|
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 |
On May 10 2022 08:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 08:04 Neneu wrote:On May 10 2022 05:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 04:32 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though. It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want. What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do. Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either. You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy. I mean I don't doubt that you are prepared to make every possible cynical assumption about the Republican party, and just reduce everything to the simplest possible explanation of "Republicans are evil and this is them acting to consolidate their power and impose their evil views on the rest of us." But what we actually believe is that the Supreme court shouldn't unilaterally add text to the constitution in the form of new "rights" that aren't there. It's very much about maintaining our constitutional order. By the way abortion is going to remain very legal in the blue states. Which shows that the court is not trying to impose its views on abortion on those who don't agree with those views. That is actually what Roe did, and the court is now undoing that unlawful imposition. You and others may want to force red states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. With the same logic, guns would remain very legal in red states, why should the court impose its views on guns on those who don't agree with those views, regarding 2A? Time to get a well regulated militia. You and others may want to force blue states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. Or are you saying that this is only important when it comes to the stuff you/red states disagree on? By your reasoning, why even have a bill of rights if state laws are always better? He didn't say state laws are always better. He said he doesn't think there is a right to abortion enshrined in the constitution and therefore it should be left up to the states. If he thinks it is enshrined in the constitution then it's not left up the states. I don't see a problem with the logic of that, at least not to the point that we should toss out the bill of rights.
He says that state's rights should always supercede legal precedent. You're splitting hairs. There is also an amendment which specifically says that certain rights can be read into the Constitution without being specifically laid out. It's not used as the basis for much by itself, but it nullifies the argument that there is no basis whatsoever for reading the original judgement in Roe.
Also the argument that legal precedent is suddenly illegitimate and illegal is just bizarre. Half(all?) of the judicial system is bent around forging and interpreting judgements made in cases that had no like. Precedent determines what a law becomes in reality, not just what it looks like on a clean sheet of paper. It just reads partisan, tossing out laws and rights you don't want people to have and calling it illegal and unconstitutional. Which is all you're doing. You're taking the biggest fruit of the judicial system and calling it "illegal" because it suits you to do so.
At the end of the day, I know several people here and millions more besides are happy to argue the ins and outs of the evergreen and ever-ridiculous "state's rights" argument until the heat-death of the sun. I don't give a shit. If you're going to argue in favor of dismantling fundamental rights for women and minorities, just fucking say so. Call it what it is, stare these people in the face as you fuck them over for life, or sentence them to death. Because "my state's rights" is only ever invoked when we're talking about stripping people of their basic human rights. Call this shit what it is or GTFO.
|
I don't like the idea of encouraging more and more differences between states to the point of there being two different unions. Having one America going further and further into being third world nations while another America progressing to the point of being considered First world nations again. Expecially if we're encouraging more and more Human rights and living standard differences like this.
|
Somehow, now that conservatives think they've won, it's no longer about saving babies. It's no longer about state's rights. It's about owning the libs and wallowing in smug superiority.
Oh, and also rushing to turning The Handmaid's Tale into reality as soon as possible.
In response to women chanting "My body, my choice," this guy responds with
"You have no choice. Not your body, not your choice. Your body is mine. And you're having my baby."
Editing to avoid a double post
On May 10 2022 09:48 Sermokala wrote:
I don't like the idea of encouraging more and more differences between states to the point of there being two different unions. Having one America going further and further into being third world nations while another America progressing to the point of being considered First world nations again. Expecially if we're encouraging more and more Human rights and living standard differences like this.
A bunch of states refusing to allow human rights for a portion of their residents was the cause of the civil war. I wasn't expecting abortion and transgender healthcare to be the causes of Civil War 2: We're really doing this again?, but that might be the timeline we're living in.
|
At least more folks from the radical Right are taking the mask fully off, and saying what they've wanted to say their whole life. Much easier to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that that's all they want.
