|
Majorian posted:Okay, so if it would be so easy, can you please answer my original question, ie: on what legal grounds would SCOTUS overturn a federal law legalizing abortion? There needs to be a case for them to make a ruling. What would that case be, why are we sure that it would make it up through the court system all the way to SCOTUS, etc? Both are dumb arguments, we're in this position because the Right showed up consistently and voted R no matter who until they got sufficient power to stack the court with their ideological partisans while the Left spent the last 50 years trying to out virtue signal each other rather than doing what is actually necessary to achieve change and showing the gently caress up and making themselves a reliable voting block and thus difficult to ignore. The fascist on the other hand they show the gently caress up. As such the "really just want low taxes" Republicans know that if they ignore them they won't win any elections. Which is why the entire Republican Party is beholden to these MAGAts and just keep doubling down on the awful. Also I'm 53 years old and the idea that the Democrats are further to the right than they were on any subject than they were 20 years ago is just batshit delusion. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
USCE 2024: FART https://www.businessinsider.com/house-conservatives-fart-team-freedom-mike-johnson-gop-2024-4 Just more good decisions being made in congress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
Also the US has made it clear, through its continual support of Israel, that any piece of infrastructure, no matter how critical, is ok to attack, and any number of civilians casualties are acceptable, if you were attempting to destroy a military target. Of course, there is no need to present evidence of there being a valid military target present, we are happy to take your word for it. Its going to be an exciting century now that the hegemon has explicitly redefined the rules of engagement to be 'just go for it'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:37
|
|
|
Skex posted:Both are dumb arguments, we're in this position because the Right showed up consistently and voted R no matter who until they got sufficient power to stack the court with their ideological partisans while the Left spent the last 50 years trying to out virtue signal each other rather than doing what is actually necessary to achieve change and showing the gently caress up and making themselves a reliable voting block and thus difficult to ignore. That's because the American Left has been and continues to be too small to be a reliable voting block, though that is starting to change as the generations shift. There just are not enough Leftists in America. The massive voting block that "opposes" the Right in America are the Neoliberals/Centrists, but they don't like or want change and have been an eager part of the Reaganite consensus for 40 of those 50 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
trust no one who uses virtue signaling non-ironically
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Doesn't seem like there's much point to voting if even in the wildly impossible 2024 Dem blowout supermajority result, good things still can't happen. Lots of good things happened between 2021 and 2023 because we elected a very narrow Democratic majority that ran through a living fossil from the most pro Trump state in the country and a delusional green party activist turned Blue Dog. There just isn't one weird trick to win politics forever. If Democrats had codified Roe and appointed 30 fresh law school graduates to SCOTUS, the next Republican trifecta would still be able to repeal it and appoint 40 more groypers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:52
|
|
|
celadon posted:Also the US has made it clear, through its continual support of Israel, that any piece of infrastructure, no matter how critical, is ok to attack, and any number of civilians casualties are acceptable, if you were attempting to destroy a military target. Of course, there is no need to present evidence of there being a valid military target present, we are happy to take your word for it. Pretty sure the US made that clear in basically every conflict it's been meaningfully involved in since 1938, if not earlier. Israel didn't invent bombing hospitals, nor did they invent indiscriminate or barely-discriminate bombing campaigns against civilian areas. The US itself bombed hospitals in WWII, in Vietnam, and in Afghanistan. Probably in other wars too, those are just the ones where I can remember specific attacks off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 01:59
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:There just isn't one weird trick to win politics forever. If Democrats had codified Roe and appointed 30 fresh law school graduates to SCOTUS, the next Republican trifecta would still be able to repeal it and appoint 40 more groypers. And we're in this mess *Just kinda vaguely gestures at everything* because a lot of otherwise intelligent and well meaning people truly believed everything bad about America (Racism, imperialism etc etc) were Things of The Past and thus didn't need to be interrogated or argued against. It's one thing to think that progress is inevitable but it's a whole other thing to continue evolving and improving all the time
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 02:13
|
|
|
Looks like Israel couldn’t leave it https://x.com/abc/status/1781147061989023933?s=46&t=0ZwAPt7Rdn-yxkhTErNHRg
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 04:01
|
|
|
selec posted:It's good that we managed to both veto the proposal, and publicly show our rear end and how little international soft power we have now. That's cool. We got what we wanted, and managed to do it in a way that makes us look even more craven and isolated, coddling a genocidal ethnostate. I'm not sure the US instantly dismissing something most of the rest of the world supports is the example you want to provide to highlight an example of our powerlessness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 05:42
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I'm not sure the US instantly dismissing something most of the rest of the world supports is the example you want to provide to highlight an example of our powerlessness. Wielding our veto we have basically entirely because we were one of the five NPT nuclear weapons states isn't exactly a display of soft power as most would define it tbh. The UNSC veto is definitely a coercive action not one of convincing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 05:47
