Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 08:02:53 PM

Title: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 08:02:53 PM
This could probably go in another thread but seemed perhaps important enough for its own. I have never heard of a draft opinion leaking before publication:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

QuoteBy JOSH GERSTEIN and ALEXANDER WARD

05/02/2022 08:32 PM EDT

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," Alito writes.

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," he writes in the document, labeled as the "Opinion of the Court." "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court's holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.

The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It's unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.

The draft opinion offers an extraordinary window into the justices' deliberations in one of the most consequential cases before the court in the last five decades. Some court-watchers predicted that the conservative majority would slice away at abortion rights without flatly overturning a 49-year-old precedent. The draft shows that the court is looking to reject Roe's logic and legal protections.

A person familiar with the court's deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.

The three Democratic-appointed justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.

The document, labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, includes a notation that it was circulated among the justices on Feb. 10. If the Alito draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of Mississippi in the closely watched case over that state's attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

A Supreme Court spokesperson declined to comment or make another representative of the court available to answer questions about the draft document.

POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court's proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.

The disclosure of Alito's draft majority opinion – a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations – comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.

Under longstanding court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court's opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization could change.

The chief justice typically assigns majority opinions when he is in the majority. When he is not, that decision is typically made by the most senior justice in the majority.

A George W. Bush appointee who joined the court in 2006, Alito argues that the 1973 abortion rights ruling was an ill-conceived and deeply flawed decision that invented a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and unwisely sought to wrench the contentious issue away from the political branches of government.

Alito's draft ruling would overturn a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Mississippi law ran afoul of Supreme Court precedent by seeking to effectively ban abortions before viability.

Roe's "survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant to the plainly incorrect," Alito continues, adding that its reasoning was "exceptionally weak," and that the original decision has had "damaging consequences."

"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," Alito writes.

Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.

Alito's skewering of Roe and the endorsement of at least four other justices for that unsparing critique is also a measure of the court's rightward turn in recent decades. Roe was decided 7-2 in 1973, with five Republican appointees joining two justices nominated by Democratic presidents.

The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion," the draft concludes. "Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

The draft contains the type of caustic rhetorical flourishes Alito is known for and that has caused Roberts, his fellow Bush appointee, some discomfort in the past.

At times, Alito's draft opinion takes an almost mocking tone as it skewers the majority opinion in Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon appointee who died in 1999.

"Roe expressed the 'feel[ing]' that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance," Alito writes.

Alito declares that one of the central tenets of Roe, the "viability" distinction between fetuses not capable of living outside the womb and those which can, "makes no sense."

In several passages, he describes doctors and nurses who terminate pregnancies as "abortionists."

When Roberts voted with liberal jurists in 2020 to block a Louisiana law imposing heavier regulations on abortion clinics, his solo concurrence used the more neutral term "abortion providers." In contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas used the word "abortionist" 25 times in a solo dissent in the same case.

Alito's use of the phrase "egregiously wrong" to describe Roe echoes language Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart used in December in defending his state's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The phrase was also contained in an opinion Kavanaugh wrote as part of a 2020 ruling that jury convictions in criminal cases must be unanimous.

In that opinion, Kavanaugh labeled two well-known Supreme Court decisions "egregiously wrong when decided": the 1944 ruling upholding the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States, and the 1896 decision that blessed racial segregation under the rubric of "separate but equal," Plessy v. Ferguson.

The high court has never formally overturned Korematsu, but did repudiate the decision in a 2018 ruling by Roberts that upheld then-President Donald Trump's travel ban policy.

Plessy remained the law of the land for nearly six decades until the court overturned it with the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation ruling in 1954.

Quoting Kavanaugh, Alito writes of Plessy: "It was 'egregiously wrong,' on the day it was decided."

Alito's draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages' worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents – in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.

The implication that allowing states to outlaw abortion is on par with ending legal racial segregation has been hotly disputed. But the comparison underscores the conservative justices' belief that Roe is so flawed that the justices should disregard their usual hesitations about overturning precedent and wholeheartedly renounce it.

Alito's draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.

"Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population," Alito writes. "It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black."

Alito writes that by raising the point he isn't casting aspersions on anyone. "For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion," he writes.

Alito also addresses concern about the impact the decision could have on public discourse. "We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work," Alito writes. "We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision."

In the main opinion in the 1992 Casey decision, Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Davis Souter warned that the court would pay a "terrible price" for overruling Roe, despite criticism of the decision from some in the public and the legal community.

"While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable," the three justices wrote then. "An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe's concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe's central holding a doctrinal remnant."

When Dobbs was argued in December, Roberts seemed out of sync with the other conservative justices, as he has been in a number of cases including one challenging the Affordable Care Act.

At the argument session last fall, Roberts seemed to be searching for a way to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban without completely abandoning the Roe framework.

"Viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. But, if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?" Roberts asked during the arguments. "The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks."

While Alito's draft opinion doesn't cater much to Roberts' views, portions of it seem intended to address the specific interests of other justices. One passage argues that social attitudes toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies "have changed drastically" since the 1970s and that increased demand for adoption makes abortion less necessary.

Those points dovetail with issues that Barrett – a Trump appointee and the court's newest member – raised at the December arguments. She suggested laws allowing people to surrender newborn babies on a no-questions-asked basis mean carrying a pregnancy to term doesn't oblige one to engage in child rearing.

"Why don't the safe haven laws take care of that problem?" asked Barrett, who adopted two of her seven children.

Much of Alito's draft is devoted to arguing that widespread criminalization of abortion during the 19th and early 20th century belies the notion that a right to abortion is implied in the Constitution.

The conservative justice attached to his draft a 31-page appendix listing laws passed to criminalize abortion during that period. Alito claims "an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment...from the earliest days of the common law until 1973."

"Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right," Alito adds.

Alito's draft argues that rights protected by the Constitution but not explicitly mentioned in it – so-called unenumerated rights – must be strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition. That form of analysis seems at odds with several of the court's recent decisions, including many of its rulings backing gay rights.

Liberal justices seem likely to take issue with Alito's assertion in the draft opinion that overturning Roe would not jeopardize other rights the courts have grounded in privacy, such as the right to contraception, to engage in private consensual sexual activity and to marry someone of the same sex.

"We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," Alito writes. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Alito's draft opinion rejects the idea that abortion bans reflect the subjugation of women in American society. "Women are not without electoral or political power," he writes. "The percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so."

The Supreme Court remains one of Washington's most secretive institutions, priding itself on protecting the confidentiality of its internal deliberations.

"At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know," Ginsburg was fond of saying.

That tight-lipped reputation has eroded somewhat in recent decades due to a series of books by law clerks, law professors and investigative journalists. Some of these authors clearly had access to draft opinions such as the one obtained by POLITICO, but their books emerged well after the cases in question were resolved.

The justices held their final arguments of the current term on Wednesday. The court has set a series of sessions over the next two months to release rulings in its still-unresolved cases, including the Mississippi abortion case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 02, 2022, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 08:02:53 PMThis could probably go in another thread

I just posted it in the Biden presidency thread, indeed.  :P
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 02, 2022, 08:16:08 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 08:02:53 PMThis could probably go in another thread but seemed perhaps important enough for its own. I have never heard of a draft opinion leaking before publication:

Probably because there have been very few USSC opinions that will have such a profound effect on everyday American society to such a degree, especially since a dozen states have automatic triggers on their state lawss outlawing abortion in the event Roe v Wade is overturned.  Fuck it, it ain't the Pentagon Papers. You want to know the skinny on the court, just ask Mrs. Thomas at your next Stop the Steal rally.

So congrats, you conservative cunts;  you finally got what you wanted.

And fuck all you amateur beard-stroking pipe-smoking pencilnecks with your "but legally it was a bad law" locker room lawyer "states' rights"  bullshit. You get to keep (minority, poor, unmarried, sinful) whore bitches right where you want them, as usual.  Fucking fucks.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PM
Guess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 09:12:45 PM
I'm no legal mind but this decision by Alito seems wild, like it's virulent and almost unprofessional in some passages.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Habbaku on May 02, 2022, 09:13:58 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PMGuess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .

That's the first thing that crossed my mind as well. What a gift.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 02, 2022, 09:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PMGuess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  They've ceded the Culture Wars.  Foreign policy, public health and economic policy all take a back seat to how hard the GOP can bone over blacks, gays, women, workers and the miscellaneous.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:24:07 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 09:12:45 PMI'm no legal mind but this decision by Alito seems wild, like it's virulent and almost unprofessional in some passages.

The kindest thing you can say is it's a first draft and it reads like it.  On an issue that it acknowledges is divisive, it seems to revel in its intemperateness.  And for an opinion that holds Roe to strict standards of formalist constitutional logic, it utterly fails those standards in attempting to distinguish the other "autonomy" cases e.g. Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, Obergefell, etc.   No surprise the Chief doesn't want to touch this and I wonder if one or more of the majority (Kavanaugh maybe?) splits off into a concurrence.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:25:06 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 02, 2022, 09:23:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PMGuess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .

Wrong, wrong, wrong.  They've ceded the Culture Wars.  Foreign policy, public health and economic policy all take a back seat to how hard the GOP can bone over blacks, gays, women, workers and the miscellaneous.

That was today.  Tomorrow is a different world.  Wind: sowed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 02, 2022, 09:51:11 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:25:06 PMThat was today.  Tomorrow is a different world.  Wind: sowed.

This: bullshit.

If there's anything the electorate is consistent about since the 1980s when it comes to single issue passion causes, the 85% of the voters with the "yeah, it's important, but" moderate attitude will be out-campaigned, out-muscled, and out-voted by the 15% of the voters who live, breathe and eat their issue.  Guns...tax cuts...immigration...climate...abortion.

Nobody cares enough about filthy whores and their bunga bunga uterus parties to worry about this for the midterms.  Not when it comes to, oh, inflation or oil prices. OH NOES MUH SUPPLY CHANZ

So no, tomorrow is not a different world. It's the same world, only with two dozen more Boeberts, Gaetzes and MJTs in the House, and Trump back in 2024.

On the other hand, maybe we would've dodged this bullet if that useless piece of shit deadbeat fucktard Garland got on the bench.  Useless fuck probably still wouldn't have finished his stationery order from Office Depot by now, so I doubt he would've even gotten to this opinion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on May 02, 2022, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PMGuess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .

Doubtful. We'll get a mixture of Dems hemming and hawing without any action, turning pro-life under the idiotic assumption it will save their ass, and a few strong comments and laws from deep blue areas that are voting D no matter what.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 10:01:28 PM
I would say I probably agree with CdM. The issue abortion rights activists have is while most of the country is on board with them, most of the country doesn't care enough about the issue to vote on it, so the ones who were inclined to vote Republican are not inclined to change their votes over it. Those people would never have voted Republican in the first place if they weren't significantly unconcerned with abortion rights.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 10:06:35 PM
This is just the very beginning of a constitutional and interstate shitshow of the kind America has not seen since before the Civil War.  The crazy bounty and beg your rapist laws are just the starting point in the avalanche of punitive legislation that is coming.  The antis will not be content with total victory, they will demand more and push the envelope farther.  And the safe haven states will push back leading to escalating moves and sanctions and countersanctions.

People didn't care that much about abortion rights because they didn't have to because of Roe.  Now sides were be taken and the width of the sidelines will shrink.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 02, 2022, 10:18:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 10:06:35 PMPeople didn't care that much about abortion rights because they didn't have to because of Roe.  Now sides were be taken and the width of the sidelines will shrink.

Too little, too late.  And the way our system of federalism is designed and weighted against municipal and state governments completely stacks the deck against safe haven states when it comes the appeals process with the federal courts.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 10:23:39 PM
"It is not necessary to dispute Casey's claim (which we accept for the sake of argument) that 'the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment' do not 'mark[] the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.'"  (emphasis added)

Start stockpiling up on those condoms girls and boys . . .
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 12:13:10 AM
My expected response from GOP:
- egregious breach of judicial norms (leaking the doc) that needs to be punished
- shows that libs/dems/communists will politicize the SCOTUS if decisions don't go their way
- a victory for the weakest of society who can't defend themselves (unborn life)
- putting the decision where it belongs: the hands of the voters
-giving freedom back to Americans after wresting it from evil DC

Bonus: preaching puritan sexual morals (if you don't want babies you should keep those knees shut and also wait till you're married).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 12:17:43 AM
Can the Supreme Court be wrong? Doesn't it settle questions regarding the Constitution? Non-rhetorical. Law and the real world are two very different things.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 03, 2022, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 12:17:43 AMCan the Supreme Court be wrong? Doesn't it settle questions regarding the Constitution? Non-rhetorical. Law and the real world are two very different things.

Prior decisions can be overturned.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 03, 2022, 01:08:26 AM
Is there any legal meaning behind justices exclaiming over and over that their reasoning is only applicable to some narrow interpretation?

How does that even make any sense? If I say that all rectangles have four sides, therefore a square must be a rectangle, saying that you should not apply that same principle to a trapezoid doesn't make any sense.

Roe was based on the recognized right to privacy. If you are arguing that Roe was bad law, then how can you argue that the recognition of a right to privacy is not ALSO bad law?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 01:29:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2022, 01:08:26 AMIs there any legal meaning behind justices exclaiming over and over that their reasoning is only applicable to some narrow interpretation?

How does that even make any sense? If I say that all rectangles have four sides, therefore a square must be a rectangle, saying that you should not apply that same principle to a trapezoid doesn't make any sense.

Roe was based on the recognized right to privacy. If you are arguing that Roe was bad law, then how can you argue that the recognition of a right to privacy is not ALSO bad law?

Anything is possible. The secret ingredient is GOP. :)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on May 03, 2022, 02:32:45 AM
Amazing, in 2022 they've decided not enough women are dying and need to go back to the 50s
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 02:42:04 AM
Well, at least you can rely on FOX to assemble a diverse round of talking heads on the subject.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRzCLl2WUAEllXV?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on May 03, 2022, 02:46:46 AM
Leaks are important if this is the kinda shit they want to hide from us.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 02:50:12 AM
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pops.12803

QuoteAbortion Attitudes: An Overview of Demographic and Ideological Differences
Danny Osborne,Yanshu Huang,Nickola C. Overall,Robbie M. Sutton,Aino Petterson,Karen M. Douglas,Paul G. Davies,Chris G. Sibley

Abstract

Despite being a defining issue in the culture war, the political psychology of abortion attitudes remains poorly understood. We address this oversight by reviewing existing literature and integrating new analyses of several large-scale, cross-sectional, and longitudinal datasets to identify the demographic and ideological correlates of abortion attitudes. Our review and new analyses indicate that abortion support is increasing modestly over time in both the United States and New Zealand. We also find that a plurality of respondents (43.8%) in the United States are consistently "pro-choice," whereas 14.8% are consistently "pro-life," across various elective and traumatic abortion scenarios. We then show that age, religiosity, and conservatism correlate negatively, whereas Openness to Experience correlates positively, with abortion support. New analyses of heterosexual couples further reveal that women's and men's religiosity decrease their romantic partner's abortion support. Noting inconsistent gender differences in attitudes toward abortion, we then discuss the impact of traditional gender-role attitudes and sexism on abortion attitudes and conclude that, rather than misogyny, benevolent sexism—the belief that women should be cherished and protected—best explains opposition to abortion. Our review thus provides a comprehensive overview of the demographic and ideological variables that underly abortion attitudes and, hence, the broader culture war.