And if you're reading this, and want to go "Not All Conservatives", then fucking say something. Do something. Disavow them. Drive them out, establish that that's not what you stand for. But there's enough of them out there, saying this shit and doing this shit, and y'all are deafeningly silent. So don't play shocked when people think you're cool with it.
|
The trigger would be red states prosecuting women going across state lines to get abortions and charging people in other states with drug trafficking for shipping plan B/ Birth control across state lines. Once you have one person fleeing to a state where they have human rights and the state asking for extradition for a crime that isn't a crime in that state and the federal government backing up the state to kill the woman.
|
It all seems like people are watching TV shows and saying "That's a great idea. Let's implement that!" and then actually going forward. This is straight out of Utopia or whatever other show you want to insert here. I find it so fucking sad and pathetic that it's actually funny to see the decline happening at break neck speed. Shit, with the way the Rs are going, GH won't even need a revolution. The country will eat itself by the end of the decade.
|
On May 10 2022 04:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:02 Mohdoo wrote:On May 10 2022 03:33 micronesia wrote:
Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only. I think the right solution here is to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court by adding 4 justices. Once the Supreme Court just ends up being theatrics, it will lose a lot of its perceived power. Every time the pendulum swings and another president takes office, some more justices get added, so it’s just kinda not a thing anymore. As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is operating as an unelected ultimate power. The right solution is to invalidate it as an institution by packing the court I've never met someone as eager to live under an authoritarian government as you. A couple pages ago you wanted Biden to essentially be more like Trump and try to do more with executive orders and now you'd like to see him pack the Supreme Court. Seems like you'd basically be happy with a dictatorship so long as they forgive student loans.
I'm not calling for expansion of executive powers. I am calling for skipping all the failure of BBB and similarly misguided attempts at legislation tactics that haven't been sufficiently effective for the past 20 years. Imagine if Biden spent all that time on BBB actually doing things through the executive branch, which includes all of the parts of the executive branch, not just executive orders. There is quite a bit of work that could be done just through federal agencies.
As for the supreme court, even if we assume the founding fathers were masterful architects of society, which I think is a terrible assumption, it is plainly obvious the supreme court is not fitting into society the way they intended. Our current system of government is dysfunctional at best. We owe it to the generations that come after us to shake things up and be bold enough to make adjustments when they seem necessary. We can't be discouraged by the fact that it might be bumpy along the way. Letting our nation limp along when it could be thriving is unambitious at best.
|
On May 10 2022 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. It's bullshit to imply that a SCOTUS majority = voter majority, and you know it. A majority of Americans have consistently polled in favor of protecting abortion rights. Not majority of Democrats. Majority of Americans. This is unpopular by every metric except the 6 asses that were strategically planted in SCOTUS seats. They overturned what a majority of Americans want. Tell me how that's democratic. But yay, you get your win. That's all that matters. And let us not get bogged down in abstract shit like "is it democratic to repeal Roe". That's a misdirection. It's one of the problems with repealing Roe. But the main thing that upsets folks is that the rights of pregnant people are being dismantled, their healthcare options being removed, banned, and criminalized by a minority of religious extremists. The party of freedom telling everyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. Lol.
On May 10 2022 04:08 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword. Obviously repealing Roe isn't a threat to democracy. It is, however, a result of threats to democracy being ignored and brushed aside until they became actual harm to democracy, which has lead to the current situation of a very large number of American citizens losing a measure of bodily autonomy in a way that makes it clear that they cannot count on the damaged democratic process to protect them.
To me this point of view seems almost incoherent. And I agree that human rights need protection from the majority, but that's *anti-democratic*. I know people on the left love the word "democracy" at the moment, but please, let's try to make sense. The court is 6-3 conservative at the moment and progressives are wailing that it is removing itself from a political issue. We will now allow the people to make the laws. That's not a minority of people, i.e., 9 justices, but the people you say support abortion. (And spoiler, most of them support bans after the 1st trimester.) The rest about things like birth control being banned is fear-mongering. Maybe very specific forms in certain states, but in otherwise no, it's not going anywhere.
**
Second and relatedly, the left has moved way further on this issue than the right has, it's nonsensical to talk about conservatives showing their "true colors." Conservatives have been working for this result for decades. Meanwhile Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to considering a law in line with a number of European nations as a great blow against human rights. And women aren't more than marginally more pro-choice than men, so this just seems like a silly line on its face.
This will not be the end of the Republic, this will be a great step for the non-totalitarians as we remove this issue from lawfare to the political process, where energy can be channeled and expended into voting. Ultimately this will cool the national temperature; it's a step back from civil war (lol) not towards it.
