|
House Republicans are giving up on passing a full national ban on abortion this year because they fear it will be too damaging in 2024 and not even become law anyway. The new official policy is that it should be "left up to the states" and for members of congress to provide no comment about their opinion of various state-level restrictions because those are state issues. They will also attack Democratic policies on abortion as too extreme and criticize the "allowing abortion right up until delivery" position of Democrats who voted for the Women's Health Protection Act in 2021. John Cornyn says that congressional Republicans never wanted to ban abortion at the federal level and repealing Roe v. Wade was always about federalism and getting the power back to the states: quote:“I think there is some confusion among the pro-life community as to what exactly we were asking for. In Roe versus Wade, we were asking that we go get the authority back to the states, and now people want to continue the fight here in Washington, and I disagree with that approach.” https://twitter.com/AnnieGrayerCNN/status/1650148875930333184 quote:House Republicans punt on national abortion ban amid fears of 2024 backlash Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Apr 24, 2023 |
# ? Apr 24, 2023 14:55 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 09:15 |
|
I think this is more ‘we know this is politically toxic and we will pass this if we win but we aren’t going to talk about it’
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:06 |
|
Lol they aren't going to stop trying to outright ban abortion, they are just gonna take a break until some of the heat is off and they clinche whatever power they can get in 2024.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:09 |
|
Even if they take back the Senate, Republicans aren't going to kill the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban, because they know the filibuster is a major barrier to the economic and electoral reforms that they want to avoid at all costs, and with no filibuster those policies would be more likely to pass in the medium term. Republicans want to ban abortion nationally but can't. Their choices are to pretend that they can ban abortion, or to pretend that they don't want to. For years they've taken the former approach but now they think it's smarter to take the latter. It's not going to be easy, because of how thoroughly they've branded themselves as an anti-abortion party, and because elements within the party will continue to push more extreme policies at the state and national level regardless of what Mitch and Kevin and Ronna McDaniel want.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:19 |
|
Mellow Seas posted:Even if they take back the Senate, Republicans aren't going to kill the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban, because they know the filibuster is a major barrier to the economic and electoral reforms that they want to avoid at all costs, and with no filibuster those policies would be more likely to pass in the medium term. Of course they are, then they'll reinstate it immediately and act like anyone even thinking of removing the filibuster is removing a cornerstone of democracy.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:22 |
|
kdrudy posted:Of course they are, then they'll reinstate it immediately and act like anyone even thinking of removing the filibuster is removing a cornerstone of democracy.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:23 |
|
kdrudy posted:Of course they are, then they'll reinstate it immediately and act like anyone even thinking of removing the filibuster is removing a cornerstone of democracy. Yeah, I hadn't really thought of it, but I think you're right. Kill the filibuster for two years when they next have a trifecta, then pull the ladder up behind them right before they lose the Senate and dare the decorum-poisoned Democrats to do the same as them. It's the exact same logic as McConnell refusing to hear Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS: sure, the Democrats could pull the same maneuver on us, but they won't, so why shouldn't we do this?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:28 |
|
Mellow Seas posted:Even if they take back the Senate, Republicans aren't going to kill the filibuster to pass a national abortion ban, because they know the filibuster is a major barrier to the economic and electoral reforms that they want to avoid at all costs, and with no filibuster those policies would be more likely to pass in the medium term. This is just shockingly naive. Not trying to be mean but, you do realize that these are fascists you're talking about, right? Not only are they incapable of shame, but the idea that they are itself represents their greatest asset. They are liars to their very core.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:31 |
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:This is just shockingly naive. Not trying to be mean but, you do realize that these are fascists you're talking about, right? Not only are they incapable of shame, but the idea that they are itself represents their greatest asset. They are liars to their very core. Yes, their goal is to have unlimited, eternal control of the Senate, and the structure of the Senate makes that a plausible goal for them, but they are not going to achieve that goal in the next couple of cycles, and so they would have to consider what Democrats would do when they get the chamber back. And leaving the filibuster in place works fine for the GOP because their only real priorities, spending cuts and tax cuts, can already be passed via reconciliation. (And no, Republicans can't just kill the filibuster and say "just kidding, it's back on" and expect Democrats to go along with that when they are back in the majority. Yes sure, "Dems are wimps" or whatever, but that's just not how politics works at all. That's not how anything works.)