(Full article at link.)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: celedhring on May 03, 2022, 03:08:46 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 10:06:35 PMThis is just the very beginning of a constitutional and interstate shitshow of the kind America has not seen since before the Civil War.  The crazy bounty and beg your rapist laws are just the starting point in the avalanche of punitive legislation that is coming.  The antis will not be content with total victory, they will demand more and push the envelope farther.  And the safe haven states will push back leading to escalating moves and sanctions and countersanctions.

People didn't care that much about abortion rights because they didn't have to because of Roe.  Now sides were be taken and the width of the sidelines will shrink.

Yeah the whole "we'll get you even if you abort elsewhere" approach seems a pretty vindictive feature of the American anti-abortion movement. Even Francoist Spain looked elsewhere when thousands of Spanish women traveled to France or the UK for an abortion. And you know, we were an actual fascist nation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 03:21:02 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 03, 2022, 02:32:45 AMAmazing, in 2022 they've decided not enough women are dying and need to go back to the 50s

What rankles me, is that the same anti-abortionists cease their support as soon as the child is in the world. Can't afford support yourself and your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Uninsured and have to pay the doctors etc. for the delivery? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Can't afford to take time off work after birth, and have no one to look after your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Also, we'll make sure you have limited access to contraceptives. You slut.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 03:55:26 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR0Atc1WQAUwCh-?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 04:02:59 AM
America's is a model supreme court?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 03, 2022, 04:26:08 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2022, 12:13:10 AMMy expected response from GOP:
- egregious breach of judicial norms (leaking the doc) that needs to be punished
I think there is going to be a lot of this because it's something a lot of more centrist liberal types will, perhaps inadvertently give a bit too much air time too, when it's not really the main issue here.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a challenge to Obergefell and possibly even anti-sodomy laws.

QuoteThe kindest thing you can say is it's a first draft and it reads like it.  On an issue that it acknowledges is divisive, it seems to revel in its intemperateness.  And for an opinion that holds Roe to strict standards of formalist constitutional logic, it utterly fails those standards in attempting to distinguish the other "autonomy" cases e.g. Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, Obergefell, etc.   No surprise the Chief doesn't want to touch this and I wonder if one or more of the majority (Kavanaugh maybe?) splits off into a concurrence.
Yeah it's not - from the bits I've read - anything like a judgement I've read before. Admittedly I've not really ever looked into them from the Supreme Court so this may be normal.

QuoteYeah the whole "we'll get you even if you abort elsewhere" approach seems a pretty vindictive feature of the American anti-abortion movement. Even Francoist Spain looked elsewhere when thousands of Spanish women traveled to France or the UK for an abortion. And you know, we were an actual fascist nation.
That's one of the really terrifying things about this. There's a whole body of absolutely devastating case law in Ireland not from punishing women who came to the UK for abortion, but once the state became aware, preventing them from going. It feels like only a matter of time before we have that in the US.

Although the other thought on that is does that move abortion more squarely into Supreme Court jurisdiction if it's involving people crossing state lines, or laws prohibiting activities in other states?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Agelastus on May 03, 2022, 04:40:10 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 04:02:59 AMAmerica's is a model supreme court?

Coat Hanger abortions.

Something that many in the USA no doubt fear is coming back, with lives lost.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 05:42:58 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2022, 03:21:02 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 03, 2022, 02:32:45 AMAmazing, in 2022 they've decided not enough women are dying and need to go back to the 50s

What rankles me, is that the same anti-abortionists cease their support as soon as the child is in the world. Can't afford support yourself and your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Uninsured and have to pay the doctors etc. for the delivery? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Can't afford to take time off work after birth, and have no one to look after your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Also, we'll make sure you have limited access to contraceptives. You slut.

IIRC, from the first comments on the draft that appeared last night, somebody commented that as part of the arguments in favour of limiting abortion was a proposal from one of the justices (Barrett, I think), about reforming adoption processes in order to establish "no questions asked" surrenders of newborns from mothers that wouldn't be able to properly take care of their babies, which also included "the increased demand for adoptions" as part of the rationale for restriction abortion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on May 03, 2022, 05:48:32 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 05:42:58 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2022, 03:21:02 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 03, 2022, 02:32:45 AMAmazing, in 2022 they've decided not enough women are dying and need to go back to the 50s

What rankles me, is that the same anti-abortionists cease their support as soon as the child is in the world. Can't afford support yourself and your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Uninsured and have to pay the doctors etc. for the delivery? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Can't afford to take time off work after birth, and have no one to look after your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Also, we'll make sure you have limited access to contraceptives. You slut.

IIRC, from the first comments on the draft that appeared last night, somebody commented that as part of the arguments in favour of limiting abortion was a proposal from one of the justices (Barrett, I think), about reforming adoption processes in order to establish "no questions asked" surrenders of newborns from mothers that wouldn't be able to properly take care of their babies, which also included "the increased demand for adoptions" as part of the rationale for restriction abortion.

Horrifying.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 05:53:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 03, 2022, 05:48:32 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 05:42:58 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2022, 03:21:02 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 03, 2022, 02:32:45 AMAmazing, in 2022 they've decided not enough women are dying and need to go back to the 50s

What rankles me, is that the same anti-abortionists cease their support as soon as the child is in the world. Can't afford support yourself and your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Uninsured and have to pay the doctors etc. for the delivery? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Can't afford to take time off work after birth, and have no one to look after your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Also, we'll make sure you have limited access to contraceptives. You slut.

IIRC, from the first comments on the draft that appeared last night, somebody commented that as part of the arguments in favour of limiting abortion was a proposal from one of the justices (Barrett, I think), about reforming adoption processes in order to establish "no questions asked" surrenders of newborns from mothers that wouldn't be able to properly take care of their babies, which also included "the increased demand for adoptions" as part of the rationale for restriction abortion.

Horrifying.

Another argument claimed that abortion was a way to keep the black population down...  :ph34r:
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josephus on May 03, 2022, 06:15:37 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 03, 2022, 04:40:10 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 04:02:59 AMAmerica's is a model supreme court?

Coat Hanger abortions.

Something that many in the USA no doubt fear is coming back, with lives lost.



I doubt it though.

This will mean that abortion will be in the hands of the states and there will be states that will keep it legal. Getting around from one state to the other is easier now than it was in the 50s. And it seems some corporations are willing to pay if someone wants to travel to another state to do it.

What it does mean, is this, like most American laws, will negatively affect poor black folks.  :(
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 06:17:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2022, 06:15:37 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on May 03, 2022, 04:40:10 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 04:02:59 AMAmerica's is a model supreme court?

Coat Hanger abortions.

Something that many in the USA no doubt fear is coming back, with lives lost.



I doubt it though.

This will mean that abortion will be in the hands of the states and there will be states that will keep it legal. Getting around from one state to the other is easier now than it was in the 50s. And it seems some corporations are willing to pay if someone wants to travel to another state to do it.

What it does mean, is this, like most American laws, will negatively affect poor black folks.  :(

This is just step one. Step two is making allowing abortion unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 06:21:36 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2022, 06:15:37 AMWhat it does mean, is this, like most American laws, will negatively affect poor black folks.  :(

Back to the "good ol' days", where poor women died in botched back alley abortions, and the debutante goes "spend some time in Europe".
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on May 03, 2022, 06:49:20 AM
Can one state make it illegal for its residents to get an abortion in another state?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 06:58:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 03, 2022, 06:49:20 AMCan one state make it illegal for its residents to get an abortion in another state?

Missouri is actually trying to do just that:

QuoteLegislation introduced this year in Missouri is an extreme example of how anti-abortion lawmakers are looking to crack down on abortions that happen beyond their states' borders.

One measure sought to allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state, while also targeting efforts to provide medication abortion to residents. Another bill would apply Missouri's abortion laws to abortions obtained out of state by Missouri residents and in other circumstances, including in cases where "sexual intercourse occurred within this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse."
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on May 03, 2022, 07:16:08 AM
Yeah, I thought I heard about that.  That's why I asked.  This is going to get weird.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 07:32:17 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2022, 06:21:36 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 03, 2022, 06:15:37 AMWhat it does mean, is this, like most American laws, will negatively affect poor black folks.  :(

Back to the "good ol' days", where poor women died in botched back alley abortions, and the debutante goes "spend some time in Europe".

That's all that matters. That's the hilariously ironic thing about racists:  they can't stand so many blacks taking over "their America," but they've got no problem seeing as many of them born as possible in order to permanently maintain them in poverty (provided, of course, they all go to prison or the SEC).

Meanwhile those that can afford it will play the same game as the upper crust of Saudi, Iranian and Gileadean society.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2022, 07:33:32 AM
I'm surprised they'd actually even think about moving ahead with it. The money is in the fight after all.  All those donations to defend the unborn/protect rights would get more limited.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 07:47:55 AM
My mother, who graduated nursing school in 1965, is ready to go back to work. Back to working at the emergency rooms in Baltimore before Roe v Wade: where women from West Virginia, Pennsylvania and as far south as North Carolina came to get abortions, get botched attempts repaired, and sometimes to die.  Amish incest victims.  13 year olds without any education.  You know, conservatives.

Unless, of course, it was a city councilman's daughter, or the mistress of a Baltimore Colts player.  Then it was simply a gynecological issue and, well, the fetus wouldn't have been viable anyway.  Shame, that.


Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 08:09:38 AM
Well this has pretty dire implications for me and my family with our follow-your-feelings governor who does whatever vindictive stupid thing will make the culture warriors cheer.

Hans always assured us that without Roe we would all song kumbaya and work out some delightful legislative compromise we could all live with. Well...here it is dude. I look forward to all the compromising and level headed legislating to come.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on May 03, 2022, 08:14:30 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2022, 07:33:32 AMI'm surprised they'd actually even think about moving ahead with it. The money is in the fight after all.  All those donations to defend the unborn/protect rights would get more limited.

Nah, they'll bang the drum for a national abortion ban, ending all LGBTQ rights, and overturning Griswold v. Connecticut (but only for female contraceptives, men can still get condoms because boys will be boys, after all).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 08:17:19 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 03, 2022, 08:14:30 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 03, 2022, 07:33:32 AMI'm surprised they'd actually even think about moving ahead with it. The money is in the fight after all.  All those donations to defend the unborn/protect rights would get more limited.

Nah, they'll bang the drum for a national abortion ban, ending all LGBTQ rights, and overturning Griswold v. Connecticut (but only for female contraceptives, men can still get condoms because boys will be boys, after all).

But...but...all the compromises!
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 08:23:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 06:17:07 AMThis is just step one. Step two is making allowing abortion unconstitutional.

QuoteBreaking
Business
Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals

Updated May 2, 2022, 02:20pm EDT
Alison DurkeeForbes Staff

Topline

The fight over abortion restrictions could soon go from statehouses to Capitol Hill, as the Washington Post reports Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion rights activists are working to enact a federal abortion ban if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer as expected and the GOP regains control of Congress.

Key Facts

Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the Post, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.

Anti-abortion groups like the Susan B. Anthony List are working to garner support for the legislation, and have met with Republican contenders for the 2024 presidential nomination about such a ban, including former President Donald Trump.

"Most of" the potential candidates support the ban and would make it a "centerpiece" of their campaign, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told the Post.

A federal abortion ban could restrict the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, based on current proposals, with anti-abortion advocates believing a 15-week ban wouldn't go far enough.

While many states are already taking steps to ban abortion—even before the Supreme Court rules—a federal law would stop those seeking abortions from being able to obtain one by traveling out of state, and overrule legislation in Democratic-led states that enshrines the right to the procedure.

Crucial Quote

A coalition of anti-abortion groups led by Students for Life Action wrote to every GOP lawmaker in Congress Monday, calling this a "pivotal moment in which almost anything is possible" when it comes to abortion restrictions. "We ask you to join us in ensuring that the strongest measures possible are employed" to ban abortions, the letter reads.

Chief Critic

"By [Republicans] saying out loud that their goal is to push a nationwide abortion ban, it makes it clear that we have to elect more pro-reproductive health champions on the national level and in the states," Planned Parenthood Action Fund executive director Kelley Robinson told the Post, calling the federal proposal "terrifying."

Big Number

60%. That's the approximate share of Americans who oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, according to multiple recent polls. Polling has consistently shown a majority of Americans support legal access to abortion, though higher shares are willing to back restrictions on the procedure later into a pregnancy.

What To Watch For

Whether Republicans will get the chance to take action. The Supreme Court is now deliberating in a case on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, which will broadly consider whether states can restrict abortion. A ruling is expected by late June, when the court's term wraps up, though issuing decisions could stretch into early July. Justices signaled during oral arguments that they're likely to side with Mississippi, but it still remains unclear whether they'll narrowly uphold the 15-week ban or go further and overturn Roe v. Wade entirely. Republicans' fate will then depend on the midterm elections in November, where the GOP stands a chance to take back the House and Senate.

What We Don't Know

Whether a federal abortion ban could actually be enacted, as even if Republicans gain control of Congress, they still face long odds. An abortion ban would need 60 votes to pass the Senate, which remains unlikely, as the Post notes even some GOP lawmakers could vote against the ban. Even if it passes, any legislation would likely be subject to legal challenges.

Key Background

The potential federal ban comes as Republican-led states have become increasingly emboldened to take action against abortion as the Supreme Court decision looms. States enacted more than 100 abortion restrictions in 2021 alone, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute, with another 33 so far enacted in 2022 as of April 15. Texas imposed the most severe restrictions in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 when its six-week abortion ban took effect in September, which courts have so far allowed to stand. Idaho and Oklahoma have already followed Texas by passing similar bans of their own, in addition to a separate Oklahoma ban that makes performing an abortion a felony. Idaho's measure has been blocked in court, however, as has a law in Kentucky that effectively banned all abortions in the state.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 08:24:59 AM
That doesn't sound like a compromise...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 08:26:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 08:24:59 AMThat doesn't sound like a compromise...

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftv-fanatic-res.cloudinary.com%2Fiu%2Fs--GDG5uhtA--%2Ft_teaser_wide%2Fcs_srgb%2Cf_auto%2Cfl_strip_profile.lossy%2Cq_auto%3A420%2Fv1566796268%2Fno-ketchup-for-ted-scrubs.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 08:49:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 03, 2022, 01:08:26 AMIs there any legal meaning behind justices exclaiming over and over that their reasoning is only applicable to some narrow interpretation?

How does that even make any sense? If I say that all rectangles have four sides, therefore a square must be a rectangle, saying that you should not apply that same principle to a trapezoid doesn't make any sense.

Roe was based on the recognized right to privacy. If you are arguing that Roe was bad law, then how can you argue that the recognition of a right to privacy is not ALSO bad law?