|
On May 10 2022 13:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. It's bullshit to imply that a SCOTUS majority = voter majority, and you know it. A majority of Americans have consistently polled in favor of protecting abortion rights. Not majority of Democrats. Majority of Americans. This is unpopular by every metric except the 6 asses that were strategically planted in SCOTUS seats. They overturned what a majority of Americans want. Tell me how that's democratic. But yay, you get your win. That's all that matters. And let us not get bogged down in abstract shit like "is it democratic to repeal Roe". That's a misdirection. It's one of the problems with repealing Roe. But the main thing that upsets folks is that the rights of pregnant people are being dismantled, their healthcare options being removed, banned, and criminalized by a minority of religious extremists. The party of freedom telling everyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. Lol. Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:08 Kyadytim wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword. Obviously repealing Roe isn't a threat to democracy. It is, however, a result of threats to democracy being ignored and brushed aside until they became actual harm to democracy, which has lead to the current situation of a very large number of American citizens losing a measure of bodily autonomy in a way that makes it clear that they cannot count on the damaged democratic process to protect them. To me this point of view seems almost incoherent. And I agree that human rights need protection from the majority, but that's *anti-democratic*. I know people on the left love the word "democracy" at the moment, but please, let's try to make sense. The court is 6-3 conservative at the moment and progressives are wailing that it is removing itself from a political issue. We will now allow the people to make the laws. That's not a minority of people, i.e., 9 justices, but the people you say support abortion. (And spoiler, most of them support bans after the 1st trimester.) The rest about things like birth control being banned is fear-mongering. Maybe very specific forms in certain states, but in otherwise no, it's not going anywhere. ** Second and relatedly, the left has moved way further on this issue than the right has, it's nonsensical to talk about conservatives showing their "true colors." Conservatives have been working for this result for decades. Meanwhile Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to considering a law in line with a number of European nations as a great blow against human rights. And women aren't more than marginally more pro-choice than men, so this just seems like a silly line on its face. This will not be the end of the Republic, this will be a great step for the non-totalitarians as we remove this issue from lawfare to the political process, where energy can be channeled and expended into voting. Ultimately this will cool the national temperature; it's a step back from civil war (lol) not towards it.
That has to be the most partisan take i have read in a while. Are you aware of just how absurd that reads to a sane person?
The republicans are "cooling the national temperature"????
Let me explain to you how this situation reads to people who are not as insanely biased as you.
The republicans stole the fucking supreme court, and use that stolen court to take away peoples rights.
That is it. They have no right to that court. Why is the court 6:3 if the country is not? Why did their president who got elected with a minority of the votes deserve to seat 3! people onto that court? Just through a combination of McConnell assholery and luck?
This is just another case in a long line of bullshit where republicans game a broken system to take more power than they would deserve, and use that power for evil.
Ideally, a court would be apolitical. That seems to be impossible in the US. But if it is political, it should at least represent the people in some way.
|
Alito's opinion is one of the most apolitical possible. You don't like it, but that's not the same thing. The issue directly returns to the people you want to court to represent. That's even better! This is the point I've been trying to make but people are so animated they aren't even thinking through what they are saying. At least honestly embrace the anti-democratic thinking you all here are following.
And obviously for now the temp is up, but long term this is great for cooling tensions, esp at the federal level.
|
On May 10 2022 13:06 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. It's bullshit to imply that a SCOTUS majority = voter majority, and you know it. A majority of Americans have consistently polled in favor of protecting abortion rights. Not majority of Democrats. Majority of Americans. This is unpopular by every metric except the 6 asses that were strategically planted in SCOTUS seats. They overturned what a majority of Americans want. Tell me how that's democratic. But yay, you get your win. That's all that matters. And let us not get bogged down in abstract shit like "is it democratic to repeal Roe". That's a misdirection. It's one of the problems with repealing Roe. But the main thing that upsets folks is that the rights of pregnant people are being dismantled, their healthcare options being removed, banned, and criminalized by a minority of religious extremists. The party of freedom telling everyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. Lol. Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 04:08 Kyadytim wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword. Obviously repealing Roe isn't a threat to democracy. It is, however, a result of threats to democracy being ignored and brushed aside until they became actual harm to democracy, which has lead to the current situation of a very large number of American citizens losing a measure of bodily autonomy in a way that makes it clear that they cannot count on the damaged democratic process to protect them. To me this point of view seems almost incoherent. And I agree that human rights need protection from the majority, but that's *anti-democratic*. I know people on the left love the word "democracy" at the moment, but please, let's try to make sense. The court is 6-3 conservative at the moment and progressives are wailing that it is removing itself from a political issue. We will now allow the people to make the laws. That's not a minority of people, i.e., 9 justices, but the people you say support abortion. (And spoiler, most of them support bans after the 1st trimester.) The rest about things like birth control being banned is fear-mongering. Maybe very specific forms in certain states, but in otherwise no, it's not going anywhere. ** Second and relatedly, the left has moved way further on this issue than the right has, it's nonsensical to talk about conservatives showing their "true colors." Conservatives have been working for this result for decades. Meanwhile Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to considering a law in line with a number of European nations as a great blow against human rights. And women aren't more than marginally more pro-choice than men, so this just seems like a silly line on its face. This will not be the end of the Republic, this will be a great step for the non-totalitarians as we remove this issue from lawfare to the political process, where energy can be channeled and expended into voting. Ultimately this will cool the national temperature; it's a step back from civil war (lol) not towards it. Hold up. Two thirds of Americans do not think Roe v Wade should be overturned. We're not in a position where human rights need protection from the majority. We're in a situation where human rights needs protection from a minority that has dominant control of multiple levels of government because voting does not equal representation. Arguments that "the people will decide" ring hollow when we're in this situation because what the people voted was not what they got.