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:45 |
|
Mellow Seas posted:(And no, Republicans can't just kill the filibuster and say "just kidding, it's back on" and expect Democrats to go along with that when they are back in the majority. Yes sure, "Dems are wimps" or whatever, but that's just not how politics works at all. That's not how anything works.) Why not? Do you believe Democrats would be willing to steal a SCOTUS seat like McConnell or no?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:51 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:House Republicans are giving up on passing a full national ban on abortion this year because they fear it will be too damaging in 2024 and not even become law anyway. the 2024 Oct Surprise is going to them trying to push a thing.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:51 |
|
No way they'll actually kill abortion, they care about fundraising more.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:51 |
|
Gumball Gumption posted:No way they'll actually kill abortion, they care about fundraising more. Never think this. They will try to kill abortion and then find the next thing to repeal. No more hormonal birth control would be next.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:55 |
|
As more and more absolute lunatics get elected in the Republican Party, the more likely it is that they will actually believe (or believe even harder I guess) the bullshit the old guard sold them on and actually do things like outlaw abortion. Do not, under any circumstances, think that the Republican Party has any idea what it is truly doing anymore outside of a basic desire to hurt people who aren't them.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:58 |
|
Gumball Gumption posted:No way they'll actually kill abortion, they care about fundraising more. I dunno. I would never in a million years have believed they would manage to overturn Roe v. Wade, but here we are in that million-and-first year.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:59 |
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Never think this. They will try to kill abortion and then find the next thing to repeal. No more hormonal birth control would be next. Nah, I'm with you. That's really my point. Everyone thought we wouldn't be in the current situation because they knew that the Republicans were bluffing because they're rational actors pulling a scam. Except they're not, they are a couple generations into true believers who are ideologically driven and there are just as many in on the scam who wouldn't try to kill the filibuster or abortion as there are those who absolutely would go for those ideological wins.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 15:59 |
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Why not? Do you believe Democrats would be willing to steal a SCOTUS seat like McConnell or no? I don't think it's the same thing, anyway. We already have an example of McConnell killing a type of filibuster (for SCOTUS nominees) and Democrats declining to put it back in place. We also have an example of Dems killing a type of filibuster themselves (for other judicial nominees). What we don't have is any examples of filibusters being killed and then put back into place. If the Democrats actually acted the way that is being suggested here, the GOP could have put judicial and SCOTUS filibusters back in place with a rule change during the lame duck before Biden's term began, which would have prevented Biden's many, many judge appointments and his appointment of KBJ. They didn't do that because they knew the first thing Schumer would do once when he was majority leader is just remove the filibuster rules again. Gumball Gumption posted:Nah, I'm with you. That's really my point. Everyone thought we wouldn't be in the current situation because they knew that the Republicans were bluffing because they're rational actors pulling a scam. Except they're not, they are a couple generations into true believers who are ideologically driven and there are just as many in on the scam who wouldn't try to kill the filibuster or abortion as there are those who absolutely would go for those ideological wins. Yes, of course, there are absolutely people who are true believers, like I said, and they are going to seriously hamstring any effort by party leaders to act like the party isn't going to keep pushing. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 24, 2023 |
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:01 |
|
Judgy Fucker posted:Yeah, I hadn't really thought of it, but I think you're right. Kill the filibuster for two years when they next have a trifecta, then pull the ladder up behind them right before they lose the Senate and dare the decorum-poisoned Democrats to do the same as them. It's the exact same logic as McConnell refusing to hear Garland's appointment to the SCOTUS: sure, the Democrats could pull the same maneuver on us, but they won't, so why shouldn't we do this? Well, this take ignores that fact that the “decorum poisoned” Dems set the stage by allowing Senate rules to be changed by a simple majority to begin with, to say nothing of the fact that they then unilaterally made federal judiciary appointments filibuster-free. This fiction that the left are feckless or overly beholden to the rules is a fig leaf for the fact that they don’t want to do the leftist thing and deal with the fallout. They could have easily made abortion legal nationally, they just didn’t want to.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:03 |