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:Wielding our veto we have basically entirely because we were one of the five NPT nuclear weapons states isn't exactly a display of soft power as most would define it tbh. The UNSC veto is definitely a coercive action not one of convincing. Certainly, but the implication of it trying to point to it as an example of our increasing weakness or irrelevance while telling the world "no, you do not get this" doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense, to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 05:48
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Certainly, but the implication of it trying to point to it as an example of our increasing weakness or irrelevance while telling the world "no, you do not get this" doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense, to me. It literally says "soft power" and is an example of the US be in out of step with the rest of the world, because it was the only state to veto the proposal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 06:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Okay, so if it would be so easy, can you please answer my original question, ie: on what legal grounds would SCOTUS overturn a federal law legalizing abortion? There needs to be a case for them to make a ruling. What would that case be, why are we sure that it would make it up through the court system all the way to SCOTUS, etc? This issue isn't in the Constitution, states have long made laws about it, and this new law contradicts those. We believe it might actually be a right reserved to the states, who are suing *farrrrrrt*
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 13:12
|
|
|
The virtue that I'm signalling is that genocide is bad (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 13:46
|
|
|
Fuckin' woke War Criminal, smdh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 13:51
|
|
|
Skex posted:Both are dumb arguments, we're in this position because the Right showed up consistently and voted R no matter who until they got sufficient power to stack the court with their ideological partisans while the Left spent the last 50 years trying to out virtue signal each other rather than doing what is actually necessary to achieve change and showing the gently caress up and making themselves a reliable voting block and thus difficult to ignore. I've made my points, if you disagree please let me know why. Thought of another way that Dems have moved right in 20 years. The concept of Medicare Advantage, renamed and fashioned into its current form in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, withthe basis of its existence relying on the pushing Medicare recipients into privately managed health care plans. Its extraordinary rate of increase has been coupled with a Democratic flagging of enthusiasm and retreat in plugging the holes of the Medicare system that Dems had sought to fill in previous decades, supplementary services like dental work, for example. Right now we're on the cusp of a majority of Medicare enrollees being in the program, which has a fixed payment system that incentivizes private companies to lower costs on individuals, with predicitble resullts: quote:In 2019, Medicare Advantage Organizations denied 13% of prior authorization requests that would have been accepted if the beneficiaries were in original Medicare.[16] In 2019 alone, Medicare Advantage plans cost tax-payers $9 billion more dollars than if beneficiaries were in original Medicare. This veering into privatization is seen in other ways, like the embracing of Dejoy in the Postal Service, whose privatization and marginalization was critically attacked during the Trump administration, but is now free and clear to pursue that program.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 14:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Okay, so if it would be so easy, can you please answer my original question, ie: on what legal grounds would SCOTUS overturn a federal law legalizing abortion? There needs to be a case for them to make a ruling. What would that case be, why are we sure that it would make it up through the court system all the way to SCOTUS, etc? A US law guaranteeing an individual right to something can also be interpreted (and legally speaking this is closer to the reality) as a restriction the federal government is putting on the states. It wouldn’t need someone creating standing to challenge the law; to get it in front of SCOTUS all a state would have to do would be to continue enforcing their abortion law and wait for someone who they arrested under it to appeal up due to the federal law. The basis they could use would probably be that the constitution doesn’t expressly give the federal government the right to restrict states in this way. All that being said I don’t agree that a law would’ve been useless. It could’ve created a settledness to the issue that might’ve sapped the political will to overturn it the way Roe was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 14:43
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:
While we are venturing into deeply hypothetical territory at this point, I don't believe that even having a federal law would stop an activist court from overturning it on flimsy grounds. We've seen time and time again that the current conservative USSC will use the most tortured logic to arrive at the point they want to get at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
I also agree that I don't think its a very good argument to say that passing Good Law to do Good Thing might've probably had been struck down by the Supreme Court anyways; its possible much like the PPACA was almost struck down until Roberts changed his mind. And it's definitely been the case that it's been argued in reverse before, that some good law passed by dems was actually meaningless because it got struck down or neutered by the courts and thus presented as a reason why Democrats haven't actually done anything despite evidence of the contrary. I think its fine to argue that it would've been great if the Dems had passed a law codifying Roe when they had the chance, but the real reasons why they didn't are much more nuanced and I think should suffice and it isn't need to talk about hypothetical Supreme Court decisions in the future. The reality is no one in any position of power and responsibility to Americans has any idea of what a Codified Roe vs Wade law looks like. There's no IIRC actual consensus on a politically palatable vision of what exactly should be protected, and what limits, if any should be. Its very easy for us to say "There should be none." But this isn't necessarily the consensus far and wide, and in response to the Supreme Court ruling on it we saw a lot of this debate occur, the fact is 'political capital' is kinda