Let's go with a basic math lesson. If the Democrat candidate receives 65,853,514 votes, and the Republican candidate receives 62,984,828, that is not a majority of the United States 323.1 million residents. It also wasn't a majority of the eligible voters. So no matter how you cut it, that was a minority of the people deciding. But wait, there's more. Because the Republican candidate won. And 62,984,828 is not a majority of the 136,669,237 total votes cast. So that is a minority of a minority whose votes resulted in a situation where people are losing a right to bodily autonomy.
"Safe, legal, rare" was Bill Clinton shifting to the right. The left's position is largely where it was around when Roe v Wade was decided, having returned there after being dragged to the right in intervening decades. It might still be to the right of the original position.
Republican state congresspeople are already talking about classifying multiple types of birth control that aren't exclusively spermicidal or sperm barriers as murder, so that's not fearmongering
Also, which European nations are you talking about? Every nation in Europe except Poland allows abortion on request, with some limits on how far into the pregnancy the patient is.
This is very clearly inflaming national tensions. I don't feel the need to elaborate on this.
So basically everything you said was wrong.
I further do not see how you consider governments telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies regarding medical treatment to be non-totalitarian.
|
Norway28630 Posts
Abortion actually matters more to the women not allowed to get them than to the men opposed to women getting them, even if 50 years of them being legal has given you a different impression. This issue will never cool down as long as there are states imposing restrictions.
|
On May 10 2022 13:42 Introvert wrote:
Alito's opinion is one of the most apolitical possible. You don't like it, but that's not the same thing. The issue directly returns to the people you want to court to represent. That's even better! This is the point I've been trying to make but people are so animated they aren't even thinking through what they are saying. At least honestly embrace the anti-democratic thinking you all here are following.
And obviously for now the temp is up, but long term this is great for cooling tensions, esp at the federal level.
Ah yes. It's better to return the issue to the people. That's why it was so good that the Supreme Court never stepped forward to make decisions regarding segregation, interracial marriage, race based discrimination in housing, and left those issues to be decided by the people, who had showed and continued to show that they could be trusted to not deny rights to demographics not adequately represented in government.
Oh wait a minute.
|
On May 10 2022 13:56 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 13:06 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. It's bullshit to imply that a SCOTUS majority = voter majority, and you know it. A majority of Americans have consistently polled in favor of protecting abortion rights. Not majority of Democrats. Majority of Americans. This is unpopular by every metric except the 6 asses that were strategically planted in SCOTUS seats. They overturned what a majority of Americans want. Tell me how that's democratic. But yay, you get your win. That's all that matters. And let us not get bogged down in abstract shit like "is it democratic to repeal Roe". That's a misdirection. It's one of the problems with repealing Roe. But the main thing that upsets folks is that the rights of pregnant people are being dismantled, their healthcare options being removed, banned, and criminalized by a minority of religious extremists. The party of freedom telling everyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. Lol. On May 10 2022 04:08 Kyadytim wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword. Obviously repealing Roe isn't a threat to democracy. It is, however, a result of threats to democracy being ignored and brushed aside until they became actual harm to democracy, which has lead to the current situation of a very large number of American citizens losing a measure of bodily autonomy in a way that makes it clear that they cannot count on the damaged democratic process to protect them. To me this point of view seems almost incoherent. And I agree that human rights need protection from the majority, but that's *anti-democratic*. I know people on the left love the word "democracy" at the moment, but please, let's try to make sense. The court is 6-3 conservative at the moment and progressives are wailing that it is removing itself from a political issue. We will now allow the people to make the laws. That's not a minority of people, i.e., 9 justices, but the people you say support abortion. (And spoiler, most of them support bans after the 1st trimester.) The rest about things like birth control being banned is fear-mongering. Maybe very specific forms in certain states, but in otherwise no, it's not going anywhere. ** Second and relatedly, the left has moved way further on this issue than the