Exactly so.  And Alito's draft isn't just saying it is "bad law" he is saying it is "egregiously wrong."

This isn't 1973 anymore, there is now an entire edifice of constitutional law built around recognizing the limits of state power to invade indvidual autonomy and privacy - prohibiting the state from meddling in the choice of marriage partners, from policing the use of safe contraceptives, prying into the sexual positions and acts of consenting adults, even interfering in parental rights in choosing the education of their children. If you pull the privacy strand, the entire body of law unravels.

The answer to "Is there any legal meaning behind justices exclaiming over and over that their reasoning is only applicable to some narrow interpretation?" is yes - the meaning is that as of the day the opinion is issued, its effect applies only to that issue.  But that is so until all the other shoes drop, and those are just a handful of ~$150 case filing fees away.

The way Alito deals with this question in the draft opinion is telling.  He doesn't say that the other privacy cases remain good law and by his legal reasoning they cannot be.  Instead, he engages in a gedankenexperiment: assuming "for the sake of argument" that the other privacy cases remain good law, it is still theoretically possible to overturn Roe.  He argues yet but the reasoning defies common sense and lacks logical coherence.  The distinction is:

1) The right to choose was not widely recognized historically at common law or the early Republic.  But even if true (a historically contested fact that leads Alito to dump a cartload of moldy 19th century statutes onto the end of the opinion) that obviously does not distinguish Roe from the other privacy cases - plenty of states had laws about sodomy, "miscegnation", etc.  More generally, conditioning a constitutional right to privacy on the perquisite of a long historical pedigree of state power respecting those rights renders those protections close to meaningless - is essentially limiting protected individual rights to those rights that states don't bother trying to infringe.

2) The right to choose is unique in that its exercise threatens another life.  But it makes no sense that a legitimate right simply disappears because there is a significant consequence on the other side.  Rather, the presence of countervailing values simply means that the competing rights need to be balanced.  But that is exactly what Roe and Casey did and what Alito's draft is eliminating.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 08:50:18 AM
I blame Malthus' aunt.  For some reason she thought it was a good idea to give right wing religious folks an aspirational goal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 08:58:13 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 05:42:58 AMIIRC, from the first comments on the draft that appeared last night, somebody commented that as part of the arguments in favour of limiting abortion was a proposal from one of the justices (Barrett, I think), about reforming adoption processes in order to establish "no questions asked" surrenders of newborns from mothers that wouldn't be able to properly take care of their babies, which also included "the increased demand for adoptions" as part of the rationale for restriction abortion.

Barrett raised the issue in oral argument.
It testifies to the bubble of cosseted self-delusion in which these people live that adoption safe havens would be viewed as "solving" the problem.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on May 03, 2022, 09:05:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 08:58:13 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 05:42:58 AMIIRC, from the first comments on the draft that appeared last night, somebody commented that as part of the arguments in favour of limiting abortion was a proposal from one of the justices (Barrett, I think), about reforming adoption processes in order to establish "no questions asked" surrenders of newborns from mothers that wouldn't be able to properly take care of their babies, which also included "the increased demand for adoptions" as part of the rationale for restriction abortion.

Barrett raised the issue in oral argument.
It testifies to the bubble of cosseted self-delusion in which these people live that adoption safe havens would be viewed as "solving" the problem.
The underlying idea that a pregnancy has no impact at all on the mother and the only reason why a woman might want an abortion is that she does not want the child is especially bizarre coming from a mother of seven...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 09:29:51 AM
Every sperm is sacred
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 09:45:02 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2022, 09:05:48 AMcoming from a mother of seven...

Five biological (one of them with Down's syndrome), two adopted. She's hard-core anti abortion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 11:12:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 08:09:38 AMHans always assured us that without Roe we would all song kumbaya and work out some delightful legislative compromise we could all live with. Well...here it is dude. I look forward to all the compromising and level headed legislating to come.

And I suspect medium to long term that is what is going to happen.  But the short term is going to be ugly.

over 50 years all kinds of powerful lobby groups have grown up around the abortion issue, primarily wanting Roe v Wade to be repealed.  But of course those groups aren't going to close up shop once they've won - they have to justify their existence by pushing for more restrictions.

But I do feel like attempts to fully ban abortion will not go over well...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 11:20:20 AM
I have yet to see the US mellow on cultural issues. But we'll see.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 03, 2022, 11:24:32 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2022, 03:21:02 AMWhat rankles me, is that the same anti-abortionists cease their support as soon as the child is in the world. Can't afford support yourself and your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Uninsured and have to pay the doctors etc. for the delivery? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Can't afford to take time off work after birth, and have no one to look after your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Also, we'll make sure you have limited access to contraceptives. You slut.

It has been obviouis for years that "anti-abortion" is a dogwhistle for "anti-sex."
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 11:28:34 AM
Looks like the vast right wing conspiracy is really delivering the goods.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 11:20:20 AMI have yet to see the US mellow on cultural issues. But we'll see.

Gay rights and gay marriage.
Segregation.
Gambling.
Sunday shopping.

And it's only tangentially a "culture war" issue, but think about Obamacare, how vociferously it was fought, yet a decade later there's no serious moves to repeal or replace it anymore.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 11:31:01 AMGay rights and gay marriage.

They're coming for this.

QuoteSegregation.

They'll nibble at the corners here too. Not in a straight up "it's public policy", but in support of "voluntary" / "exclusive membership" segregation.

QuoteGambling.
Sunday shopping.

Yeah this is settled, I agree. But while this is a fundamentalist Christian position, it's never been part of the culture war. That was settled before the Evangelical Right was even founded, and that's what kicked off the culture war as a political concern.

QuoteAnd it's only tangentially a "culture war" issue, but think about Obamacare, how vociferously it was fought, yet a decade later there's no serious moves to repeal or replace it anymore.

Obamacare was fought vociferously because the GOP oppose the Democrats reflexively nd because they hate Obama specifically. It was also opposed because it's against GOP orthodoxy to do anything helpful for poor people, unless it can be limited to helping only poor white people (and even then it's a stretch). But it was never part of the culture war in any way, except if you extend the concept to cover every conflict between the GOP and the Democrats.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on May 03, 2022, 11:48:31 AM
Quote from: Syt on May 03, 2022, 03:21:02 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 03, 2022, 02:32:45 AMAmazing, in 2022 they've decided not enough women are dying and need to go back to the 50s

What rankles me, is that the same anti-abortionists cease their support as soon as the child is in the world. Can't afford support yourself and your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Uninsured and have to pay the doctors etc. for the delivery? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Can't afford to take time off work after birth, and have no one to look after your kid? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Also, we'll make sure you have limited access to contraceptives. You slut.

OTT Calvinism is also likely heavily to blame here. Same kind of shit that leads to being pro global warming.
It's those kids god designed destiny to live short lives of misery and suffering! How dare those arrogant doctors interfere in gods plan!
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 03, 2022, 11:57:48 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 11:28:34 AMLooks like the vast right wing conspiracy is really delivering the goods.
Yes - and all of those "but Gorsuch" voters were right in their gamble and they got what they wanted. Mitch McConnell and Trump delivered what's been the priority goal for Republicans since Nixon and the Warren court.

I'd add that McConnell's statement here about the leak is far more robust than anything I saw from leading Democrats about, say, Coney Barrett proceeding with indecent haste or Ginni Thomas (the most I saw on that was that Thomas should recuse himself - truly the "hopes and prayers" of the politics of the Supreme Court):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR1teVYWQAI-xvw?format=png&name=small)

QuoteAnd it's only tangentially a "culture war" issue, but think about Obamacare, how vociferously it was fought, yet a decade later there's no serious moves to repeal or replace it anymore.
Also - and I know I harp on this - legislation which is difficult to repeal and involves public votes by publicly accountable figures, not placing all your eggs in the rights-based, court-focused approach. Which was a particularly daft decision given that Democrats/the left seem to only have an intermittent interest in the Supreme Court while it's been the core focus of the right for the last 50 years.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on May 03, 2022, 12:02:49 PM
Relax guys. Susan Collins told us she confirmed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett because they wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade.

She wouldn't lie to you.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:03:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 11:31:01 AMGay rights and gay marriage.

They're coming for this.

Yup.  It's still balled up in the whole anti-LGBTQ "war on sexual deviancy," coming soon to a school board near you.

Quote
QuoteSegregation.

QuoteThey'll nibble at the corners here too. Not in a straight up "it's public policy", but in support of "voluntary" / "exclusive membership" segregation.

Rolling back voting rights is already part of that.  Disenfranchisement IS segregation.


Quote
QuoteGambling.
Sunday shopping.

Yeah this is settled, I agree. But while this is a fundamentalist Christian position, it's never been part of the culture war. That was settled before the Evangelical Right was even founded, and that's what kicked off the culture war as a political concern.

The only thing that trumps Christian values is capitalist values.

Quote
QuoteAnd it's only tangentially a "culture war" issue, but think about Obamacare, how vociferously it was fought, yet a decade later there's no serious moves to repeal or replace it anymore.

Obamacare was fought vociferously because the GOP oppose the Democrats reflexively nd because they hate Obama specifically. It was also opposed because it's against GOP orthodoxy to do anything helpful for poor people, unless it can be limited to helping only poor white people (and even then it's a stretch). But it was never part of the culture war in any way, except if you extend the concept to cover every conflict between the GOP and the Democrats.


They only stopped voting against it when their last gasps were done.  Not for a lack of trying.  It took Johnny Hero one last bombing run, and how many trips to the Supreme Court did it go through?  They'll break it over time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PM
Seen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").

Speculation "the left" leaked it is thus: try to generate political outrage ahead of the decision itself to try and peel off one or two votes prior to it being official.

Speculation "the right" leaked it: by putting the maximalist draft position out there, any deviations from the draft will be painfully obvious.  So trying to force right-leaning Justice to support the draft as is, rather than "water it down".

Which is true I have no idea.  But definitely someone with an agenda - you don't leave these things lying on the bench at a bust stop.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 12:06:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2022, 11:57:48 AMI'd add that McConnell's statement here about the leak is far more robust than anything I saw from leading Democrats about, say, Coney Barrett proceeding with indecent haste or Ginni Thomas (the most I saw on that was that Thomas should recuse himself - truly the "hopes and prayers" of the politics of the Supreme Court):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR1teVYWQAI-xvw?format=png&name=small)

McConnell of all people should be pretty silent in any defense of "judicial independence", given that he was the one who completely broke it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 03, 2022, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PMSeen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").
Also speculation it's Roberts to try and show the outrage now to encourage some of them towards his position as the more restrained/truly conservative opinion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 12:14:45 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/yY4zqRwc/image.png)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 12:15:43 PM
Correction: she won the Pulitzer in 2010, not for this one.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PMSeen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").

Speculation "the left" leaked it is thus: try to generate political outrage ahead of the decision itself to try and peel off one or two votes prior to it being official.

Speculation "the right" leaked it: by putting the maximalist draft position out there, any deviations from the draft will be painfully obvious.  So trying to force right-leaning Justice to support the draft as is, rather than "water it down".

Which is true I have no idea.  But definitely someone with an agenda - you don't leave these things lying on the bench at a bust stop.

Oh the big right wing culture warrior talking point is how this leak is a leftwing insurrection and we are going to see violence and civil war and FEAR! HATE! FEAR! HATE!

The usual.

Though if this is going to lead to violence and civil war I don't see what difference it makes if this is leaked now or announced later.

But man even when they win they don't stop being outraged. It's so tiresome man.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 12:06:53 PMMcConnell of all people should be pretty silent in any defense of "judicial independence", given that he was the one who completely broke it.

Attack your own weakness.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 12:19:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 12:17:55 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 12:06:53 PMMcConnell of all people should be pretty silent in any defense of "judicial independence", given that he was the one who completely broke it.

Attack your own weakness.

As we say in Germany: "What I think and what I do I suspect of others too!" :P
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:21:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PMSeen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").

Speculation "the left" leaked it is thus: try to generate political outrage ahead of the decision itself to try and peel off one or two votes prior to it being official.

Speculation "the right" leaked it: by putting the maximalist draft position out there, any deviations from the draft will be painfully obvious.  So trying to force right-leaning Justice to support the draft as is, rather than "water it down".

Which is true I have no idea.  But definitely someone with an agenda - you don't leave these things lying on the bench at a bust stop.

Oh the big right wing culture warrior talking point is how this leak is a leftwing insurrection and we are going to see violence and civil war and FEAR! HATE! FEAR! HATE!

The usual.

Though if this is going to lead to violence and civil war I don't see what difference it makes if this is leaked now or announced later.

But man even when they win they don't stop being outraged. It's so tiresome man.

If this was leaked by a person supportive of the draft in order to cobble together support, and the Supreme Court majority does not overturn R v. W - then I think the chances of seeing violence go up exponentially.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:22:07 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2022, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PMSeen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").
Also speculation it's Roberts to try and show the outrage now to encourage some of them towards his position as the more restrained/truly conservative opinion.

If so Mike Huckabee owes the left an apology!
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:21:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PMSeen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").

Speculation "the left" leaked it is thus: try to generate political outrage ahead of the decision itself to try and peel off one or two votes prior to it being official.

Speculation "the right" leaked it: by putting the maximalist draft position out there, any deviations from the draft will be painfully obvious.  So trying to force right-leaning Justice to support the draft as is, rather than "water it down".

Which is true I have no idea.  But definitely someone with an agenda - you don't leave these things lying on the bench at a bust stop.

Oh the big right wing culture warrior talking point is how this leak is a leftwing insurrection and we are going to see violence and civil war and FEAR! HATE! FEAR! HATE!

The usual.

Though if this is going to lead to violence and civil war I don't see what difference it makes if this is leaked now or announced later.

But man even when they win they don't stop being outraged. It's so tiresome man.

If this was leaked by a person supportive of the draft in order to cobble together support, and the Supreme Court majority does not overturn R v. W - then I think the chances of seeing violence go up exponentially.

It's abortion. There are going to be protests with high emotion either way. Violence has always come along with this issue.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:23:55 PM
The Right crowing like this "leak" is the Pentagon Papers or Snowden is almost as hilarious as the Left blaming Biden and RBG for losing the balance on the USSC.

The USSC has been politicized since the Reaganauts figured out that the USSC was the best bet to roll back the New Deal, so save the crying over the sanctity of the "leak."  They elected THE Mother of all Norm Breakers in 2016, ffs. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:28:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:23:39 PMIt's abortion. There are going to be protests with high emotion either way. Violence has always come along with this issue.

Yeah, but pretty much only from the Right, and when the Democrats are in the White House.

For some reason, Republican presidencies seem to calm the anti-choicers.  Wonder why that is.  OH WAIT
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:32:59 PM
I am just fascinated have they have so little chill. This is the greatest thing for social conservatives since...what? Prohibition? And they just go deeper into the victim mentality and the outrage and the fear mongering and hate peddling.

Granted it is people like Lahren and Shapiro and Huckabee. I am sure someone out there can pause for a few seconds from the toxic culture warring to go "oh we won one? Nice."
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:21:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:16:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PMSeen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").

