are technically shrunk down to nothing, in certain situations, in certain areas, but never actually outright banned. Whereas going fully mask off and banning popular things all over the place because they're conservative bugaboos threatens that plan which he's been so successful at to date, makes them unable to hide behind the "nonpartisan" fig leaf, and threatens the popular legitimacy of the court entirely, risking an upswell of public sentiment turning against the court and pushing for real reform that would actually stop this agenda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
Grape posted:It's not an abortion ban my dude. It's an allowance of abortion bans. I admit that Dobbs wasn't a great example, but my point still stands, since the Roberts court has issued (and will continue to issue) rulings where a Democratic administration with Trump-ish ethics could have said "we regard the ruling and court as illegitimate, and will therefore ignore it", since SCOTUS has zero ways to enforce their rulings. Obviously, doing that results in one hell of a constitutional crisis (and lots of other problems) and is incredibly unlikely to happen, but the "boiling a frog" approach to rolling back rights Roberts favors makes that reaction less likely than the "hold my beer and watch this!" approach that results from Roberts having no control of the court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Besides what azflyboy said, he also wanted to keep the court's crazy on the downlow, so they could continue to fly under the radar, gutting important doctrines and protections while leaving the empty husks in place for the sake of appearances. It's hard for anyone but politics nerds to care about things that are technically shrunk down to nothing, in certain situations, in certain areas, but never actually outright banned. Whereas going fully mask off and banning popular things all over the place because they're conservative bugaboos threatens that plan which he's been so successful at to date, makes them unable to hide behind the "nonpartisan" fig leaf, and threatens the popular legitimacy of the court entirely, risking an upswell of public sentiment turning against the court and pushing for real reform that would actually stop this agenda. Compare, e.g., Putin’s ongoing success at destabilizing western governments via soft power over the past few decades, until he went fully mask off and tried to invade Kyiv
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 04:50
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Besides what azflyboy said, he also wanted to keep the court's crazy on the downlow, so they could continue to fly under the radar, gutting important doctrines and protections while leaving the empty husks in place for the sake of appearances. It's hard for anyone but politics nerds to care about things that are technically shrunk down to nothing, in certain situations, in certain areas, but never actually outright banned. Whereas going fully mask off and banning popular things all over the place because they're conservative bugaboos threatens that plan which he's been so successful at to date, makes them unable to hide behind the "nonpartisan" fig leaf, and threatens the popular legitimacy of the court entirely, risking an upswell of public sentiment turning against the court and pushing for real reform that would actually stop this agenda. I am hopeful that a couple decades from now we will be laughingly telling kids that the most diabolically effective and evil chief justice we've ever had, who absolutely 100% would have successfully boiled us all slowly into hellworld if he got his way, just inexplicably had his brilliant plans just completely wrecked because the new crazy people Trump picked wouldn't stick to the master plan and ended up enraging the nation. That is assuming a lot this year and in 2024 from both the voters and from the politicians, but hope is not (yet) dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 04:55
|
|
|
Glimm posted:There is no federal statute codifying Roe that this court would not strike down, it’s pointless Who loving cares! At least it give the public perception that they actually care about something, but loving no, if something doesn't benefit them or fatten their pockets they don't lift a god drat loving finger! They're a big part of the reason this has become problem in the first place. loving cowards! They don't stand for anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 05:30
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Who loving cares! At least it give the public perception that they actually care about something, but loving no, if something doesn't benefit them or fatten their pockets they don't lift a god drat loving finger! They're a big part of the reason this has become problem in the first place. loving cowards! The day it passed, it would have done nothing, because Roe was already law. Every single day after that until last Friday, it would have done nothing, because Roe was still law. (Assuming no conservative court decided to strike it down until now; an optimistic assumption, but also irrelevant, because its presence or absence changes nothing.) Friday, it would have done nothing, because it would have been struck down alongside Roe. Every single day since its enactment, it would have done jack poo poo. Personally, I think if they're going to pass laws they'd be better off passing things that materially benefit people in any way whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 06:34
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:You know, not to hand it to him, but reading what Roberts wrote it did struck me how _remarkably_ different his stance is from his looney peers. Wow, you can really feel the desperation. That moment the monster you created is no longer the monster you can control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 06:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I am hopeful that a couple decades from now we will be laughingly telling kids that the most diabolically effective and evil chief justice we've ever had, who absolutely 100% would have successfully boiled us all slowly into hellworld if he got his way, just inexplicably had his brilliant plans just completely wrecked because the new crazy people Trump picked wouldn't stick to the master plan and ended up enraging the nation. That is assuming a lot this year and in 2024 from both the voters and from the politicians, but hope is not (yet) dead. The last time we had a court doing this much "legislating from the bench" was the Lochner era, and since that spanned about 40 years, and most of the Trump chudges will be on the court for at least another 30, we might start to get voting and women's rights back some time in the 2050's or 60's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Every single day since its enactment, it would have done jack poo poo. Personally, I think if they're going to pass laws they'd be better off passing things that materially benefit people in any way whatsoever. So you rather they do nothing, because nothing is what they’ve been doing, and now that Roe is gone they’re going to continue to do nothing. That’s all they’re good for; loving nothing! And I’m tired of it!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 06:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They didn’t have the votes to eliminate the filibuster, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. They also didn't have the votes to make Hillary president in 2016 so it's just as irrelevant Fuschia tude posted:The day it passed, it would have done nothing, because Roe was already law. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 07:21