right has, it's nonsensical to talk about conservatives showing their "true colors." Conservatives have been working for this result for decades. Meanwhile Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to considering a law in line with a number of European nations as a great blow against human rights. And women aren't more than marginally more pro-choice than men, so this just seems like a silly line on its face. This will not be the end of the Republic, this will be a great step for the non-totalitarians as we remove this issue from lawfare to the political process, where energy can be channeled and expended into voting. Ultimately this will cool the national temperature; it's a step back from civil war (lol) not towards it. Hold up. Two thirds of Americans do not think Roe v Wade should be overturned. We're not in a position where human rights need protection from the majority. We're in a situation where human rights needs protection from a minority that has dominant control of multiple levels of government because voting does not equal representation. Arguments that "the people will decide" ring hollow when we're in this situation because what the people voted was not what they got. Let's go with a basic math lesson. If the Democrat candidate receives 65,853,514 votes, and the Republican candidate receives 62,984,828, that is not a majority of the United States 323.1 million residents. It also wasn't a majority of the eligible voters. So no matter how you cut it, that was a minority of the people deciding. But wait, there's more. Because the Republican candidate won. And 62,984,828 is not a majority of the 136,669,237 total votes cast. So that is a minority of a minority whose votes resulted in a situation where people are losing a right to bodily autonomy. "Safe, legal, rare" was Bill Clinton shifting to the right. The left's position is largely where it was around when Roe v Wade was decided, having returned there after being dragged to the right in intervening decades. It might still be to the right of the original position. Republican state congresspeople are already talking about classifying multiple types of birth control that aren't exclusively spermicidal or sperm barriers as murder, so that's not fearmongering Also, which European nations are you talking about? Every nation in Europe except Poland allows abortion on request, with some limits on how far into the pregnancy the patient is. This is very clearly inflaming national tensions. I don't feel the need to elaborate on this. So basically everything you said was wrong. I further do not see how you consider governments telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies regarding medical treatment to be non-totalitarian.
Bed time but I'll be quick.
Your first few paragraphs are musguided, because this issue is returning to the states, there is no electoral college concern and in many states these things will be voted directly into state constitutions. There will be no federal abortion legislation because of the filibuster (McConnell won't get rid of it and hasn't).
Roe vs Wade was undemocratic in the extreme, and overruling it is democratic. And this is my main point in this string of posts. Stop appealing to "democracy" on this issue, because you are adamantly against it.
The birth control bit is fearmongering, but I know Doc already tried wirh no success on this issue. Get back to me when states actually do the things you are worried about. They aren't not about to be banned en masses, although perhaps certain "abortion pills" (using that term in haste) might be restricted.
The MS law, which this case is about, allows so far ad I read abortion for any reason until 15 weeks. All or almost all of the laws being passed in red states allow abortion for any reason, just not after a certain date without a extenuating circumstance. So that's not a difference. The difference is the precise timing.
Tensions will lower and move to states where people can A) fight and feel like they can actually make a difference and B) take a loss and realize it's not the end of the world.
On May 10 2022 14:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Abortion actually matters more to the women not allowed to get them than to the men opposed to women getting them, even if 50 years of them being legal has given you a different impression. This issue will never cool down as long as there are states imposing restrictions.
Sorry my point with bringing that up is that it's not obvious that abortion restrictions are great blows to human freedom when even so many of the population most affected by it want to see abortion curtailed past a certain point. And that point is more or less the same between men and women.
|
United States42490 Posts
Surely the people that the issue of abortion should be returned to are pregnant women.
|
Norway28630 Posts
This isn't a debate about whether abortion rights should be (federally) expanded to week 22 though. I know some leftists want that, but the outrage isn't about not getting to expand abortion rights, but the threat of losing existing rights. Framing it the way you are doing seems disingenuous.
