Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[Crazy_Ivan80]

So not much that would have really made a difference right now.

No I don't think there is anything that can make a difference right now - although I hope the White House explored executive orders (and I'd fully use orders that you know this court will strike down).

But I think a large part of the response to this court, which is only getting started, and what the GOP is doing is mass mobilisation. It is calling on people to get involved in politics. This is an issue (as are contraception, gay marriage etc) where there is majority support, so try to mobilise the majority. Don't just fundraise off them (not least because people might reasonably ask if donating to Democrats is the best use of money) or take a really passive position of waiting until the Supreme Court opens its eyes - the Supreme Court is not going to save these rights and is unlikely to change for the next twenty years given the ages.

indeed, which is why it might have been better hadn't abortion been decided by the courts in the first place but had gone via the regular process. Would have taken longer but it would have been lodged far stronger in society.

but now? the US will need to get rid of its reactionaries first

[mongers]

Just pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Just pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

and then the next will pack the court too... ad infinitum

[Tonitrus]

So which side of the US civil war will the NATO 5th article apply to?

I just hope that when Texas votes to secede, that after the siege of Dallas, Gen. Milley will march to the sea/Galveston (while liberating Austin on the way.

[Iormlund]

Just pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

and then the next will pack the court too... ad infinitum

Yeah, but the alternative is to have reactionaries dominating the court for a generation.

At least that way you have joint custody.

[mongers]

And the Republicans have already 'packed' it with their slight of hand over
obama's non-pick and their last one, anyway.

[Josquius]

Just pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

and then the next will pack the court too... ad infinitum

Not necessarily a terrible thing. Just takes away the courts part in things and shows its no longer viable.

[Jacob]

No I don't think there is anything that can make a difference right now - although I hope the White House explored executive orders (and I'd fully use orders that you know this court will strike down).

But I think a large part of the response to this court, which is only getting started, and what the GOP is doing is mass mobilisation. It is calling on people to get involved in politics. This is an issue (as are contraception, gay marriage etc) where there is majority support, so try to mobilise the majority. Don't just fundraise off them (not least because people might reasonably ask if donating to Democrats is the best use of money) or take a really passive position of waiting until the Supreme Court opens its eyes - the Supreme Court is not going to save these rights and is unlikely to change for the next twenty years given the ages.

Yup. The GOP is likely using this to increase motivation (and thus turnout). One hopes the Democrats can do the same.

[Admiral Yi]

To be clear, I don't have a magic solution or anything. Just feel like venting and commenting on how depressing this development is.

I fully support Languish as a venue to vent.  On the other hand I do object when someone takes shots at people here while doing so.

Take shots at the real villains.

[grumbler]

I remember reading somewhere (don't know where and it was a long time ago) that if the abortion issue had never been decided by the courts but via the regular democratic process it would have been far less contentuous but far more available accross the US than it is now (or will be soon).

Any thoughts on wether this might have been true?
And given the current circumstances, might still become true in time? Or is this a thing, together with a seemingly rising number of things, that will be decided by the courts?  Government by appointed judges rather than by elected representatives. (and to be fair: we're seeing a rise of this in Europe too).

A federal law passed to codify Roe would simply have been declared unconstitutional by this USSC.  Another problem with such a law is that abortion would nationally have been subject to the whims of the electorate, with Democratic and Republican regimes alternately passing and then repealing abortion laws.

[Zoupa]

Packing the Court won't even work, as Sinema and Manchin are sure to vote against it.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I remember reading somewhere (don't know where and it was a long time ago) that if the abortion issue had never been decided by the courts but via the regular democratic process it would have been far less contentuous but far more available accross the US than it is now (or will be soon).

Any thoughts on wether this might have been true?
And given the current circumstances, might still become true in time? Or is this a thing, together with a seemingly rising number of things, that will be decided by the courts?  Government by appointed judges rather than by elected representatives. (and to be fair: we're seeing a rise of this in Europe too).

A federal law passed to codify Roe would simply have been declared unconstitutional by this USSC.  Another problem with such a law is that abortion would nationally have been subject to the whims of the electorate, with Democratic and Republican regimes alternately passing and then repealing abortion laws.

thanks, and true.

but in the counterfactual: assuming RvW never happened, wouldn't abortion have continued to become legal in ever more states as -over time- solid majorities came into being? Thus making it unlikely that there would ever be a majority to repeal those state laws again due to abortion not being an issue of too much contention anymore when it was made legal?

I'm just going by analogy (in sofar it's applicable) of what happened over here. Abortion (subject to quite some restrictions) only got legalised in 1990 (much later than RvW obviously) after a long proces and with some shanigans at the time of legalisation. Further refinement of the laws surrounding abortion has been ongoing since then. Opponents haven't been able, afaik, to get a majority together to delegalise abortion since 1990.

Something similar happened with the legalisation of gay marriage btw (where we were amongst the first countries though).

The particularities of our respective systems may have made certain routes impossible to take for either country of course but I wonder if a slower but steadier legalisation on a state by state basis would have resulted in the legalisation of abortion being uncontestable once it happened.
Basically taking slower change but much harder to undo on a societal level.

But all that would of course also hinge on the american system not going seemingly ever more unhinged over the past few decades. (but again: the same shit exists in europe too on both sides of the political isle with the center just melting away.)

[viper37]

Let's focus on the important stuff, like Trans ppl in sports or interns at lefty organizations.

Yes, absolutely.  The Democrats should make their priority.

I guess if Sheilbh can blame Brexit on Remainers, you can blame this Supreme Court decision on Democrats.

The Republicans promised to do it if they were elected.  Trump said he'd name judges who would do it if he was elected.  Trump was elected, he named judges who could do it and they did it.

If I vote for a political party that promises seperation from Canada, I can not be indignant that they then hold a referendum on seperation.  If a politician promises to do something I don't like, I tend not to vote for that politician.  That people still elect these people tells me their either like it that way, or the alternative is not pleasing.

I was mostly sarcastic in my post, but the Democrats tend to make very bad political campaigns and fail to get elected in contested areas.  Gerrymandering can explain a bit in House and State elections, but not all of it.  But we did discuss this in another thread, and I don't believe we have reached consensus yet.  Well, I mean, I don't think our American friends have reached concensus yet.

[viper37]

My point: we can talk about sports, the economy, trans sports or interns in lefty orgs. We can safely ignore that if we're raped tomorrow, we won't be going to jail if we try to abort, you know, with us not having a uterus and all that.

Hence male privilege, reinforced in 2022 in the greatest country EVAH.

Men and women being different, they face different problems through their life.

Sure, the risk of me getting raped is minimal.  Even with a female boss, the risk of me getting rape by my boss would be minimal.  Sexual harassment does become more common as more women and gays make it to the top, however, so it's mostly a dynamic of power rather than gender.  Rape is stricly about physical prowess: you can subdue the other by force.

There are, however, a number of issues men are facing that women rarely have to feel, hence the high rate of suicide amongst males.

[The Brain]

Any time estimate on the follow-up decision making abortion unconstitutional?