real and discussing and debating such a law and stakeholders and holding hearings would've taken a lot of energy and effort away from Bidens other priorities, they couldn't just pass a "Abortion for All" (AFA?) law on a whim, it would've taken tremendous effort, and even then I'm not sure you could use reconciliation to pass it, Republicans would agree to vote to end debate to allow it to come to a vote; and I definitely don't see Manchin agreeing to further erode the filibuster for this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1781280373705437407quote:One woman miscarried in the restroom lobby of a Texas emergency room as front desk staff refused to admit her. Another woman learned that her fetus had no heartbeat at a Florida hospital, the day after a security guard turned her away from the facility. And in North Carolina, a woman gave birth in a car after an emergency room couldn’t offer an ultrasound. The baby later died. Entirely predictably that in our liability-is-the-first-concern society that this would happen. It's not women who are seeking abortions who are suffering, it's anyone who is pregnant because the docs/admins don't want some jury deciding that no, actually, that emergency procedure to save the mother's life was a de facto abortion. It's why this isn't going to be an issue that goes away, it's going to keep happening over and over and over until reproductive rights are sacrosanct in every state in the country. Which many states are doing: https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1781043078104490136 I think these referenda are 11 for 11, and I think it's clear that the majority of people favor reproductive rights - or at least oppose total abortion bans - while you have Republican lawmakers failing to repeal comically draconian abortion statutes passed before the advent of electricity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Making this post so I can quote it in a few years when Democrats start opposing abortion ballot measures because it starts hurting their turnout when they can't hang the carrot of a federal abortion-protection law over voters who can instead guarantee abortions for themselves within their state. Taking Nevada, assuming they pass this measure, why would Dem voters in the state turn out in big numbers for abortion rights in future elections? One can claim they have empathy for people in other states but, well, Americans and empathy are a bit like oil and water oftentimes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 15:59
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Making this post so I can quote it in a few years when Democrats start opposing abortion ballot measures because it starts hurting their turnout when they can't hang the carrot of a federal abortion-protection law over voters who can instead guarantee abortions for themselves within their state. So, you're getting mad at hypothetical Democrats on things that aren't happening yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:So, you're getting mad at hypothetical Democrats on things that aren't happening yet? If the Dems aren't evil incarnate, why do I keep insisting that they are? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:14
|
|
|
Cimber posted:While we are venturing into deeply hypothetical territory at this point, I don't believe that even having a federal law would stop an activist court from overturning it on flimsy grounds. We've seen time and time again that the current conservative USSC will use the most tortured logic to arrive at the point they want to get at. I mean I laid out how they could do it so I agree they could overturn such a law. I just think that if a federal law had been passed all those years ago, by now when they’ve captured the court the public perception of what is acceptable may have shifted to where the Heritage Foundation cronies wouldn’t have felt comfortable pulling the trigger on shooting it down. Yet anyway. An amendment would be the real, final answer. A federal law would be really good though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:So, you're getting mad at hypothetical Democrats on things that aren't happening yet? No, just seeding future jokes. To your other point, isn't that why people fear Trump so much? Project 2025 is a list of things that aren't happening yet. Politics for voters is largely about predicting what politicians will do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
koolkal posted:No, just seeding future jokes. Do the Democrats currently have a plan written down like Project 2025 outlining their opposition to abortion rights if they stay in power? If not it doesn't seem comparable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
koolkal posted:No, just seeding future jokes. But Project 2025 is a thing that a group actually wrote with the intention of promoting it as a future policy platform. I don't think that's really the same as making up a type of guy that might exist in the future to be mad about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
koolkal posted:No, just seeding future jokes. Well, yes, but 2025 is an actual list of things Trump plans to do, and intentionally not protecting abortion rights to keep it an election issue is a thing you’re making up. And even if it weren’t, it isn’t like people are going to get MORE abortion rights under Republicans. I’m pretty sure we’ll get less 2025 stuff under Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Making this post so I can quote it in a few years when Democrats start opposing abortion ballot measures because it starts hurting their turnout when they can't hang the carrot of a federal abortion-protection law over voters who can instead guarantee abortions for themselves within their state. What are you talking about? You seem to be talking about cynical politicians doing things to keep being elected but you're only talking about Democrats here, when obviously Republicans have actually been doing this for decades; I don't think and haven't seen Dems doing this same kind of thing so its strange to me to create this hypothetical when there's no basis for it. Like hypothetically I can create the same hypothetical about hypothetical socialist politicians not implementing socialism as fast as they could for fear of losing elections to fascists the once they complete it and it should be clear why both hypotheticals don't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