From what I am reading, multiple states have laws that would outlaw abortion from week 6, if not for roe. A whole lot of women have no idea that they are pregnant by week 6. These laws are the ones that cause outrage, whereas whether the limit for no-questions-asked abortions are week 15 or later isn't a particularly big deal. (Abortions after that stage will normally have a medical reasoning anyway. )
|
On May 10 2022 14:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 13:56 Kyadytim wrote:On May 10 2022 13:06 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. It's bullshit to imply that a SCOTUS majority = voter majority, and you know it. A majority of Americans have consistently polled in favor of protecting abortion rights. Not majority of Democrats. Majority of Americans. This is unpopular by every metric except the 6 asses that were strategically planted in SCOTUS seats. They overturned what a majority of Americans want. Tell me how that's democratic. But yay, you get your win. That's all that matters. And let us not get bogged down in abstract shit like "is it democratic to repeal Roe". That's a misdirection. It's one of the problems with repealing Roe. But the main thing that upsets folks is that the rights of pregnant people are being dismantled, their healthcare options being removed, banned, and criminalized by a minority of religious extremists. The party of freedom telling everyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. Lol. On May 10 2022 04:08 Kyadytim wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword. Obviously repealing Roe isn't a threat to democracy. It is, however, a result of threats to democracy being ignored and brushed aside until they became actual harm to democracy, which has lead to the current situation of a very large number of American citizens losing a measure of bodily autonomy in a way that makes it clear that they cannot count on the damaged democratic process to protect them. To me this point of view seems almost incoherent. And I agree that human rights need protection from the majority, but that's *anti-democratic*. I know people on the left love the word "democracy" at the moment, but please, let's try to make sense. The court is 6-3 conservative at the moment and progressives are wailing that it is removing itself from a political issue. We will now allow the people to make the laws. That's not a minority of people, i.e., 9 justices, but the people you say support abortion. (And spoiler, most of them support bans after the 1st trimester.) The rest about things like birth control being banned is fear-mongering. Maybe very specific forms in certain states, but in otherwise no, it's not going anywhere. ** Second and relatedly, the left has moved way further on this issue than the right has, it's nonsensical to talk about conservatives showing their "true colors." Conservatives have been working for this result for decades. Meanwhile Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to considering a law in line with a number of European nations as a great blow against human rights. And women aren't more than marginally more pro-choice than men, so this just seems like a silly line on its face. This will not be the end of the Republic, this will be a great step for the non-totalitarians as we remove this issue from lawfare to the political process, where energy can be channeled and expended into voting. Ultimately this will cool the national temperature; it's a step back from civil war (lol) not towards it. Hold up. Two thirds of Americans do not think Roe v Wade should be overturned. We're not in a position where human rights need protection from the majority. We're in a situation where human rights needs protection from a minority that has dominant control of multiple levels of government because voting does not equal representation. Arguments that "the people will decide" ring hollow when we're in this situation because what the people voted was not what they got. Let's go with a basic math lesson. If the Democrat candidate receives 65,853,514 votes, and the Republican candidate receives 62,984,828, that is not a majority of the United States 323.1 million residents. It also wasn't a majority of the eligible voters. So no matter how you cut it, that was a minority of the people deciding. But wait, there's more. Because the Republican candidate won. And 62,984,828 is not a majority of the 136,669,237 total votes cast. So that is a minority of a minority whose votes resulted in a situation where people are losing a right to bodily autonomy. "Safe, legal, rare" was Bill Clinton shifting to the right. The left's position is largely where it was around when Roe v Wade was decided, having returned there after being dragged to the right in intervening decades. It might still be to the right of the original position. Republican state congresspeople are already talking about classifying multiple types of birth control that aren't exclusively spermicidal or sperm barriers as murder, so that's not fearmongering Also, which European nations are you talking about? Every nation in Europe except Poland allows abortion on request, with some limits on how far into the pregnancy the patient is. This is very clearly inflaming national tensions. I don't feel the need to elaborate on this. So basically everything you said was wrong. I further do not see how you consider governments telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies regarding medical treatment to be non-totalitarian. Bed time but I'll be quick. Your first few paragraphs are musguided, because this issue is returning to the states, there is no electoral college concern and in many states these things will be voted directly into state constitutions. There will be no federal abortion legislation because of the filibuster (McConnell won't get rid of it and hasn't). Roe vs Wade was undemocratic in the extreme, and overruling it is democratic. And this is my main point in this string of posts. Stop appealing to "democracy" on this issue, because you are adamantly against it. The birth control bit is fearmongering because, but I know Doc already tried wirh no success on this issue. Get back to me when states actually do the things you are worried about. They aren't not about to be banned en masses, although perhaps certain "abortion pills" (using that term in haste) might be restricted. The MS law, which this case is about, allows so far ad I read abortion for any reason until 15 weeks. All or almost all of the laws being passed in red states allow abortion for any reason, just not after a certain date without a extenuating circumstance. So that's not a difference. The difference is the precise timing. Tensions will lower and move to states where people can A) fight and feel like they can actually make a difference and B) take a loss and realize it's not the end of the world.