Speculation "the left" leaked it is thus: try to generate political outrage ahead of the decision itself to try and peel off one or two votes prior to it being official.

Speculation "the right" leaked it: by putting the maximalist draft position out there, any deviations from the draft will be painfully obvious.  So trying to force right-leaning Justice to support the draft as is, rather than "water it down".

Which is true I have no idea.  But definitely someone with an agenda - you don't leave these things lying on the bench at a bust stop.

Oh the big right wing culture warrior talking point is how this leak is a leftwing insurrection and we are going to see violence and civil war and FEAR! HATE! FEAR! HATE!

The usual.

Though if this is going to lead to violence and civil war I don't see what difference it makes if this is leaked now or announced later.

But man even when they win they don't stop being outraged. It's so tiresome man.

If this was leaked by a person supportive of the draft in order to cobble together support, and the Supreme Court majority does not overturn R v. W - then I think the chances of seeing violence go up exponentially.

It's abortion. There are going to be protests with high emotion either way. Violence has always come along with this issue.

The only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:32:59 PMI am just fascinated have they have so little chill. This is the greatest thing for social conservatives since...what? Prohibition? And they just go deeper into the victim mentality and the outrage and the fear mongering and hate peddling.

Granted it is people like Lahren and Shapiro and Huckabee. I am sure someone out there can pause for a few seconds from the toxic culture warring to go "oh we won one? Nice."

Prohibition was a progressive project.  But "progressivism" of that era did not mean the same thing as today, and it doesn't easily match up to a 21st century right vs left dichotomy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PMThe only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again.

As someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 12:38:59 PM
I wonder how much this will galvanize Democrat voters and turnout.

Is this a massive thing right away? Or is this some sort of slow burn, where the public has to see the accumulation of horror stories from the abortion ban before they decide it's a big deal? Or is it the case that abortion is only a galvanizing issue for the hard core anti-abortionists and that pro-choice as a motivating issue is actually pretty soft and low impact?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:39:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:36:01 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:32:59 PMI am just fascinated have they have so little chill. This is the greatest thing for social conservatives since...what? Prohibition? And they just go deeper into the victim mentality and the outrage and the fear mongering and hate peddling.

Granted it is people like Lahren and Shapiro and Huckabee. I am sure someone out there can pause for a few seconds from the toxic culture warring to go "oh we won one? Nice."

Prohibition was a progressive project.  But "progressivism" of that era did not mean the same thing as today, and it doesn't easily match up to a 21st century right vs left dichotomy.

Really? That was your big take away from my post.

I was just searching my memory for some big social conservative win. Plug in whatever makes you comfortable.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:40:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PMThe only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again.

As someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...

We were talking about violence. Just to keep us on subject here.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 12:41:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PMAs someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...

Pro-life murders doctors, pro-life murders... babies? Is that your argument?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:41:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:32:59 PMI am just fascinated have they have so little chill. This is the greatest thing for social conservatives since...what? Prohibition? And they just go deeper into the victim mentality and the outrage and the fear mongering and hate peddling.

Granted it is people like Lahren and Shapiro and Huckabee. I am sure someone out there can pause for a few seconds from the toxic culture warring to go "oh we won one? Nice."

Nope. A 40 year effort is finally accomplished? But there's so much more of God's work to do. Contraception. Public Health.  Sex education. Gays and Transgenders and Pedophiles, oh my!

So, so much work to do.  Binge-drinking date rapists and psycho papists on the bench is only the beginning.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:43:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PMThe only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again.

As someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...

Are you trying to start shit today? 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:45:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:43:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PMThe only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again.

As someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...

Are you trying to start shit today? 

With that post?

Maybe a little bit.   :blush:
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:40:54 PMWe were talking about violence. Just to keep us on subject here.

Apparently the important thing here is supporting anti-abortion talking points. Murdering doctors doesn't rate.

But don't worry, Canadian Conservatives are trustworthy when it comes to abortion. No reason to worry about them on that front.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:46:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:45:05 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:43:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PMThe only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again.

As someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...

Are you trying to start shit today? 

With that post?

Maybe a little bit.  :blush:

Go fuck yourself, Yukon Jack.  Even your fucked up wig-wearing conservative ass can tell the difference between Eric Rudolph and the Army of God and a medical procedure. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 12:45:30 PMBut don't worry, Canadian Conservatives are trustworthy when it comes to abortion. No reason to worry about them on that front.

That's bullshit, too.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 12:50:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 03, 2022, 12:09:02 PMAlso speculation it's Roberts to try and show the outrage now to encourage some of them towards his position as the more restrained/truly conservative opinion.

Not a chance.

But it is interesting to see even fairly mainstream right figures like McConnell rush to judgment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 01:03:25 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 12:45:30 PMBut don't worry, Canadian Conservatives are trustworthy when it comes to abortion. No reason to worry about them on that front.

That's bullshit, too.

Yes it is.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 01:22:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PMThe only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again.

As someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...

Your rhetoric is telling. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Grey Fox on May 03, 2022, 01:26:35 PM
BB, you are doing it again.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 01:29:04 PM
You mean, of course, that BB is doing his best to assure us we can trust Canadian Conservatives on the issue of abortion, right?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 03, 2022, 01:29:50 PM
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1521546629936910337?s=20&t=cHfCDibJZ8C-cF7AsEwqtQ

QuoteThe Hill
@thehill

@SenTedCruz: "I am appalled. This is the most egregious breach of trust at the Supreme Court that has ever happened. Presumably, some left-wing law clerk, angry at the direction the court is going, decided to betray his or her obligation." http://hill.cm/Sg65XUU
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2022, 01:26:35 PMBB, you are doing it again.

The shame is mine and mine alone. -_-
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HVC on May 03, 2022, 01:31:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2022, 01:26:35 PMBB, you are doing it again.

The shame is mine and mine alone. -_-

Your apparent glee over this situation is doing little to bolster your claim that Canadian conservatives don't want the same thing to happen in Canada :P
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 03, 2022, 01:31:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2022, 01:26:35 PMBB, you are doing it again.

The shame is mine and mine alone. -_-

Your apparent glee over this situation is doing little to bolster your claim that Canadian conservatives don't want the same thing to happen in Canada :P

What glee? :huh:

I think this is very much going to be the dog that catches the car for the GOP.  While there is a principled basis to say RvW should be overturned, if (as appears likely) the GOP starts passing a whole series of highly restrictive abortion laws there's going to be electoral hell to pay for them.

Do I need to remind you that I stole my position on abortion from Bill Clinton - abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: celedhring on May 03, 2022, 01:38:38 PM
Incidentally the Spanish constitutional court has been postponing their ruling on our current (very progressive) abortion law for... 11 years now. That's quite the dereliction of duty.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on May 03, 2022, 01:48:53 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 03, 2022, 01:38:38 PMIncidentally the Spanish constitutional court has been postponing their ruling on our current (very progressive) abortion law for... 11 years now. That's quite the dereliction of duty.

I would be quite okay with the US Supreme Court taking an 11 year siesta.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 01:50:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 01:36:15 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 03, 2022, 01:31:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 01:30:03 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2022, 01:26:35 PMBB, you are doing it again.

The shame is mine and mine alone. -_-

Your apparent glee over this situation is doing little to bolster your claim that Canadian conservatives don't want the same thing to happen in Canada :P

What glee? :huh:

I think this is very much going to be the dog that catches the car for the GOP.  While there is a principled basis to say RvW should be overturned, if (as appears likely) the GOP starts passing a whole series of highly restrictive abortion laws there's going to be electoral hell to pay for them.

Do I need to remind you that I stole my position on abortion from Bill Clinton - abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Yeah, you assert that is your position.  But you undermine faith that you would not also support (vote for) a Conservative government that went further when you equate the murder of doctors with the abortions they perform.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 02:21:18 PM
Some quick survey numbers:

69% of Americans oppose overturning RvW, with only 30% in favour.

60% of Americans think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, but that number drops to 28 and 13% for the second and third trimesters.

https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/the-end-of-roe?s=r
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on May 03, 2022, 02:31:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d85bNTIamM
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 02:51:23 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2022, 02:31:46 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d85bNTIamM

LOL, they said.  Them's just movies, they said.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 03:00:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 08:50:18 AMI blame Malthus' aunt.  For some reason she thought it was a good idea to give right wing religious folks an aspirational goal.

Worth repeating where the true blame lies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 02:21:18 PMSome quick survey numbers:

69% of Americans oppose overturning RvW, with only 30% in favour.

60% of Americans think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, but that number drops to 28 and 13% for the second and third trimesters.

https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/the-end-of-roe?s=r

And four out of five dentists surveyed prefer toothless vaginas. What's your point?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 03:24:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 02:21:18 PMSome quick survey numbers:

69% of Americans oppose overturning RvW, with only 30% in favour.

60% of Americans think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, but that number drops to 28 and 13% for the second and third trimesters.

https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/the-end-of-roe?s=r

And four out of five dentists surveyed prefer toothless vaginas. What's your point?

This could be a powerful issue for democrats.  Because RvW was the law for so long abortion rights wasn't as big an issue for them as the GOP, but that now changes.

BUT

They need to be clear not to go too far (like they usually do).  There was powerful support for police reform, until the Dems got sidetracked by Defund the Police.  There will be powerful support for abortion rights, as long as they don't get too caught up in abortion on demand at any time in the pregnancy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 03:54:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 03:37:54 PMThis could be a powerful issue for democrats.  Because RvW was the law for so long abortion rights wasn't as big an issue for them as the GOP, but that now changes.

BUT

They need to be clear not to go too far (like they usually do).  There was powerful support for police reform, until the Dems got sidetracked by Defund the Police.  There will be powerful support for abortion rights, as long as they don't get too caught up in abortion on demand at any time in the pregnancy.

Bullshit. Nobody cares. Nobody's cared for 50 years.  If they did, they wouldn't have voted for the guy "they'd rather have a beer with, don't mess with Texas, heh heh" or stayed home because of "her." 

Scroll the fuck up and read mine and OvB's posts; this changes nothing, because it's not an issue for anybody but 1) those whose lives are directly impacted by the ability to exercise this right, and 2) right-minded, principled, and enlightened egalitarians like me and not you. Just not enough to move the needle in the long run.  Just like gun control. It's a loser issue for the majority of the electorate.   

LOL, and no, contrary to all overblown whitey panic, there's been no "powerful support for police reform" regardless of ho many granola and Birkenstock bullshit bumper stickers are printed. Cops continue, and will continue, to harvest blacks in bushels.

Go too far like they usually do. Fucking hilarious. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 03:58:40 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 03:24:01 PMAnd four out of five dentists surveyed prefer toothless vaginas.

Seems unlikely.  That's a lot of lost potential income.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 04:15:00 PM
Have there been any official messages from the Dems about this? If McConnell was rambling about "disgraceful statements" by Biden, Pelosi and Schumer they might have said something interesting, right? The only think I know is that at least Elizabeth Warren seems mightly pissed off.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 06:31:37 PM
Although, I have to admit: if I were a Republican, I'd be totally enjoying all the cannibalism by the Democrats.

OMG IF ONLY THEY DIDNT STEAL THE NOMINATION FROM BERNIE THIS NEVER WOODA HAPPENED

And goofy ass BB says they "always go too far."  Fuck, they can't even get out of their own way.

You saw this coming since 1988, you stupid fucks.  But no, MUH STOODENT LOANS.  Fucking Eugene McCarthy campaign, every fucking year.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 03, 2022, 06:55:25 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 03, 2022, 04:15:00 PMThe only think I know is that at least Elizabeth Warren seems mightly pissed off.

It's play-acting on her part.  She knows that this looks bad for her, but has had this statement prepared for a year now, because she knew this was coming and voted for it.  Only idiots thought that Barret and Fratboy would not vote to strike down Roe at the very first opportunity.  They only got groomed for the Court because they made sure the Heritage Foundation knew that they were all in.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:17:35 PM
Susan Collins?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:19:31 PM
Dems still control Congress, barely.
Could push through a national law prohibiting state sanctions vs crossing state lines to get abortions or advice.  Commerce clause. Better get moving fast.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on May 03, 2022, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:19:31 PMBetter get moving fast.


Lolz.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:54:35 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 03, 2022, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:19:31 PMBetter get moving fast.


Lolz.

With luck it could clear a subcommittee in time for the GOP takeover.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 10:57:54 PM
Well it would require 100% support. Is Manchin down?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 11:03:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 10:57:54 PMWell it would require 100% support. Is Manchin down?

No, time to see how outraged Collins and Murkowski really are.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on May 04, 2022, 01:03:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:38:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 03, 2022, 12:33:54 PMThe only deaths caused by violence that I know about (there may be others) were murders of doctors carried out by anti-abortionists.  Now that the right wing Christian fundamentalists see victory at hand, if that is taken away, there is a non zero chance that sort of killing starts occurring again.

As someone at least sympathetic to the pro-life cause you might want to think hard about what other deaths might be involved in talking about abortion...

By this you clearly mean all of the women who died in botched abortions prior to Roe v Wade, yes? Because quite frankly I legitimately can't see any other "life" at risk here.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on May 04, 2022, 01:13:24 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 11:03:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 10:57:54 PMWell it would require 100% support. Is Manchin down?

No, time to see how outraged Collins and Murkowski really are.

Hard for me not to see them in the crosshairs on this one. They held the power to prevent a second rapist from getting on the court.

And why the hell would anyone think that a court with at least two guys with so little respect for women would do anything less than this? Let's not even get into Coney-Barrett's obsession with giving birth.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:21:18 AM
Roe v Wade made US abortion law go a bit to far. In most other countries you can abort in the first trimester, up until a certain week. Roe v Wade made it legal to abort until the day of birth more or less.

In practice I don't think that's been a problem at all, but it's an own goal when it comes to the perception of abortion. The pro-lifers can in bad faith portray abortion as far worse than what it actually is and then...

So yeah, there was room for a compromise and more rational federal laws perhaps, very little practical changes, but some optically more decent laws that make it work as in other countries. All this with the caveat that I'm going by a 20 year old lecture on US abortion law and am probably wrong.

This ruling really breaks my heart, so many lives to be destroyed, so much poverty and heart break.

The democrats really need to get their shit together. The only possible light in the tunnel is that the reps might be taking it too far and create a strong backlash in a decade or two, we'll just have to hope they won't be able to corrupt the entire state until then.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 04, 2022, 01:38:39 AM
Roe v Wade was not an own goal. The anti-choice movement would not have stopped their crusade against sex and against women if there'd been "slightly less access to abortion" or whatever. It betrays a complete misunderstanding of the American right if you think "room for compromise and more rational federal laws" would've made a difference.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:52:17 AM
Yeah, you're probably correct. A compromise could be made with a sensible republican party, but with a sensible republican party there would be no need.

Fucking zealots.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on May 04, 2022, 02:24:52 AM
You guys keep acting like this has anything to do with unborn zygotes and fetuses. It doesn't. This is about controlling people and keeping them under a thumb.