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:They could have easily made abortion legal nationally, they just didn’t want to. And, of course, there are at least two Dems who won't kill the filibuster, so even if the other 49 were united in wanting to pass an abortion law that would be quickly struck down, to make a point - which, to be clear, I think would be a good idea - they can't pass it. But the continued existence of the filibuster and how it reflects on the priorities of "The Democrats" is a conversation we've had a lot so I don't want to get all that deep into it... e: The Women's Health Protection Act has been reintroduced in the current Senate with 49 Democrats cosponsoring. If Republicans came out with a bill and 49 of their Senators supported it, would we say that such a bill wasn't a real priority for the party? Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Apr 24, 2023 |
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:06 |
|
Mellow Seas posted:Do you think SCOTUS wouldn't have declared that law unconstitutional? Or, you know, try anything other than to ask for donations so we can "vote 'em out." Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Apr 24, 2023 |
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:14 |
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Pull a FDR, ignore the ruling and threaten to pack the court. The constitutional lawyers in the crowd probably have a better understanding of what I am about to say, so if I am wrong apologies. I thought there was a legal theory that Congress could just say this law is not reviewable by the supreme court as it exists outside of original jurisdiction. I know there was some talk of that during marriage equity that the Democrats could pass a law making marriage equal for hetero and homosexual couples and lockout the courts that way. In this way, Congress does have a check on a run away supreme court. Something about the clause that allows Congress to decide the size and scope of the courts.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:19 |
|
It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:22 |
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Pull a FDR, ignore the ruling and threaten to pack the court. And it's just hard to do with a narrow majority, obviously, especially when two of the Senators in your "majority caucus" of 51 are openly funded by conservative donors. Obviously when FDR Automata 10 Pack posted:Pull a FDR, ignore the ruling and threaten to pack the court. Automata 10 Pack posted:It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Apr 24, 2023 |
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:26 |
|
Mooseontheloose posted:The constitutional lawyers in the crowd probably have a better understanding of what I am about to say, so if I am wrong apologies. I thought there was a legal theory that Congress could just say this law is not reviewable by the supreme court as it exists outside of original jurisdiction. I know there was some talk of that during marriage equity that the Democrats could pass a law making marriage equal for hetero and homosexual couples and lockout the courts that way. In this way, Congress does have a check on a run away supreme court. Something about the clause that allows Congress to decide the size and scope of the courts. One point about this legal theory: SCOTUS would get to rule over whether Congress actually has the power to put a law outside of SCOTUS review, so functionally it's no different from "why not just everyone ignore the courts?"
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:30 |
|
Mooseontheloose posted:The constitutional lawyers in the crowd probably have a better understanding of what I am about to say, so if I am wrong apologies. I thought there was a legal theory that Congress could just say this law is not reviewable by the supreme court as it exists outside of original jurisdiction. I know there was some talk of that during marriage equity that the Democrats could pass a law making marriage equal for hetero and homosexual couples and lockout the courts that way. In this way, Congress does have a check on a run away supreme court. Something about the clause that allows Congress to decide the size and scope of the courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping quote:In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. This is generally held to say what you say- that Congress is allowed to exempt any and all areas of law from judicial scrutiny that are not explicitly listed in the first half of the clause Killer robot posted:One point about this legal theory: SCOTUS would get to rule over whether Congress actually has the power to put a law outside of SCOTUS review, so functionally it's no different from "why not just everyone ignore the courts?" It's functionally different in that the Constitution explicitly says that Congress can do this, and the court has upheld and complied with that power in the past. If they reverse themselves, if Congress strips a jurisdiction and they say "nuh uh, we're ruling on it anyway", we have a crisis
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:35 |
|
Killer robot posted:One point about this legal theory: SCOTUS would get to rule over whether Congress actually has the power to put a law outside of SCOTUS review, so functionally it's no different from "why not just everyone ignore the courts?" No, Article III pretty clearly states that congress can limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in certain classes of cases, but can't dictate the outcomes of individual cases or be too specific. The issue would be how to make it narrowly tailored for abortion without accidentally throwing a bunch of other types of cases outside of the jurisdiction of federal courts.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:37 |
