EPTPretty shitty development, what are the chances it’s just posturing of some kind?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3609
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
Pretty shitty development, what are the chances it’s just posturing of some kind? | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2938 Posts
On May 03 2022 15:34 WombaT wrote: I just hope this gets subsequently struck down in the landmark Wade vs Roe case so our ancestors get royally confused. Pretty shitty development, what are the chances it’s just posturing of some kind? Posturing from the GOP doesn't make sense -- they've actually won. This would just drum up support to 'take back the SC' from them. I actually think that this is not necessarily the worst thing that could happen -- with the right leadership, this could catalyse actual long-term change. As I see it, the American system needs to break down before there's enough appetite for meaningful change. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
I’m trying to construct a timeline for how fucked people are going to be in my head. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
On May 03 2022 16:58 Zambrah wrote: How long you imagine gay marriage lasts once abortion rights have been taken? I’m trying to construct a timeline for how fucked people are going to be in my head. That I doubt, same-sex relationships have gradually been normalised, and the trajectory steadfastly goes in one direction. Abortion has steadfastly remained just controversial enough to be in play in the States, rather than part of the furniture like in other places (although notably not Northern Ireland) I would hazard a guess that doubling down on the deflecting various issues and attention on to trans people will transpire though. Hopefully not for the sake of our trans brothers and sisters, but I mean recent precedent isn’t exactly promising. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27344 Posts
On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote: It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things. A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. The court has historically made lots of good decisions protecting minorities who would otherwise have been free to be persecuted if it were left to majoritarian whims. Not so cut and dry in this scenario, but ultimately those opposed to abortion aren’t obligated to abort potential children if it’s legal, but those who may wish to are restricted if it is illegal. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On May 03 2022 17:48 WombaT wrote: That I doubt, same-sex relationships have gradually been normalised, and the trajectory steadfastly goes in one direction. Abortion has steadfastly remained just controversial enough to be in play in the States, rather than part of the furniture like in other places (although notably not Northern Ireland) I would hazard a guess that doubling down on the deflecting various issues and attention on to trans people will transpire though. Hopefully not for the sake of our trans brothers and sisters, but I mean recent precedent isn’t exactly promising. Oh ye of too much faith, at the end of the day the Courts don’t need to win elections, if certain segments of society that don’t like or actively hate non-straight cisgendered white people want something the Courts can make it happen without having to worry about being re-elected, and if there’s one thing to have learned from Republicans and their ilk it’s that there’s never a “too far.” Supreme Court needs to be expanded ASAP. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46401 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22567 Posts
On May 03 2022 18:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Democrats can't get anything done anyway, Nor would Republicans be able to get anything done if they won.I'm surprised that the conservative Supreme Court and the red states are destroying women's rights before the midterms. Republicans are still likely to take both the Senate and the House in a few months, but I would have thought they'd wait until after they were reelected to attack such a large percent of their own constituents by repealing abortion. I'm sure this helps to focus Democratic messaging. The timing literally doesn't matter because the US legislative branch might aswell not exist. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18438 Posts
On May 03 2022 18:01 WombaT wrote: The court has historically made lots of good decisions protecting minorities who would otherwise have been free to be persecuted if it were left to majoritarian whims. Not so cut and dry in this scenario, but ultimately those opposed to abortion aren’t obligated to abort potential children if it’s legal, but those who may wish to are restricted if it is illegal. But this isn't really about minority rights. It's about whether or not fetuses (1) have rights, and (2) those go above and beyond the mother's right to bodily autonomy. That doesn't sound like something the courts should decide. It doesn't sound like something states should decide individually either. It sounds like something the constitution should decide. The problem here, is of course, that to put anything like that in the constitution requires an amendment, and there is absolutely no way either party is remotely possible of getting enough political support in congress to pass a constitutional amendment. So we're stuck with the courts deciding what is, or isn't a right as defended by some intentionally vague clauses in the bill of rights, written before we had (1) women's emancipation and (2) any decent medical understanding of what a fetus is. States should almost certainly not be left to their own devices here, though, because some will pick the worst of both worlds: (1) ban abortion, and (2) defund programs for sex ed and free contraceptives. As the cherry on top, these are no doubt also states that have the crappiest run child protective services, foster care, etc. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46401 Posts
On May 03 2022 18:40 Gorsameth wrote: Democrats can't get anything done anyway, Nor would Republicans be able to get anything done if they won. The timing literally doesn't matter because the US legislative branch might aswell not exist. If Democrats had ~2 additional senators to the left of Manchin/Sinema, then Dems would have been able to do more in Congress. Situations like our current one (impasses/stalemates) tend to favor the party that doesn't want any change/progress, i.e., the Republicans. The Republicans don't need to pass actively negative/regressive laws; they just need to repeal progressive ones and make sure the Democrats can't govern. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote: Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46401 Posts
On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote: Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. You'll need to fix your statement here, because this is false. It's not that more people believe that abortion is not a basic human right; it's that the anti-abortion minority is currently in control of the Supreme Court, thanks to an anti-abortion minority of voters who elected Trump. If this were based on real majority/plurality, then Republicans/conservatives/anti-abortioners wouldn't have as much power as they do. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On May 03 2022 22:18 JimmiC wrote: The whole point of creating a set of basic human rights is so they cannot be voted away and is a pillar of a functioning democracy. If 60% of the people in the US do not think women should have the right to go to school, how about think slavery should be brought back and that went to vote and I lost should I just accept I had my say? https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/ Yes, I think that if one day that were to be the majority opinion then it would have to be respected, because human rights are ultimately a societal construct to codify how we treat each other. If you don't agree with the majority, it doesn't mean you get to ignore them. It means you have to work to change their minds. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On May 03 2022 22:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You'll need to fix your statement here, because this is false. It's not that more people believe that abortion is not a basic human right; it's that the anti-abortion minority is currently in control of the Supreme Court, thanks to an anti-abortion minority of voters who elected Trump. If this were based on real majority/plurality, then Republicans/conservatives/anti-abortioners wouldn't have as much power as they do. I'm not referring to abortion in particular with this statement. I am aware that abortion enjoys popular support in the US overall, and has been so for a long time. My point is aimed more at those who reject abortion rights - there should be a vote so they can have their say, and then accept that they have tried and lost the argument. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On May 03 2022 22:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: You'll need to fix your statement here, because this is false. It's not that more people believe that abortion is not a basic human right; it's that the anti-abortion minority is currently in control of the Supreme Court, thanks to an anti-abortion minority of voters who elected Trump. If this were based on real majority/plurality, then Republicans/conservatives/anti-abortioners wouldn't have as much power as they do. It seems you have misread his post. in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46401 Posts
On May 03 2022 22:24 gobbledydook wrote: Yes, I think that if one day that were to be the majority opinion then it would have to be respected, because human rights are ultimately a societal construct to codify how we treat each other. If you don't agree with the majority, it doesn't mean you get to ignore them. It means you have to work to change their minds. This is literally what just happened with the repealing of Roe v. Wade. The minority - anti-abortion conservatives - completely ignored what the majority of people wanted. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. Here's one example: "The poll finds that 60% percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld, while 27% say it should be overturned." https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/politics/americans-abortion-roe-v-wade-poll/index.html Furthermore, from that same link: "More broadly, 58% to 36% of Americans oppose states considering or passing laws that make it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate there. Three out of four Americans say that the decision of whether or not a woman can have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor." The Republicans are the minority. The conservatives are the minority. The anti-abortioners are the minority. They happen to have more power now, because of Trump's SCJ picks, but that doesn't make their position any more popular. | ||
| ||