If it were about the children, legislation would be put in place to protect them after they were born. If it were about preventing abortions, these same states who claim to want to end them wouldn't be removing sex ed classes and contraception out of schools.

Would that I had such naiveté. Would that I could afford it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 04:25:50 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:21:18 AMRoe v Wade made US abortion law go a bit to far. In most other countries you can abort in the first trimester, up until a certain week. Roe v Wade made it legal to abort until the day of birth more or less.



Is that true?
I'm no expert on the specifics of American abortion law but this sounds unlikely.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 04, 2022, 04:39:10 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 04, 2022, 02:24:52 AMYou guys keep acting like this has anything to do with unborn zygotes and fetuses. It doesn't. This is about controlling people and keeping them under a thumb.

If it were about the children, legislation would be put in place to protect them after they were born. If it were about preventing abortions, these same states who claim to want to end them wouldn't be removing sex ed classes and contraception out of schools.

Would that I had such naiveté. Would that I could afford it.

You guys refers to exactly two guys.  BB, who once again earns my quote in his signature.  And Threv, who agreed he was wrong.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 04:49:13 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 04:25:50 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:21:18 AMRoe v Wade made US abortion law go a bit to far. In most other countries you can abort in the first trimester, up until a certain week. Roe v Wade made it legal to abort until the day of birth more or less.



Is that true?
I'm no expert on the specifics of American abortion law but this sounds unlikely.

It's quite true and lots of anti-choice propaganda centered on the grisly way abortions are done in the third trimester. Ignoring the fact that such abortions are most often, probably always, done due to medical reasons.

Nevertheless, if the right to abortions are based on the woman's right to her own body it's a right the day before birth as well as the day after conception.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on May 04, 2022, 05:19:13 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 04:49:13 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 04:25:50 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:21:18 AMRoe v Wade made US abortion law go a bit to far. In most other countries you can abort in the first trimester, up until a certain week. Roe v Wade made it legal to abort until the day of birth more or less.



Is that true?
I'm no expert on the specifics of American abortion law but this sounds unlikely.

It's quite true and lots of anti-choice propaganda centered on the grisly way abortions are done in the third trimester. Ignoring the fact that such abortions are most often, probably always, done due to medical reasons.

Nevertheless, if the right to abortions are based on the woman's right to her own body it's a right the day before birth as well as the day after conception.

According CDC data in 2019 fewer than 1% of abortions took place after 21 weeks. With 3rd trimester beginning at 28 weeks, not even worth talking about unless just highlighting how the crazed right wing will spin anything and everything to their ends.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 05:49:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2022, 05:19:13 AMAccording CDC data in 2019 fewer than 1% of abortions took place after 21 weeks. With 3rd trimester beginning at 28 weeks, not even worth talking about unless just highlighting how the crazed right wing will spin anything and everything to their ends.

I was going for that spin, sorry if I was unclear. I did not have the numbers, but I assumed numbers like you say and that's why I said that it's not a practical problem.

Quote from: ThrevielIn practice I don't think that's been a problem at all, but it's an own goal when it comes to the perception of abortion. The pro-lifers can in bad faith portray abortion as far worse than what it actually is and then...

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: alfred russel on May 04, 2022, 06:32:19 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:19:31 PMDems still control Congress, barely.
Could push through a national law prohibiting state sanctions vs crossing state lines to get abortions or advice.  Commerce clause. Better get moving fast.


Not sure you could get through a filibuster.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on May 04, 2022, 07:00:35 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 05:49:45 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 04, 2022, 05:19:13 AMAccording CDC data in 2019 fewer than 1% of abortions took place after 21 weeks. With 3rd trimester beginning at 28 weeks, not even worth talking about unless just highlighting how the crazed right wing will spin anything and everything to their ends.

I was going for that spin, sorry if I was unclear. I did not have the numbers, but I assumed numbers like you say and that's why I said that it's not a practical problem.

Quote from: ThrevielIn practice I don't think that's been a problem at all, but it's an own goal when it comes to the perception of abortion. The pro-lifers can in bad faith portray abortion as far worse than what it actually is and then...



The thing is they will always find something so not sure there could have been any relevant difference.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 04, 2022, 07:15:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 04, 2022, 01:13:24 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 11:03:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 10:57:54 PMWell it would require 100% support. Is Manchin down?

No, time to see how outraged Collins and Murkowski really are.

Hard for me not to see them in the crosshairs on this one. They held the power to prevent a second rapist from getting on the court.

And why the hell would anyone think that a court with at least two guys with so little respect for women would do anything less than this? Let's not even get into Coney-Barrett's obsession with giving birth.

Who was the first?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 04, 2022, 08:02:16 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 04:49:13 AM
Quote from: Josquius on May 04, 2022, 04:25:50 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:21:18 AMRoe v Wade made US abortion law go a bit to far. In most other countries you can abort in the first trimester, up until a certain week. Roe v Wade made it legal to abort until the day of birth more or less.



Is that true?
I'm no expert on the specifics of American abortion law but this sounds unlikely.

It's quite true and lots of anti-choice propaganda centered on the grisly way abortions are done in the third trimester. Ignoring the fact that such abortions are most often, probably always, done due to medical reasons.

Nevertheless, if the right to abortions are based on the woman's right to her own body it's a right the day before birth as well as the day after conception.
It is not at all true, actually.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on May 04, 2022, 09:04:57 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 04, 2022, 07:15:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 04, 2022, 01:13:24 AMHard for me not to see them in the crosshairs on this one. They held the power to prevent a second rapist from getting on the court.

And why the hell would anyone think that a court with at least two guys with so little respect for women would do anything less than this? Let's not even get into Coney-Barrett's obsession with giving birth.

Who was the first?

Thomas
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 09:24:30 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:21:18 AMRoe v Wade made US abortion law go a bit to far. In most other countries you can abort in the first trimester, up until a certain week. Roe v Wade made it legal to abort until the day of birth more or less.

No it didn't, I have no idea where that comes from, although I saw some talking head on US TV making the same claims.  The Roe and Casey line of cases permit significant regulation of abortion, particularly beyond the first trimester.  So much so that even now as Roe is still the law of the land, it is virtually impossible for many American women to either get counseling or get access to care.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 09:29:18 AM
From Roe: " For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

From Casey:  "To promote the State's profound interest in potential life, throughout pregnancy the State may take measures to ensure that the woman's choice is informed, and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long as their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion."
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 04, 2022, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:17:35 PMSusan Collins?

Sorry, you are correct.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 04, 2022, 10:27:10 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR7GqakXIAAVjsX?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 11:10:06 AM
I'm reading about the possibility of impeaching Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for claiming during their respective senate hearings that they'd uphold Roe v. Wade, but it doesn't seem realistic. What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 04, 2022, 11:17:19 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 11:10:06 AMI'm reading about the possibility of impeaching Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for claiming during their respective senate hearings that they'd uphold Roe v. Wade, but it doesn't seem realistic. What do you guys think?

Impeachment would be a waste of time.  The Senate would never convict.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 11:22:15 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 11:10:06 AMI'm reading about the possibility of impeaching Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for claiming during their respective senate hearings that they'd uphold Roe v. Wade, but it doesn't seem realistic. What do you guys think?

My understanding is they didn't say they'd uphold it - they said RvW "was settled law".

Which is true - it was settled up until they ruled to overturn it.

Anyways, in case it wasn't obvious before, impeachment is an intensely political process and there is no possibility of a 2/3 vote in the US Senate to remove either.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on May 04, 2022, 11:48:47 AM
There is probably a better impeachment case for Congress members who believed such BS for criminal lack of judgment.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 11:10:06 AMI'm reading about the possibility of impeaching Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for claiming during their respective senate hearings that they'd uphold Roe v. Wade, but it doesn't seem realistic. What do you guys think?

2/3 senate vote required.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: viper37 on May 04, 2022, 12:12:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 12:06:12 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 04, 2022, 11:10:06 AMI'm reading about the possibility of impeaching Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for claiming during their respective senate hearings that they'd uphold Roe v. Wade, but it doesn't seem realistic. What do you guys think?

2/3 senate vote required.
Declare Republicans enemy of the State.
Arrest all Republicans Congress Members.
Proceed with the impeachment.
:ph34r:

It's what the Republicans would want to do if they lost their majority in Congress during a Republican presidency.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 11:22:15 AMMy understanding is they didn't say they'd uphold it - they said RvW "was settled law".

Kavanaugh specifically stated that Roe is entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis.  The Alito draft argues that Roe is not entitled to that respect. It is a contradiction, Kavanaugh could not sign on to the draft as written without contradicting his testimony.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 12:55:02 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 12:12:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 11:22:15 AMMy understanding is they didn't say they'd uphold it - they said RvW "was settled law".

Kavanaugh specifically stated that Roe is entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis.  The Alito draft argues that Roe is not entitled to that respect. It is a contradiction, Kavanaugh could not sign on to the draft as written without contradicting his testimony.

Putting aside that impeachment is inherently political, the legal claim to impeach someone like Kavanaugh was that he committed perjury.  Perjury is making a statement knowing it is false.

Again, under stare decisis one can still respect that a decision exists and give it respect and not lightly overturn it - but still in the end decide to overturn it.

Maybe he was being cute in his senate confirmation (heck I'm sure of it) - but that's how the game is played.  We saw the same kind of thing in KBJ's confirmation hearing.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: PRC on May 04, 2022, 01:05:29 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 12:03:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 11:43:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 11:31:01 AMGay rights and gay marriage.

They're coming for this.

Yup.  It's still balled up in the whole anti-LGBTQ "war on sexual deviancy," coming soon to a school board near you.



Confirmed Conservative wanker Ben Shapiro:

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1521895060735942656

Ben Shapiro: "Obergefell is a bad Supreme Court decision and if we had a Supreme Court worth its salt, they would overturn Obergefell".

Obergefell is of course the civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 02:13:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 04, 2022, 12:55:02 PMPutting aside that impeachment is inherently political, the legal claim to impeach someone like Kavanaugh was that he committed perjury.  Perjury is making a statement knowing it is false.

I agree his statement is not prosecutable as perjury.  That is not the standard for impeachment.  The standard for impeachment is whatever 2/3 of the Senate and 1/2 of the House deems sufficiently offensive to justify impeachment.

Were he to sign the opinion exactly as written I also disagree that is just playing the game as usual. That would go beyond cagey to outright misleading the Senate to secure the 2 key votes he needed for confirmation.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 03:17:44 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 04, 2022, 09:24:30 AM
Quote from: Threviel on May 04, 2022, 01:21:18 AMRoe v Wade made US abortion law go a bit to far. In most other countries you can abort in the first trimester, up until a certain week. Roe v Wade made it legal to abort until the day of birth more or less.

No it didn't, I have no idea where that comes from, although I saw some talking head on US TV making the same claims.  The Roe and Casey line of cases permit significant regulation of abortion, particularly beyond the first trimester.  So much so that even now as Roe is still the law of the land, it is virtually impossible for many American women to either get counseling or get access to care.



Happy to be corrected, thank you. I was going by a 20 year old lecture on American politics in my pol-sci 101 equivalent. I will immediately call my University and correct them. Also I failed that class.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AM
More wholesome Republican reactions:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR6_7UPX0AMYcDD?format=jpg&name=small)

It will never cease to amaze me how this current crop of GOPtards revel in their own nastiness.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 05, 2022, 06:53:53 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AMMore wholesome Republican reactions:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR6_7UPX0AMYcDD?format=jpg&name=small)

It will never cease to amaze me how this current crop of GOPtards revel in their own nastiness.

I think the word you were looking for there is misogyny.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 07:03:29 AM
That too.  :P
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 05, 2022, 08:00:23 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AMMore wholesome Republican reactions:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR6_7UPX0AMYcDD?format=jpg&name=small)

It will never cease to amaze me how this current crop of GOPtards revel in their own nastiness.
The fucked up part isn't that Matt Gaetz is an asshole, it is that being an asshole like this gets you elected these days.

The world is full of assholes after all.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on May 05, 2022, 08:51:28 AM
Gaetz is a pedophile.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: DGuller on May 05, 2022, 08:56:19 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 05, 2022, 08:51:28 AMGaetz is a pedophile.
That's one way to ensure that your romantic interests aren't over-educated (yet).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 05, 2022, 09:35:32 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AMIt will never cease to amaze me how this current crop of GOPtards revel in their own nastiness.

Hey, you get to pay to fuck underage girls and get away with it, nasty tweets just get to be a perk.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 05, 2022, 03:06:46 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/8c2gpYzd/image.png)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on May 05, 2022, 05:46:43 PM
Considering that many women use an app to track their periods, that database probably already exists.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on May 05, 2022, 09:29:03 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AMMore wholesome Republican reactions:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FR6_7UPX0AMYcDD?format=jpg&name=small)

It will never cease to amaze me how this current crop of GOPtards revel in their own nastiness.

I wonder if he realizes that most women prefer that microwave dinner with their pets over a $400 gourmet meal with men like him.

I'm curious to see how things will change when more men start to realize that a whole hell of a lot of women view singledom as a joy and not a burden anymore. There are wine bottle covers with a drawing of a sexy woman saying "Old Maid This Mother Fucker".

Men aren't competing with other men. They're competing with a relaxed night in on our own. And that's a tough competition.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on May 05, 2022, 09:37:03 PM
I've been thinking about this a lot, as you can imagine, and I'm pretty frustrated at how ignorant Democrats are being.

Why aren't these supposed White Knights for women pushing the things that have actually been proven to minimize abortions: universal birth control and sex education?

Y'all want to end abortion? Here's how.

Make that their platform. And when the Republicans cry "think of the children" claim that that's exactly what they're doing. Why aren't the Republicans? Make them prove that this isn't about controlling those with uteruses. But as usual, the Dems suck at building a cohesive story and sticking with it.

In the meantime, I'm going to start building home abortion kits using a couple of tubes, a Mason jar and a suction plunger. Supposed to work pretty good. Very popular in the US around 1970ish.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 05, 2022, 10:14:14 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 05, 2022, 05:46:43 PMConsidering that many women use an app to track their periods, that database probably already exists.

Coming up next: having to register your name in anti-abortion states when you buy home pregnancy kits.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 06, 2022, 04:40:17 AM
Well some of the old legacy laws or early drafts are already so broad they'd ban some forms of contraception as well as abortion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: alfred russel on May 06, 2022, 06:13:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 05, 2022, 09:29:03 PMI wonder if he realizes that most women prefer that microwave dinner with their pets over a $400 gourmet meal with men like him.


From what I can tell he isn't struggling to get action.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 06, 2022, 08:25:17 AM
He has his own car!  ;)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 06, 2022, 08:32:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 06, 2022, 06:13:35 AMFrom what I can tell he isn't struggling to get action.