I'm not particularly appealing to democracy, because I don't think this should be decided democratically. I think bodily autonomy is an essential right that should be preserved no matter what percent of people vote against it.
I am pointing out that we're only at this point because of a breakdown in democracy that has lead to a situation where a majority of people did not vote for this and people are losing bodily autonomy anyway.
I'm against this issue being returned to the states, because it will be decided democratically, where in some states a majority vote to strip rights from a minority, or perhaps by a breakdown of where a minority vote to strip rights from a majority.
See my previous post for sample of examples about how "leaving it to the states" does not have a great track record when it comes to essential rights.
There will be no federal abortion legislation because of the filibuster (McConnell won't get rid of it and hasn't). This is 0% reassuring. McConnell will get rid of the filibuster the moment he thinks it will benefit the Republican party more than harm it. That's not even getting into some outcome where Republicans just get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
The birth control bit is fearmongering because, but I know Doc already tried wirh no success on this issue. Get back to me when states actually do the things you are worried about. They aren't not about to be banned en masses, although perhaps certain "abortion pills" (using that term in haste) might be restricted.
Conservatives telling lefties in to stop worrying about things in this thread has a not particularly great track record. We spent four years talking about how Trump and his rhetoric was dangerous, being told we were overreacting and being hysterical, and then Trump's worked up followers stormed the capitol. But anyway, Republican state congresspeople have issued what are essentially statements of intent on this issue. I'm not just pulling stuff out of a hat here.
EDIT: Louisiana has a bill that got out of committee a couple of days ago and is going to the full state House for a vote that makes anything post-conception murder, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. I'm worried because Republicans are already moving ahead with laws to do these things
The MS law, which this case is about, allows so far ad I read abortion for any reason until 15 weeks. All or almost all of the laws being passed in red states allow abortion for any reason, just not after a certain date without a extenuating circumstance. So that's not a difference. The difference is the precise timing. This is again factually incorrect. In at least 10 states, abortion is immediately illegal if Roe v Wade is overturned. As for the "just not after a certain date," the date most states enacting trigger laws are choosing is intentionally early enough that it functionally bans abortions.
Tensions will lower and move to states where people can A) fight and feel like they can actually make a difference and B) take a loss and realize it's not the end of the world. This reads like wishful thinking to me. People in red states already know they can't make a difference. Saying "it's not the end of the world" shows a remarkable lack of understanding of how important abortion access is for women's health. Even Ireland changed its laws in 2019 to allow abortions up to 24 weeks when continuing the pregnancy would risk mental or physical injury to the pregnant person that is greater than the risk of terminating the pregnancy.
Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous, and maternal mortality rates in the US are going up. People are going to die preventable deaths if Roe gets overturned and abortion ban trigger laws go into effect.
That's not even getting into the women's equality and dignity issue where if abortion isn't an option, the implication is that women have to choose risking an unplanned pregnancy if they want to be sexually active because birth control isn't perfect.
|
On May 10 2022 08:34 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 08:04 Neneu wrote:On May 10 2022 05:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 04:32 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 03:53 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 10 2022 03:45 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 02:28 Simberto wrote:On May 10 2022 02:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 09 2022 06:54 Acrofales wrote:On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote:[quote] To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/1523137624671940608Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler +I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes. Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople. This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways. One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system. The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey. Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions. This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy." Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order. Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution. The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though. It is amazing how you guys always hide behind principle to avoid arguing for the thing you actually want. What you want is for a minority of people to dictate what everyone does. They base what they want everyone to do on the very specific type of christianity that they believe in. Overturning Roe vs Wade isn't "helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order". This isn't what this is about. This is not about some high-minded principle. It is about a very specific thing. Control over women by forbidding them control over their own body by law. That is it. And i don't believe for a second that you believe that this is about some constitutional principle. You know what this is about, you just don't want to say it clearly, because you know that you sound like an asshole when you do. Abusing the system and breaking every norm in your way to place your religious crazies in the supreme court isn't a good thing either. You are happy that your guys are winning. You don't care how they got there. You don't care how evil the thing they want to do is. As long as your team is winning, you are happy. I mean I don't doubt that you are prepared to make every possible cynical assumption about the Republican party, and just reduce everything to the simplest possible explanation of "Republicans are evil and this is them acting to consolidate their power and impose their evil views on the rest of us." But what we actually believe is that the Supreme court shouldn't unilaterally add text to the constitution in the form of new "rights" that aren't there. It's very much about maintaining our constitutional order. By the way abortion is going to remain very legal in the blue states. Which shows that the court is not trying to impose its views on abortion on those who don't agree with those views. That is actually what Roe did, and the court is now undoing that unlawful imposition. You and others may want to force red states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. With the same logic, guns would remain very legal in red states, why should the court impose its views on guns on those who don't agree with those views, regarding 2A? Time to get a well regulated militia. You and others may want to force blue states to adhere to your political opinions, but the Supreme court is not a tool for you to do so. Or are you saying that this is only important when it comes to the stuff you/red states disagree on? By your reasoning, why even have a bill of rights if state laws are always better? He didn't say state laws are always better. He said he doesn't think there is a right to abortion enshrined in the constitution and therefore it should be left up to the states. If he thinks it is enshrined in the constitution then it's not left up the states. I don't see a problem with the logic of that, at least not to the point that we should toss out the bill of rights.