koolkal posted:Making this post so I can quote it in a few years when Democrats start opposing abortion ballot measures because it starts hurting their turnout when they can't hang the carrot of a federal abortion-protection law over voters who can instead guarantee abortions for themselves within their state. The NYT Pitchbot does it better, but good try.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1781294777830432868 That's also I think the first actual hard Cybertruck sales figure we've seen. The issue is that the plastic cover that goes over the accelerator pedal can slip forward and wedge itself under some trim, leading to permanent pedal-to-the-metal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
koolkal posted:No, just seeding future jokes. This does not quite top you arguing that Trump is better for Palestine, but it's up there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1781294777830432868 I still do not understand how Teslas became such a status symbol when they're the only electric car that actively attempts to kill you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
Skex posted:Both are dumb arguments, we're in this position because the Right showed up consistently and voted R no matter who until they got sufficient power to stack the court with their ideological partisans while the Left spent the last 50 years trying to out virtue signal each other rather than doing what is actually necessary to achieve change and showing the gently caress up and making themselves a reliable voting block and thus difficult to ignore. Whether or not this is accurate depends on how restrictively one defines "the Left". If we use the phrase generally to describe Americans on one end of a spectrum of views, as Pew does, rather than identifying people adhering to a specific ideology, then "the Left" is a core voting demographic for Democrats. If they have been ignored, it was in spite of being the most reliable voting bloc the Democrats have. Pew Political Typology posted:Although they are one of the smallest political typology groups, Progressive Left are the most politically engaged group in the Democratic coalition. No other group turned out to vote at a higher rate in the 2020 general election, and those who did nearly unanimously voted for Joe Biden. They donated money to campaigns in 2020 at a higher rate than any other Democratic-oriented group. As of their most recent survey in 2021, the bloc of voters who were furthest left on issues were also the most enthusiastic Democrats. The disaffected leftists who aren't reliable voters are more numerous, but also aren't as radical as the hardcore partisans. That particular fissure isn't as apparent in their prior iterations of the survey, but those do still show that, generally, the voters who are the furthest left are also the most dedicated Democratic partisans. (edit: the existence of a substantial cohort of sharply left-leaning voters who are unreliable and don't like the party leadership, but when they vote, never vote for Republicans is a new thing.) Hopefully they update it after this election cycle. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Apr 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
Making this post so I can quote it in a few years when Democrats start requiring anyone seeking an abortion bring the freshly severed heads of at least 2 social security recipients. It's honestly incredibly hosed up that I could just invent a policy for Dems to pass in the future like that
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
Xombie posted:I still do not understand how Teslas became such a status symbol when they're the only electric car that actively attempts to kill you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Lots of good things happened between 2021 and 2023 because we elected a very narrow Democratic majority that ran through a living fossil from the most pro Trump state in the country and a delusional green party activist turned Blue Dog. This seems like a defeatist attitude. Based on this logic why try to ever make anything better? The Democrats still should have tried to codify Roe, which they could have probably done. But instead they just used it as a fund raising tool and to my knowledge it hasn't been a talking point or campaign promise by Biden or any of other major Democrat candidate Also, hear me out here, it would be a great idea if Democrats did stuff that simply prevented fash from ever getting a majority ever again, because that would result in a net positive for society as they wouldn't have to appease racists and religious fundamentalists anymore I know they don't actually want to do that because a supermajority means they have the ability to do things that oppose the wishes of their biggest donors in order to make the lives of the poorest people better but they don't even do a good job of lying about it I will never understand why so many people continue to insist that we need to maintain an electoral system that allows nazis and chuds to win sometimes. That's not how a sane modern society should operate. As soon as some mush brain state rep publicly states that UFOs are in the bible they should be quietly shuffled off to a safe and humane mental health care facility and their seat vacated immediately. But nope. "Democracy" is too important. We have to give the fash a turn once in a while otherwise it's "not fair"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What are you talking about? You seem to be talking about cynical politicians doing things to keep being elected but you're only talking about Democrats here, when obviously Republicans have actually been doing this for decades; I don't think and haven't seen Dems doing this same kind of thing so its strange to me to create this hypothetical when there's no basis for it. Like hypothetically I can create the same hypothetical about hypothetical socialist politicians not implementing socialism as fast as they could for fear of losing elections to fascists the once they complete it and it should be clear why both hypotheticals don't make much sense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:57 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/israhirsi/status/1780980484203327780 Ilhan Omar’s daughter was suspended for participating in a peaceful protest It appears as though the university president suspended them for the protest and then called the NYPD to remove them for trespassing https://www.columbiaspectator.com/city-news/2024/04/18/adams-nypd-announce-over-108-arrests-during-gaza-solidarity-encampment-sweep/ quote:Captain Jaclyn Keane confirmed at the press conference that all 108 arrested were charged with trespassing, and two were additionally charged with obstruction of governmental administration. The arrests came shortly after University President Minouche Shafik announced the suspension of the protesting students and authorized the NYPD to enter campus and “remove these individuals” from South Lawn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2024 17:01
|
|