He could afford to buy it, but he did have to pay for it.  Maybe not so often now that he is married.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 06, 2022, 08:38:39 AM
I don't generally share facebook bullshit, but this is just too spot on:

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/279473061_10222196279675720_8877255203353149268_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-6&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=0yPUz8xwTqkAX-olCba&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=00_AT8oiW9et7gCRKcQEHhoZIaK83OSyFSnO6L4qlnpkPQNEg&oe=62796347)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2022, 01:14:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2022, 08:38:39 AMI don't generally share facebook bullshit, but this is just too spot on:

Except - it's not entirely right.  In fact, the unborn are quite demanding.  They require prenatal care and proper nutrition, a clean environment, safe hospitals to be delivered in, and decent homes to go back to. 

But the general point is well taken. If pro-"life" advocates expect to be taken seriously as to their announced principles, one would expect to see similar efforts to preserve and protect life across the board.  In the US that would mean much higher levels of health care provision, much tigher environmental protection, much more aggressive anti-poverty programs, a far more open immigration and refugee policy.  Mandatory vaccination would be a given.

 A few anti-abortion advocates pass this consistency test.  But in the US most don't; in fact there is a decent correlation to support for anti-abortion policies on the one hand, and "anti-life" policies in all other areas.  And thus, the logical conclusion is that this really isn't about the sanctity of life at all.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2022, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 05, 2022, 09:29:03 PMI wonder if he realizes that most women prefer that microwave dinner with their pets over a $400 gourmet meal with men like him.

Most human beings would prefer an evening of dental surgery to spending any time in the company of Matt Gaetz.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on May 06, 2022, 01:58:30 PM
Some states seem to be rushing at the opportunity:

QuoteAnger as Louisiana Abortion Bill Could See Women Charged With Murder

The bill advanced by Louisiana lawmakers on Thursday that would abolish abortion in the state and classify it as murder has sparked anger and outrage among opponents, who have taken to social media to criticize the new proposed legislation.

Under the new proposed bill, called House Bill 813, abortion will be considered as homicide from fertilization and conception. The legislators' professed aim is to "ensure the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all unborn children from the moment of fertilization by protecting them by the same laws protecting other human beings."

Any abortion would then see both the doctor or those assisting and the person who had the abortion charged with murder.

Opponents of the bill have raised concerns that the law will also impact in vitro fertilization (IVF), forms of contraceptives like intrauterine birth control devices (IUDs) and emergency contraception.

Many criticized Republican lawmakers for being swift at curbing women's rights, but failing to put an equal effort into passing other, urgent laws such as improving child support and health services. Some mentioned the contradiction in a proposed law that protects unborn life while condemning anyone seeking abortion or assisting someone getting one to death or life imprisonment.

The bill has the potential to criminalize miscarriages too.

In a statement, Chris Kaiser, advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, called the proposed bill "barbaric," saying it "would subject people to murder prosecutions, punishable by life without parole, for having abortions."

The proposed bill has so far been approved in a seven-to-two committee vote, but it still has to go through the full House of Representatives for further consideration. The passing of the bill suggests some conservative Republicans could be feeling encouraged by the leaked draft opinion showing a majority of the Supreme Court could be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal across the U.S.

"We can't wait on the Supreme Court," said Representative Danny McCormick, who authored the bill.

Louisiana is one of 13 states where abortion would immediately be banned if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. The others are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

Louisiana has a trigger ban against abortion that would immediately come into place if abortion rights are no longer recognized as constitutional. Its state constitution also bars protection for abortion rights.

Louisiana getting a frontrunner spot for nastiest state in the upcoming race to the bottom.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 06, 2022, 01:58:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2022, 01:14:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2022, 08:38:39 AMI don't generally share facebook bullshit, but this is just too spot on:

Except - it's not entirely right.  In fact, the unborn are quite demanding.  They require prenatal care and proper nutrition, a clean environment, safe hospitals to be delivered in, and decent homes to go back to. 

But the general point is well taken. If pro-"life" advocates expect to be taken seriously as to their announced principles, one would expect to see similar efforts to preserve and protect life across the board.  In the US that would mean much higher levels of health care provision, much tigher environmental protection, much more aggressive anti-poverty programs, a far more open immigration and refugee policy.  Mandatory vaccination would be a given.

 A few anti-abortion advocates pass this consistency test.  But in the US most don't; in fact there is a decent correlation to support for anti-abortion policies on the one hand, and "anti-life" policies in all other areas.  And thus, the logical conclusion is that this really isn't about the sanctity of life at all.
The unborn make no demands on those who advocate for their protection though. It is someone *else* who has to bear the consequences of those demands.

I think the point he is making is a bit more nuanced then that though.

It is not just the hypocrisy around caring about unborn babies but not caring about born babies.

It is the emotional triviality of it - that fact that it is just so easy, and hence, kind of cheap. The unborn baby has no baggage, no difficult issues around true caring. You don't have to reconcile your care for a prisoner for example, with the crimes of that prisoner. But that is the core of what (he at least believes) is the Christian ethic. That we care about even those who it is hard to care about, those who make demands on us, in fact, *especially* those that make demands, even unreasonable demands.

This is, I would argue, the very core of the Christian faith. Jesus sacrificed everything for a bunch of humans who were effectively the opposite of the "unborn child" - a bunch of humans in aggregate who were prisoners, poor, the very beings who least deserved his sacrifice, and he made it anyway. 

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 06, 2022, 02:57:58 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSDWac9aIAE7nLC?format=jpg&name=small)

 :hmm:
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 09, 2022, 09:41:13 AM
On the protests and SCOTUS justice's homes - from someone at the Free Beacon - it is clear the right's position here will be "defending institutions and norms", which is a demonstration of why I think it's such a catastrophically weak position in the face of the Republicans' project:
QuoteAaron Sibarium
@aaronsibarium
As the tactics escalate from psy ops to outright intimidation, it becomes all the more imperative that the justices stand firm, and that those who are indulging this behavior—including the Biden administration—pay a heavy price come November.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 09, 2022, 09:48:05 AM
So Clarence Thomas made some comments about people "becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don't like."

I mean...is he just being a smartass at this point? Is it just straight up "Fuck you!" kind of thing?

This guys wife was instrumental in pushing an attack on election results, and he is saying THAT?

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: viper37 on May 09, 2022, 09:57:06 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 06, 2022, 01:18:11 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 05, 2022, 09:29:03 PMI wonder if he realizes that most women prefer that microwave dinner with their pets over a $400 gourmet meal with men like him.

Most human beings would prefer an evening of dental surgery to spending any time in the company of Matt Gaetz.
Spot on.  But if we're already going to the nuclear option with Matt Gaetz, what's left for spending time with Madison Cawthorn?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on May 09, 2022, 10:10:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 09, 2022, 09:48:05 AMThis guys wife was instrumental in pushing an attack on election results, and he is saying THAT?

Have there been any consequences for her?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 09, 2022, 10:15:57 AM
Does anyone else find it amusing that the Republicans are whining about the violation of the privacy of the Court's deliberations when the deliberations are about how to word the Court's announcement that we don't have privacy rights in the US?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on May 09, 2022, 10:36:26 AM
No one should find that amusing.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2022, 10:58:54 AM
My eyebrows were raised a bit when the Washington Post disclosed that no fewer than three "conserative" sources reported to them that the anti-Roe majority is still intact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/07/supreme-court-abortion-roe-roberts-alito/
("But as of last week, the majority of five justices to strike Roe remains intact, according to three conservatives close to the court who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.)

I look forward to Senator McConnell's announcement that the three conservative sources should be hunted down and prosecuted criminally.  And to Senator Cruz's accusations against Alito and Thomas' law clerks.

I'm told patience is a virtue so at least there's that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 09, 2022, 11:14:17 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2022, 10:36:26 AMNo one should find that amusing.

Tell you what:  I won't tell you what you should find amusing, and you don't tell me what I should find amusing.  Deal?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:47:44 AM
Just learned from NPR that SCOTUS drafts (or anything else they produce) are not classified, and therefore not criminal to leak. 

Presents a bit of a quandary for the court IMO.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: ulmont on May 13, 2022, 08:51:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 02:47:44 AMJust learned from NPR that SCOTUS drafts (or anything else they produce) are not classified, and therefore not criminal to leak. 

Presents a bit of a quandary for the court IMO.

It's not a quandary.  It's like somebody leaking nonclassified information about any organization - they get fired and shunned and everybody moves on.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 09:58:30 AM
The specter of criminal charges was raised by Mitch and the like as a rhetorical device.  Assuming this was leaked from the inside, and not an outside computer hack, it isn't a criminal matter.  Some Fox-y talking head said something about honest services fraud, which I found amusing as the Supreme Court significantly gutted that theory in the Jeffrey Skilling and Conrad Black cases, limiting it insider bribery.  Sam Alito was in the majority in both those cases so he would know.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2022, 10:31:30 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 09:58:30 AMThe specter of criminal charges was raised by Mitch and the like as a rhetorical device.  Assuming this was leaked from the inside, and not an outside computer hack, it isn't a criminal matter.

You'd think these people--if they actually took the federal security awareness, records and retention training we are required to take every year as a mandatory requirement from laws they have themselves passed--would know that already.  But that's not the point, now is it.

Then again, we're required to take mandatory awareness training on the Hatch Act which, during the Trump Administration, was positively Camusian in its level of absurdity.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 10:37:57 AM
Yeah the noble if quaint idea of having laws function as norms without clear and explicit enforcement mechanisms fails in the face of a governing clique that views crude shamelessness as the highest of political virtues.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 01:20:54 PM
Quote from: ulmont on May 13, 2022, 08:51:58 AMIt's not a quandary.  It's like somebody leaking nonclassified information about any organization - they get fired and shunned and everybody moves on.

I don't think this will be the last time a SCOTUS document gets leaked.

Assuming the leaker was a clerk, he or she will not be shunned.  They will be lionized and land in some university job.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 01:26:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 01:20:54 PM
Quote from: ulmont on May 13, 2022, 08:51:58 AMIt's not a quandary.  It's like somebody leaking nonclassified information about any organization - they get fired and shunned and everybody moves on.

I don't think this will be the last time a SCOTUS document gets leaked.

Assuming the leaker was a clerk, he or she will not be shunned.  They will be lionized and land in some university job.

Depends who leaked it and why.

A lefty pro-choice advocate I almost certainly agree.

I've heard reasonably strong arguments why the leaker might have been a right-wing pro-life advocate, who leaked to try and force the concurring justices to stick with the decision as written.  If such a person is uncovered I'm not so certain what their outcome might be.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2022, 01:49:41 PM
It's like Murder on the Orient Express...who did it?  So many suspects!

Was it...the Justice's wife with the obviously conflicted political agenda that everyone knew about for years but didn't care?
Was it...the Chief Justice, trying to heard cats that have grown beyond his control? MUH NORMS
Was it...the Date Rapist, in the frat bedroom, with the beer bong?
Was it...<insert radical leftist/minority/nonbinary/UCal-Berkeley grad here> clerk for Justice <insert female/minority/godless communist here>?
Was it...accidently left on a printer?

So exciting! 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 01:51:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 01:26:30 PMI've heard reasonably strong arguments why the leaker might have been a right-wing pro-life advocate, who leaked to try and force the concurring justices to stick with the decision as written.  If such a person is uncovered I'm not so certain what their outcome might be.

They will be lionized and land some job in the conservative media commentariat.  I.e. same thing, different flavor.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 01:53:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 01:51:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 01:26:30 PMI've heard reasonably strong arguments why the leaker might have been a right-wing pro-life advocate, who leaked to try and force the concurring justices to stick with the decision as written.  If such a person is uncovered I'm not so certain what their outcome might be.

They will be lionized and land some job in the conservative media commentariat.  I.e. same thing, different flavor.

Not that the MAGA-verse cares much about consistency, but the talking point has been about how outrageous the leak was.  There's also no concern about throwing former allies under the bus when convenient.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 01:55:19 PM
The fact that the American right is going on about the evil leftist who must've done it sets up the expectation that it was done by a right-wing actor.

I don't have any particular insight or evidence, but it fits the general pattern.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 13, 2022, 01:58:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 01:55:19 PMThe fact that the American right is going on about the evil leftist who must've done it sets up the expectation that it was done by a right-wing actor.

I don't have any particular insight or evidence, but it fits the general pattern.

Their accusations are always projections and confessions. It's what they do.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 13, 2022, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 01:51:56 PMThey will be lionized and land some job in the conservative media commentariat.  I.e. same thing, different flavor.
And if they don't want a media career/have no charisma, there are plenty of Institutes and Centers in American universities that are well-funded by conservatives or the various think tanks that form part of the right's intellectual infrastructure.

They'll be writing memos on who to appoint to the courts in no time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 02:03:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 01:53:18 PMNot that the MAGA-verse cares much about consistency, but the talking point has been about how outrageous the leak was. 

You correctly answered yourself.  In MAGA world, logical consistency is as much a weakness as integrity and commitment to the rule of law.  Look at McCarthy pulling the old who do believe me or your lying ears routine. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 13, 2022, 02:10:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 01:55:19 PMThe fact that the American right is going on about the evil leftist who must've done it sets up the expectation that it was done by a right-wing actor.

I don't have any particular insight or evidence, but it fits the general pattern.

Maybe but it doesn't seem like anyone has a real clue.

I think it is as simple as the right wing media and pols taking advantage of the informational void to push a clear if factually baseless narrative, secure in the knowledge that responsible media will take no position.  We've known since Goebbels that in the world of propaganda and political messaging, the side with less integrity has a structural advantage.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 13, 2022, 02:14:44 PM
Also I think the media - especially the American media - is susceptible to reporting a big fight about process and norms, rather than substance.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 29, 2022, 09:23:46 AM
Really interesting thread from Matt Sitman:
QuoteMatthew Sitman
@MatthewSitman
I've been reading about the anti-abortion movement for KYE, especially as it relates to the broader conservative movement and their place in Republican politics, and what's so striking is how undeterred they were by the headwinds they were facing
In 1972, 68% of Republicans thoughts abortion was a private matter between a woman and her doctor; it wasn't until Reagan's second term that, in public polling, Republican voters became more anti-abortion than Democratic ones
Rather than seeing public opinion as inert, and the point of politics as appealing to views that simply were "given," they conceived of their task as changing the terms of debate, moving people to their side, and winning and using power to get their way
One thing I did not know is that Kellyanne Conway was pretty much the go-to Republican pollster on abortion, especially in terms of messaging aimed at women, in part bc she got her start doing ad/marketing work for women's products

It is a really striking example of a minority opinion building a base of support to legitimise itself. Then, because it's a minority opinion, they focused on the courts as the institution most resistant to democratic pushback and majority opinion. As well as states as the forum to push this because it's not a winning issue at a national level.

Over decades they built the intellectual framework to repeal Roe through lots of obiter and law review articles. As well as the role of the Federalist Society in providing a pipeline of non-controversial true believers for the bench as well as a forum for conservatives, law students, law academics, judges, professionals etc to mingle.

And they kept testing - with laws that hugely restricted the access to abortion at a state and strategic litigation - until they now have a court that will back them.