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The day it passed, it would have done nothing, because Roe was already law. This is... not correct. A judicial precedent is not a law. What Roe v. Wade established was a right to abortion stemming from the due process clause of the 14th amendment already extant in the constitution. Meaning that, absent an actual law being passed by congress that protected and grounded a woman's right to an abortion specifically, the supreme court could simply change its interpretation of the constitution, and the right would vanish. And lo and behold, that was exactly what happened. This is the same reason that Thomas' call to look at Lawrence, Griswold and Obergefell is so chilling, because those cases were decided on the same grounds as Roe, and there are no federal laws protecting those rights. Would passing a law have made any difference? Maybe not - especially with this court - but it would have made the fight more difficult. Codifying abortion-rights into law would have been an added layer of protection. Again, perhaps not enough, but to say it would have done jack poo poo is, I think, to overstate the case. On the other hand, you are all now living in the Kritarchy of Gilead, so...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 07:57
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I am hopeful that a couple decades from now we will be laughingly telling kids that the most diabolically effective and evil chief justice we've ever had, who absolutely 100% would have successfully boiled us all slowly into hellworld if he got his way, just inexplicably had his brilliant plans just completely wrecked because the new crazy people Trump picked wouldn't stick to the master plan and ended up enraging the nation. That is assuming a lot this year and in 2024 from both the voters and from the politicians, but hope is not (yet) dead. Roberts is still pretty young for a Justice, I would take even odds on him continuing to be chief justice in 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Roberts is still pretty young for a Justice, I would take even odds on him continuing to be chief justice in 20 years. RBG died at 87, so by metric, he would have exactly 20 years left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 08:11
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Roberts in his heart is a far right crazyman and if he wasn't running things in the center chair he'd probably vote accordingly. But for some reason he takes being chief justice extremely seriously and cares A LOT about how he will be remembered in history books. Well too late for him now, he let the other crazies drag his reputation to hell with theirs. His tenure will be remembered the same as the Taney Court; by how terrible the social consequences of the bullshit he cosigned in the name of politics were.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 08:44
|
|
TLM3101 posted:This is... not correct. Actually the Defence of Marriage Act (DOPA) is still on the books, which means if Obergefell would be struck down, gay marriage would be federally outlawed again. Moreover the whole movement against the rights you have listed currently is mostly based on the argument, that the constitution does not enshrine them, which means that they at least would have to find new arguments why Congress is not allowed to establish them in regular law.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 10:05
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:You're conflating the liturgical politics of the church and the politics of the people who identify with the church, which is ridiculous. Not sure how useful this information is, though if you're in activism that involves religious groups it might be-- mainline Protestants skew more socially progressive than Catholics on every measure. Not just in church policy, but as a group. For abortion specifically, here's a breakdown of it. It's from 2014, but it's a trend that's been true for decades and is likely to still hold. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/ OP was totally correct about anti-Catholicism being hosed around and having some troubling implications for immigrant communities, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 11:11
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The day it passed, it would have done nothing, because Roe was already law. Not if they wrote it to mandate certain ages that some states banned or prevented some specific restrictions. That would have helped people and done something now too. At least until struck down but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 12:30
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The day it passed, it would have done nothing, because Roe was already law. If it had been passed within the past two years it would have rendered the Dobbs case moot and forced the theocrats to start over, preserving Roe for another cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
I'm absolutely not an expert on executive powers, but couldn't Biden issue an executive order recognizing abortion as a human right? He never would, obviously, but I feel like at least one of the treaties we're signed into does. We'd basically be in a position of "Missouri must keep abortion legal to prevent war with Tahiti."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 13:00
|
|
|
Executive orders don't work that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 13:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
moths posted:I'm absolutely not an expert on executive powers, but couldn't Biden issue an executive order recognizing abortion as a human right? He could. It just wouldn't have any practical effect. An executive order is an order by the President to an executive branch agency to tell them to do or stop doing a certain thing. Saying "It is the position of this administration that the right to abortion is a human right" really doesn't do a lot, practically. He's said he is looking at other executive orders he could issue regarding abortion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 13:18
|
|