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory. you do realize that Donald Trump said women should be jailed for having abortions right? Or that the House overwhelmingly passed abortion protections?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:38 |
|
It appears that Tucker Carlson got canned. I can't understand why Fox would give the boot to their money-printing machine. https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1650523507795566592?s=20 https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1650522522578739202?s=20 https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1650523748326309888?s=20
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:38 |
|
Part of the dominion settlement?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:39 |
|
When you cost the boss $787m.... Still, this is stunning, he's far and away the biggest draw on Fox and probably the biggest white nationalist voice in America. There is no bigger platform for him than Fox News, this is going to have a massive positive effect on political discourse in the US.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:39 |
|
Dick Trauma posted:It appears that Tucker Carlson got canned. I can't understand why Fox would give the boot to their money-printing machine. Bitch bye
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:40 |
|
zoux posted:When you cost the boss $787m.... We said the same thing after Beck or Hannity. There will be a new Muppet in the same timeslot spouting the same rhetoric.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:40 |
|
Mooseontheloose posted:you do realize that Donald Trump said women should be jailed for having abortions right? Or that the House overwhelmingly passed abortion protections? I mean what, people are going to think Joe Biden supports abortion rights just because his DOJ has sued to stop anti-abortion laws, and because he appointed a pro-abortion SCOTUS justice and dozens of pro-abortion judges at lower levels, and because he is constantly talking about the importance of abortion rights? Forget it, he didn't use mind control to pass a law! Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Apr 24, 2023 |
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:41 |
|
Morrow posted:We said the same thing after Beck or Hannity. There will be a new Muppet in the same timeslot spouting the same rhetoric. And where is Glenn Beck these days... Carlson was a unique draw for these people, there's no nihilist spin you can give it that will make this less than what it is: a massive shift in American political discourse and an insane L for Fox News. There is no platform for Tucker greater than the one he had on Fox. They aren't even giving him a farewell show, his rear end is fired.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:42 |
|
Always take screenshots. This is gone.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:42 |
|
Uhhh there's no chance he's running is there?
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:44 |
|
FizFashizzle posted:Part of the dominion settlement? Morrow posted:We said the same thing after Beck or Hannity. There will be a new Muppet in the same timeslot spouting the same rhetoric. I think it is likely those two factors. We probably won't ever know exactly what if they don't make it public. But, Bill O'Reilly/Glenn Beck/Judge Piro or whoever were their big moneymakers too. It is probably part of the dominion settlement/being the most public face of the group that cost them almost $800 million. I'm sure they will find someone who will replace them. The silver lining is that it is probably going to be impossible to find someone who is willing to go as far as Tucker did with his wild white supremacist normalization. Returning to Hannity-style partisan Republican and "immigration/urban decay" dog whistling during prime time is probably an effective improvement, but there will still be tons of lovely things aired on Fox in the coming years.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:47 |
|
FizFashizzle posted:Part of the dominion settlement? Did any of the major personalities mention, on air, a mea culpa in reference to Dominion? Could have been part of the settlement and Fox is terminating anyone that doesn’t comply. Pure speculation.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:52 |
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:It'll be really funny if Trump continues to attack the Republican establishment from the pro-choice position in the Republican party and finds himself as the more actively pro-choice candidate than Biden, who can't even muster to legislate even after the "historic" 2022 midterm victory. I definitely wouldn't frame it as pro choice, but he absolutely has broken from the Republican establishment messaging on abortion, specifically that overturning Roe was a (political) mistake and that from here everything should be left up to the states. The latter got him some blowback from pro-life groups who want to push for a national ban. It's a smart political move that puts him at odds with the Republican establishment and in line with the majority of Republican voters.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:52 |
|
|
# ? May 23, 2024 09:15 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think it is likely those two factors. We probably won't ever know exactly what if they don't make it public. Laura Ingraham is still on Fox right? Pretty sure she's a barely closeted Nazi. She will probably get Tuckers spot.
|
# ? Apr 24, 2023 16:52 |