People talk about do the Democrats need to get dirty like the right, is it just comms - and I think it's this stuff they need. I think it was done for a bad cause here - but imagine that style of approach on an issue with majority support over years, such as gun control or campaign finance reform. The infrastructure but also just the ambition doesn't seem to exist in the Democrats.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 29, 2022, 10:25:32 AM
Not just abortion. That same strategy got them to repeal the 2nd Amendment as it was written and created a new one, not to mention redefined corporations as people.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2022, 03:43:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2022, 09:23:46 AMPeople talk about do the Democrats need to get dirty like the right, is it just comms - and I think it's this stuff they need. I think it was done for a bad cause here - but imagine that style of approach on an issue with majority support over years, such as gun control or campaign finance reform. The infrastructure but also just the ambition doesn't seem to exist in the Democrats.

All that stuff is pointless.  What matters is holding the White House and the Senate when there are vacancies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 29, 2022, 04:32:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2022, 03:43:06 PMAll that stuff is pointless.  What matters is holding the White House and the Senate when there are vacancies.
Yeah that's necessary. But it's not enough - Ed Meese said after Casey that it was the biggest failure of the Reagan administration and I think Republicans were burned by Nixon appointees, Souter and O'Connor.

I think that was when they realised they really bought into the Federalist Society as a way of vetting and preparing true believers on the issues they care about, who could credibly get past the Senate (maybe with some Democrat backing). It's part of why Republicans pushed back so strongly against Harriet Miers - she had no links with the Federalist Society, no conservative record. She was a Bush judge which was no longer enough.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 29, 2022, 06:24:14 PM
Agree with Sheilbh.  Right-wing success in seizing the courts has a lot more to do with an effective grand strategy than with transient legislative majorities.  As the Coney Barret nomination under a strict deadline showed, the Heritage Society has already named the next few USSC Justices, just waiting for the chance to advance them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2022, 07:08:30 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2022, 04:32:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2022, 03:43:06 PMAll that stuff is pointless.  What matters is holding the White House and the Senate when there are vacancies.
Yeah that's necessary. But it's not enough - Ed Meese said after Casey that it was the biggest failure of the Reagan administration and I think Republicans were burned by Nixon appointees, Souter and O'Connor.

I think that was when they realised they really bought into the Federalist Society as a way of vetting and preparing true believers on the issues they care about, who could credibly get past the Senate (maybe with some Democrat backing). It's part of why Republicans pushed back so strongly against Harriet Miers - she had no links with the Federalist Society, no conservative record. She was a Bush judge which was no longer enough.

Sure,Republicans have a history of their appointments going wet after they're confirmed.  Democrats have not had the equivalent problem.  So a Democratic Federalist Society is a fix to a problem that doesn't exist.

The problem that does exist is controlling the White House and the Senate when there are vacancies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2022, 11:49:51 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2022, 07:08:30 PMSure,Republicans have a history of their appointments going wet after they're confirmed.  Democrats have not had the equivalent problem.  So a Democratic Federalist Society is a fix to a problem that doesn't exist.

I think that mis-states the problem.
The issue really wasn't backsliding by conservative judges who had somehow become tainted by DC.  The problem was that the hard right wanted to push for a conception of the Constitution and constitutional interpretation that had no support in the mainstream, either to the left or right.

The first step was creating a historical mythology that saw the Warren Court as some kind of out-of-control radical left-wing institution.  In reality, the vast majority of people have rightfully come to understand the central holdings as common-sense, a basic part of our constitutional furniture.  The right to counsel in criminal cases.  Basic protections against coerced confessions. Invalidation of "miscegnation" laws. At one point there were controversial concepts to some, but it is hard to see now what the fuss was about.

Under this mythology, O'Connnor becomes a "liberal" and Kennedy a "left loberal" etc.  When in reality someone like Kennedy always was well within the mainstream of conservative jurisprudence. He did not change. What changed were the demands of an ideologically charged right-wing jurisprudence that was not satisfied with gains made in conversative opinions of the Burger and Rehnquist courts, but sought a radical transformation of the entire constitutional architecture. 

And it is in that context that the second step was put in place - strict ideological gatekeepers for ALL judicial appointments at ALL levels.  This reached its apotheosis under Trump, where significant numbers of grossly unqualified candidates were appointed solely on the basis of passing an ideological litmus test. Gatekeeping not designed to ensure conservatives are appointed but to keep mainstream conservatives like Roberts and Kennedy OUT.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 03:26:18 PM
Take it up with Shelf Joan.  It's his brief.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 30, 2022, 03:44:48 PM
I agree with Minsky.

The left will need something very similar because there is no area of politics more likely to normalise a change and become small c-conservative than lawyers and courts. It's in their institutional make-up - they will give it respectability.

So if the goal is to push back on things like an individual right to bear arms, the free speech rights of corporations, the narrowing of the concept of privacy to exclude abortion (with a clear hint that they're willing to consider challenges to gay marriage and sodomy laws), then it's going to be a similar project.

I think everything in the conservative tale of the Warren/Burger court is going to happen from an incredibly reactionary position (and to an extent what are the right-wing institutional machine, the Federalist Society, the media except what they fear the left are doing or have already done).

Given their age and political nous - I'd be surprised if Thomas doesn't retire if Trump wins again - they probably have the time to do quite a lot. I think people who don't think they'd get rid of gay marriage or Lawrence are a bit like people who thought that saying "Roe is settled law" would mean they would try to get rid of it - and there'll be other wide-ranging stuff, in particular, I think they will gut the regulatory state. The right have been really up-front about what they're trying to do.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 04:09:56 PM
And I disagree.  Democratic justices don't need vetting, or affirmation, or a more confidence in their opinions, or a legal framework; they need more votes.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PM
What's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 30, 2022, 04:19:29 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?
It would politicise and damage the legitimacy of the court.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 04:20:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?

Breaking the taboo makes it easy for the other side to do the same.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 30, 2022, 04:27:42 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?

Then the other side will do it next time they're in power.  Plus it further delegitimizes the Supreme Court.

You think it won't happen?  GOP almost certain to win the House in the fall.  Senate is a toss-up, and the 2024 map is bad for democrats.  As for President in 2024?  Who knows.  Joe Biden is not popular right now, if the GOP could just manage to not nominate Trump (even if a different nominee might actually be worse)...

Court-packing was only barely an idea in the 1930s when Roosevelt held huge majorities in the Senate and House and it was hard to imagine the GOP winning control of all three.  And indeed: from 1933 forward the GOP only once held all of the House, Senate and Presidency : being 1953-1955 (and even then quite narrowly).  Besides that you have to go 68 years later when it happened again under GWB.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:42:11 PM
I had the impression that the Republicans had already broken the unwritten rules and politicized and delegitimized the court.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 30, 2022, 04:59:00 PM
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:42:11 PMI had the impression that the Republicans had already broken the unwritten rules and politicized and delegitimized the court.

They've broken the front window.

Does that make it a good idea to set the house on fire?


And yes, the GOP were dumb to refuse to even consider Garland's nomination.  If a President de Santis ever faces a Democrat-controlled Senate they'll now refuse to consider his nominees.  And several years like that could lead the court into crisis.

But that's still not as bad as breaking the court-packing taboo.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 30, 2022, 05:13:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 30, 2022, 04:59:00 PMAnd yes, the GOP were dumb to refuse to even consider Garland's nomination.  If a President de Santis ever faces a Democrat-controlled Senate they'll now refuse to consider his nominees.  And several years like that could lead the court into crisis.
Maybe - I'm not sure that, even now, the Democrats would do what McConnell did and I'm not sure they could without a pretty solid majority.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 30, 2022, 05:45:25 PM
If the other side cheats, then the response should definitely be to not cheat even harder.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 30, 2022, 06:11:35 PM
The other side aren't cheating. Obama didn't have the votes to get a nominee past and the people who had the votes decided they'd take their chance and wait their turn. There's no right to appoint a justice if you don't have the votes - there might be conventions but they only work if everyone believes they're bound by it and clearly Republicans don't. But the Senate is part of an equal branch of government and it is absolutely entitled, if it's what the majority in the Senate want, to say they're not going to vote on the executive's appointment and they're not going to be dictated to by the executive about that.

The GOP have a relatively unpopular set of policies and ideas but it has strongly motivated minority support. They've identified and use the counter-majoritarian institutions like the Senate and the courts (arguably the electoral college) that run all the way through the American system - and are there by design. They are using them just as effectively as the slavery interest did before the civil war, as anti-Progressives did in the Gilded Age, as segregationists did in the 20th century - arguably even as anti-New Dealers did in the thirties when they were able to tame FDR's plans a fair bit.

It's not against the rules - it's because of the rules. There are loads of pressure points where a motivated minority can exercise a lot of power; the branches are balanced against each other and independent etc. If anything it is unusual in American history for there not to be some body blocking things. I always think of the amazing description of the Senate acting as that gate barred shut against majoritarianism in the LBJ as Majority Leader Caro book.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 30, 2022, 06:14:02 PM
If refusing to nominate justices in good faith is not cheating, then packing the court isn't cheating either.

If putting up justices who outright lie during their confirmation hearings is not cheating, then packing the court isn't cheating either.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 30, 2022, 06:16:47 PM
I agree with Shelf to the extend that not confirming Garland wasn't cheating per se.  What it was instead was lying and hypocrisy.  They could very easily have scheduled a vote, all voted no, but instead they chose to hide behind a made up principle that justices shouldn't be confirmed too late in a president's term, which they immediately discarded when the shoe was on the other foot.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 30, 2022, 06:34:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2022, 06:14:02 PMIf refusing to nominate justices in good faith is not cheating, then packing the court isn't cheating either.
But isn't that because the number of judges isn't set by the constitution so it just requires legislation? I don't think it is cheating if Congress passes legislation and the President signs it. That's how the rules work, isn't it? They then get to nominate however many they want.

Expanding the court isn't necessarily a bad thing either. In Europe it's relatively common to have more than nine judges and only to hear the most serious cases as a large group - otherwise groups of 3 or 5 etc justices will hear cases which allows more cases/better access to justice. I think it's how the Federal Appellate Courts work, but I could be wrong. So in the positive case you could definitely say - let's add 6 judges taking you up to 15 and each party gets to nominate three initial spots given the state of the Senate after which they rotate like normal.

Although the long-term change I'd make to de-politicise the court is that I'd impose a mandatory retirement date of, say, serving no more than 15 years or until you're 80 whichever comes sooner (and grandfather in the current justices). I think it would make it a less charged issue if both sides felt they were likely to get a chance to nominate fairly regularly - rather than subject to random deaths or politically canny retirments.

QuoteIf putting up justices who outright lie during their confirmation hearings is not cheating, then packing the court isn't cheating either.
I see loads of people complaining about the "settled law" line - I don't mean to be lawyerly but I don't see that as lying really. It seems to me that it's a statement of fact that credulous Senators could latch onto.

I'd also add another point on the Federalists that I think one of the guys on the Five-Four podcast said which is that conservatives are right that the nomination wars start with Bork. While Democrats say he had an up or down vote and lost (with Republicans voting against him) the reality is he had a very long history of articles and writing about conservative legal theory. And when you lay it out it wasn't popular enough to command a majority of votes. One of the roles of the Federalist Society, he argued, was to allow people to get stamped as a true believer (like Bork) without having to write career damaging judgements and pieces in legal academia - so it allows a more anodyne/smooth confirmation while identifying them as "one of us".

QuoteI agree with Shelf to the extend that not confirming Garland wasn't cheating per se.  What it was instead was lying and hypocrisy.  They could very easily have scheduled a vote, all voted no, but instead they chose to hide behind a made up principle that justices shouldn't be confirmed too late in a president's term, which they immediately discarded when the shoe was on the other foot.
That's fair it's just spin - that's standard politics of McConnell trying to pretend there's a figleaf of a "principled" justification. And should be taken as seriously as any other principle McConnell might occasionally avow.

I don't think you're entitled to a vote if you don't have the numbers to force the issue. And I don't really have a problem with coming out and saying that - but I get why McConnell didn't. It's why I don't really have an issue with McConnell saying the number one goal was to make Obama a one term president. To me that seems like an acceptable goal for a politician to have about a president from the other party.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 30, 2022, 07:44:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 30, 2022, 11:49:51 AM(...) This reached its apotheosis under Trump, where significant numbers of grossly unqualified candidates were appointed solely on the basis of passing an ideological litmus test.

Never use Trump and apotheosis in the same sentence unless it includes the word "not."

You meant apex anyway.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 30, 2022, 08:08:14 PM
I disagree with Sheilbh that the Senate is entitled to ignore the "advice and consent" element of the Supreme Court confirmation process whenever it is politically convenient.  Saying the Obama didn;t have the votes to get Garland confirmed is saying that it is not possible for the Senate confirmation hearings to have any efect on the confirmation vote, which is, I think, false.  The reason McConnell went with the lie that it was impossible to reach a confirmation vote in the ten months remaining in Obama's presidency was because he knew Garland would get the votes to confirm.  That was not a decision by the Senate majority (they never had a vote on even whether to have hearings), it was an imperial decision by the Senate's emperor.

The argument over whether that was "cheating" is meaningless.  What can be said without a doubt, though, was that it ended any pretense that the Republican leadership gave a shit about the US Constitution.  No reason why the Democrats should fear to trod the path cleared by the Republicans.  If they want to save American democracy, they have to be ruthless in their use of the levers of power that they have.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 30, 2022, 10:15:10 PM
Exactly. Call it cheating, or breaking norms, or whatever you like.

The Republicans decided that they cared not for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and took a big, steaming shit all over it.

For the Dems to now hem and haw and wring their hands about trying to save some scrap of its legitimacy is doing *exactly* what the Republicans want them to do.

If they cannot pack the court because they don't have the votes to do so, then ok. Work hard to get those votes to do so, and the moment you have them, do it.

Concern that the "Republicans will do it when they get power"?

WHAT THE EVER LIVING FUCK????

Isn't it abundantly clear that the Republicans will do whatever they want, and they don't care? The Republicans are not declining to pack the court because the Dems haven't done it first, they are declining to do it because they don't have to - they already have a 2-1 majority.

If they did not, they would pack it in an instant if they could - they are not limited by *any* convention or respect for precedent, legitimacy, or democracy. All that matters is power, and how they can hold onto it. If Jan 6th didn't make that clear, you guys need to climb out from under whatever rock you are living under.

Shelf, I don't even know what to say to you. You think that anything any party CAN do, is by definition legitimate politics. OK. I guess.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on May 31, 2022, 01:36:44 AM
This is true.

But it's also true that trump could rape a school bus full of cheerleaders and hahaha that trump, such a character, meanwhile if a democrat gets his hug wrong and brushes a woman's breast then thats a massive scandal.

IMO the Democrats need to take a balanced approach. They can't pretend it's business as normal and just keep playing by the letter and soul of the rules, but at the same time they don't have such freedom to shit all over them when they are trying to be the defenders of democracy.

I would say it becomes acceptable for them to take a shit on the rules when it is for the definite purpose of fixing them so next time both sides have to play fair.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Solmyr on May 31, 2022, 04:00:28 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?