Yeah the difference is that the 2A is in the Constitution and abortion is not. So when the courts encounter a gun rights issue, they are obligated to preserve the 2A right. But when courts encounter an abortion rights issue, they are obligated to leave it to the legislature. In Roe they didn't leave it to the legislature, instead they effectively modified the Constitution. Over the next 50 years, a whole bunch of people got the impression that abortion is a constitutional right, even though the "right" was purely judge-made. But in our system judges are not supposed to unilaterally create new rights.
|
On May 10 2022 13:56 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2022 13:06 Introvert wrote:On May 10 2022 04:02 NewSunshine wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. It's bullshit to imply that a SCOTUS majority = voter majority, and you know it. A majority of Americans have consistently polled in favor of protecting abortion rights. Not majority of Democrats. Majority of Americans. This is unpopular by every metric except the 6 asses that were strategically planted in SCOTUS seats. They overturned what a majority of Americans want. Tell me how that's democratic. But yay, you get your win. That's all that matters. And let us not get bogged down in abstract shit like "is it democratic to repeal Roe". That's a misdirection. It's one of the problems with repealing Roe. But the main thing that upsets folks is that the rights of pregnant people are being dismantled, their healthcare options being removed, banned, and criminalized by a minority of religious extremists. The party of freedom telling everyone what they can and can't do with their bodies. Lol. On May 10 2022 04:08 Kyadytim wrote:On May 10 2022 03:59 Introvert wrote:
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword. Obviously repealing Roe isn't a threat to democracy. It is, however, a result of threats to democracy being ignored and brushed aside until they became actual harm to democracy, which has lead to the current situation of a very large number of American citizens losing a measure of bodily autonomy in a way that makes it clear that they cannot count on the damaged democratic process to protect them. To me this point of view seems almost incoherent. And I agree that human rights need protection from the majority, but that's *anti-democratic*. I know people on the left love the word "democracy" at the moment, but please, let's try to make sense. The court is 6-3 conservative at the moment and progressives are wailing that it is removing itself from a political issue. We will now allow the people to make the laws. That's not a minority of people, i.e., 9 justices, but the people you say support abortion. (And spoiler, most of them support bans after the 1st trimester.) The rest about things like birth control being banned is fear-mongering. Maybe very specific forms in certain states, but in otherwise no, it's not going anywhere. ** Second and relatedly, the left has moved way further on this issue than the right has, it's nonsensical to talk about conservatives showing their "true colors." Conservatives have been working for this result for decades. Meanwhile Democrats have gone from "safe, legal, and rare" to considering a law in line with a number of European nations as a great blow against human rights. And women aren't more than marginally more pro-choice than men, so this just seems like a silly line on its face. This will not be the end of the Republic, this will be a great step for the non-totalitarians as we remove this issue from lawfare to the political process, where energy can be channeled and expended into voting. Ultimately this will cool the national temperature; it's a step back from civil war (lol) not towards it. Also, which European nations are you talking about? Every nation in Europe except Poland allows abortion on request, with some limits on how far into the pregnancy the patient is.
Since You mentioned Poland, I would like to remind everyone that in our country, conservatives also used court. Abortion wasn't made illegal* (let's not go into details of what that entails, right now) by legislative action but by a stacked court deciding that existing law is unconstitutional.
|
I find it hilarious how the US system is bending backwards trying to justify things according to an ancient and outdated document that can't be updated because your politicians (and people) are split.
Roe vs Wade is, from what i gather, not a good ruling but its the only one the US had. Probably because congress is disfunctional since way longer than people think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