Joe Manchin.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 06:23:44 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 30, 2022, 10:15:10 PMShelf, I don't even know what to say to you. You think that anything any party CAN do, is by definition legitimate politics. OK. I guess.
It's less that and more that Republicans haven't done all this by breaking the rules. They read the rulebook, worked out the pressure points and the areas of maximum leverage with minimum votes and they're using it.

If you have a constitution with lots of counter-majoritarian measures, equally powerful and legitimate branches and chambers then I think you probably will end up in situation like this where one of the parties in the system takes full advantage of them. It's like have a state of emeregency provisions. It's the constitutional version of Chekhov's gun. As I say my read is that it's been pretty common through American history -  all that's different is that instead of it being a faction or over a few specific issues, it's a party over their entire agenda.

I don't think that's illegitimate. I think part of what is happening is a stripping of a sort of vibes-based constitutionalism from the bare rules which provide a lot of power to a motivated, united group that work together - if they want to use it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 31, 2022, 07:22:51 AM
I think you are ignoring the once important role of constitutional norms. Constitutions are not the same as rulebooks.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: bogh on May 31, 2022, 07:52:31 AM
I don't buy the "politics as a game and whoever games the rules better is a legitimate winner" approach. Our political entities and norms should transcend the formal rules as written. The GOP has decided to impose their will, not persuade others to their point of view. That is fundamentally at odds with the underlying foundations of democracy. Hiding behind loop holes and rules lawyering does not disguise that fact.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 08:18:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 31, 2022, 07:22:51 AMI think you are ignoring the once important role of constitutional norms. Constitutions are not the same as rulebooks.
The constitutional norms are that these tools were used by the slavery interest, by segregationists, by anti-Progressives at the turn of the twentieth century and by anti-New Dealers. In fact I think the constitutional norm of there not being a blocking group weaponising the constitution's counter-majoritarian provisions is something that only really applies for a few decades of the twentieth century.

My point here isn't that what the GOP is doing is good or right - but that it is derived and based from the tools and institutional framework of the constitution. It is incredibly counter-majoritarian and puts a huge amount of power, if they're motivated, in the hands of minority political interests. So I think it's wrong to frame it as illegitimate or cheating because I think that gets the problem wrong - it's similar to my issue with the "defend institutions" approch. The institutions - the Senate, the Courts, the Electoral College - are what have enabled this strategy.

Similarly I think the solution is probably similar to what happened in the Progressive era and the New Deal and civil rights of using every democratic avenue you've got (as opposed to giving up on states/only viewing them through a presidential election lens which seems to have happened after Howard Dean or whatever has gone wrong with state level races since 2008), pushing them (where you can) to a more democratic approach and building/working with political movements outside of these institutions, which are counter-majoritarian, to increase the pressure on them. Cults of personality about individuals inside these institutions - whether it's Robert Mueller, James Comey or RBG - are not going to save the day; neither will yearning for a return of "normal order".
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 08:36:50 AM
On Garland, I agree with grumbler and Berkut.  What McConnell did was unconstitutional.  The President has the power to make the appointment. The Senate may give its advice, and they may refuse their consent, but they cannot simply ignore or refuse to act on the appointment. To do so unconstitutionally denies the Presidential appointment power.  They got away with it because the Constitution does not contain an enforcement mechanism to compel the US Senate to perform its constitutional obligations other than wait for the next election.  There is an important distinction between bad faith use of a authority conferred under the constitution - which is bad but legitimate - and usurpation of authority the constitution does not confer but for which there is no effective enforcement mechanism - which may be good or bad but is not legitimate.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: alfred russel on May 31, 2022, 08:53:43 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 08:36:50 AMOn Garland, I agree with grumbler and Berkut.  What McConnell did was unconstitutional.  The President has the power to make the appointment. The Senate may give its advice, and they may refuse their consent, but they cannot simply ignore or refuse to act on the appointment. To do so unconstitutionally denies the Presidential appointment power.  They got away with it because the Constitution does not contain an enforcement mechanism to compel the US Senate to perform its constitutional obligations other than wait for the next election.  There is an important distinction between bad faith use of a authority conferred under the constitution - which is bad but legitimate - and usurpation of authority the constitution does not confer but for which there is no effective enforcement mechanism - which may be good or bad but is not legitimate.

There are a zillion positions that require senate approval: does this apply to all of them or just USSC justices?

If their advice to Obama was to appoint a young and conservative member of the federalist society, and he declined to do so and thus they refused to act as they refused to take the advice of the senate, would that be kosher in your view?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: DGuller on May 31, 2022, 08:54:22 AM
As far as legitimacy of the court goes, I'm not sure why Democrats are supposed to be concerned about damaging it.  If anything, they should be aiming to remove it.  Letting the court keep its legitimacy just gives it more power to inflict fatal damage to democracy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 09:09:48 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 08:36:50 AMOn Garland, I agree with grumbler and Berkut.  What McConnell did was unconstitutional.  The President has the power to make the appointment. The Senate may give its advice, and they may refuse their consent, but they cannot simply ignore or refuse to act on the appointment. To do so unconstitutionally denies the Presidential appointment power.  They got away with it because the Constitution does not contain an enforcement mechanism to compel the US Senate to perform its constitutional obligations other than wait for the next election.  There is an important distinction between bad faith use of a authority conferred under the constitution - which is bad but legitimate - and usurpation of authority the constitution does not confer but for which there is no effective enforcement mechanism - which may be good or bad but is not legitimate.
But also isn't AR's point fair. The Senate is in charge of its own time as a legislature - it can't be compelled to look at things by the executive. There are thousands of posts across the US system that require confirmation (which is perhaps something that's grown by accident in the last 100 years). But surely it's up to the Senate how to allocate time and when to hear those appointees? They can't be forced into it and it feels like - in the context of the US system - that would be an overreach by the executive.

Obviously McConnell got rid of the filibuster on judicial nominees - so I get the bad faith point, and I think is fair. But surely it's no different than a group of Senators coming out and saying they'll filibuster a nominee no matter what - which had been a thing that happens for many decades. It's just a party doing it rather than a gang. Is there much of a difference between a group of Senators blocking Abe Fortas by filibuster v the Majority Leader saying he'll block a nominee?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: alfred russel on May 31, 2022, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 09:09:48 AMObviously McConnell got rid of the filibuster on judicial nominees

Not entirely: Harry Reid got rid of it for judicial nominees other than the USSC, and McConnell got rid of it for USSC nominees.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: chipwich on May 31, 2022, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2022, 08:54:22 AMAs far as legitimacy of the court goes, I'm not sure why Democrats are supposed to be concerned about damaging it.  If anything, they should be aiming to remove it.  Letting the court keep its legitimacy just gives it more power to inflict fatal damage to democracy.

Then the abortion protections go away since Roe is the paper shield that keeps states from banning abortion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 11:01:25 AM
Quote from: chipwich on May 31, 2022, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2022, 08:54:22 AMAs far as legitimacy of the court goes, I'm not sure why Democrats are supposed to be concerned about damaging it.  If anything, they should be aiming to remove it.  Letting the court keep its legitimacy just gives it more power to inflict fatal damage to democracy.

Then the abortion protections go away since Roe is the paper shield that keeps states from banning abortion.
Psssst. That is already going away.

Which is kind of the point.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 11:11:53 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 08:36:50 AMOn Garland, I agree with grumbler and Berkut.  What McConnell did was unconstitutional.  The President has the power to make the appointment. The Senate may give its advice, and they may refuse their consent, but they cannot simply ignore or refuse to act on the appointment. To do so unconstitutionally denies the Presidential appointment power.  They got away with it because the Constitution does not contain an enforcement mechanism to compel the US Senate to perform its constitutional obligations other than wait for the next election.  There is an important distinction between bad faith use of a authority conferred under the constitution - which is bad but legitimate - and usurpation of authority the constitution does not confer but for which there is no effective enforcement mechanism - which may be good or bad but is not legitimate.

There have been lots of appointments made when the opposite party controlled the Senate.

David Souter comes to mind.  He was picked by Bush 41 as someone with no apparent history on abortion so he was able to get past the Democratic-controlled Senate.  The Senate certainly wasn't too shy about rejecting nominees (hello Judge Bork) but there was more of a give-and-take between the Presidency and the Senate.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 11:13:16 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 31, 2022, 08:53:43 AMThere are a zillion positions that require senate approval: does this apply to all of them or just USSC justices?

It's just judges, ambassadors, executive officers.  There are quite a few but not zillions.
And yes - the constitutional requirement applies to all.  Of course there a differences in significance between a Supreme Court justice and undersecretary of labor.  But the same principle applies - the Senate can refuse to consent the appointment but it can't take the position it can ignore it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 09:09:48 AMThe Senate is in charge of its own time as a legislature - it can't be compelled to look at things by the executive. There are thousands of posts across the US system that require confirmation (which is perhaps something that's grown by accident in the last 100 years). But surely it's up to the Senate how to allocate time and when to hear those appointees?

1. It is not the executive that compels them, it is the constitution. Congress set up the federal judiciary, including the number of justices.

2. McConnell made it quite clear that the issue wasn't about having sufficient time to schedule hearings - obviously there were - but that the Senate would not hold hearings on principle.  So it's really a non sequitur in this context.

QuoteIs there much of a difference between a group of Senators blocking Abe Fortas by filibuster v the Majority Leader saying he'll block a nominee?

Yes there is a big difference.  The objection to Fortas was an objection to Fortas.  Thus it implicates the Senate's prerogative to deny consent to individual nominees.

The objection to Garland was not to Garland.  It is a certainty that if HRC were elected and if (hypothetically) the Senate composition had not changed, Garland would have been confirmed. The objection was to performing the Senate's constitutional duty at all.  And that is what made it illegitimate.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 11:17:25 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 11:11:53 AMThere have been lots of appointments made when the opposite party controlled the Senate.

David Souter comes to mind.  He was picked by Bush 41 as someone with no apparent history on abortion so he was able to get past the Democratic-controlled Senate.  The Senate certainly wasn't too shy about rejecting nominees (hello Judge Bork) but there was more of a give-and-take between the Presidency and the Senate.

Correct.  And Garland was exactly that kind of appointment.  He was selected precisely because he was unobjectionable and could pass confirmation in the GOP controlled Senate.  That's the system working as designed.  Refusing to hold a hearing is not.  In 87 the Democrats held the hearing and rejected Bork - they did their job and accepted accountability of their action.  They didn't take the position they could ignore the appointment because there would be a Presidential election the next year.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 11:18:58 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 31, 2022, 09:44:26 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 09:09:48 AMObviously McConnell got rid of the filibuster on judicial nominees

Not entirely: Harry Reid got rid of it for judicial nominees other than the USSC, and McConnell got rid of it for USSC nominees.

FWIW I don't have a problem with either of those decisions.  The modern Senate filibuster is also a constitutionally dubious mechanism.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: chipwich on May 31, 2022, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 11:01:25 AM
Quote from: chipwich on May 31, 2022, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2022, 08:54:22 AMAs far as legitimacy of the court goes, I'm not sure why Democrats are supposed to be concerned about damaging it.  If anything, they should be aiming to remove it.  Letting the court keep its legitimacy just gives it more power to inflict fatal damage to democracy.

Then the abortion protections go away since Roe is the paper shield that keeps states from banning abortion.
Psssst. That is already going away.

Which is kind of the point.

So you don't want abortion rights to ever come back.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 12:25:24 PM
Quote from: chipwich on May 31, 2022, 12:21:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 11:01:25 AM
Quote from: chipwich on May 31, 2022, 10:22:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2022, 08:54:22 AMAs far as legitimacy of the court goes, I'm not sure why Democrats are supposed to be concerned about damaging it.  If anything, they should be aiming to remove it.  Letting the court keep its legitimacy just gives it more power to inflict fatal damage to democracy.

Then the abortion protections go away since Roe is the paper shield that keeps states from banning abortion.
Psssst. That is already going away.

Which is kind of the point.

So you don't want abortion rights to ever come back.
:hmm:
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Tonitrus on May 31, 2022, 12:48:48 PM
I suppose, if the Dems get killed in the mid terms, and Biden decided not to run again/lame duck it, he could just take the Andrew Jackson route on SC decisions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 02:43:38 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but are the options "destroy the supreme court" or "give up"?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 02:43:38 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong but are the options "destroy the supreme court" or "give up"?

Yes, clearly there are no other options.............
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 02:43:38 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong but are the options "destroy the supreme court" or "give up"?

Yes, clearly there are no other options.............

Such as?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 02:43:38 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong but are the options "destroy the supreme court" or "give up"?
Its more recognize it for what it has become after the conservatives were willing to destroy its credibility as a legal institution and turn it into a strictly political tool to enact the conservative agenda, regardless of the will of the people, or the actual legal reality of the US Constitution.

That is really what Shelf is saying - the law doesn't matter. What the Constitution says doesn't matter. What the people actually want SURE as hell doesn't matter (although of course the Supreme Court is not actually mean to represent the will of the people anyway).

Now it is just a expression of political power, nothing more or less. 

The option is "pretend like it has legitimacy, and thereby let the conservatives continue to pervert it to their ends" or "recognize that the legitimacy of the SC always rested on those with power exercising restraint in how they manupulated it, and that legitimacy was destroyed by the conservative movement for its own ends, and therefore all that is left is naked political power, and act accordingly".
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 02:43:38 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong but are the options "destroy the supreme court" or "give up"?

Yes, clearly there are no other options.............

Such as?

Vote.  Fundraise.  Organize.

You know - politics.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 03:16:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 02:43:38 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong but are the options "destroy the supreme court" or "give up"?

Yes, clearly there are no other options.............

Such as?

Vote.  Fundraise.  Organize.

You know - politics.
Exactly. Politics. That is what the conservatives in America have turned the USSC into - just another political institution, controlled by the minority, and a radical minority at that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 31, 2022, 03:46:31 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 08:18:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 31, 2022, 07:22:51 AMI think you are ignoring the once important role of constitutional norms. Constitutions are not the same as rulebooks.
The constitutional norms are that these tools were used by the slavery interest, by segregationists, by anti-Progressives at the turn of the twentieth century and by anti-New Dealers. In fact I think the constitutional norm of there not being a blocking group weaponising the constitution's counter-majoritarian provisions is something that only really applies for a few decades of the twentieth century.

My point here isn't that what the GOP is doing is good or right - but that it is derived and based from the tools and institutional framework of the constitution. It is incredibly counter-majoritarian and puts a huge amount of power, if they're motivated, in the hands of minority political interests. So I think it's wrong to frame it as illegitimate or cheating because I think that gets the problem wrong - it's similar to my issue with the "defend institutions" approch. The institutions - the Senate, the Courts, the Electoral College - are what have enabled this strategy.

Similarly I think the solution is probably similar to what happened in the Progressive era and the New Deal and civil rights of using every democratic avenue you've got (as opposed to giving up on states/only viewing them through a presidential election lens which seems to have happened after Howard Dean or whatever has gone wrong with state level races since 2008), pushing them (where you can) to a more democratic approach and building/working with political movements outside of these institutions, which are counter-majoritarian, to increase the pressure on them. Cults of personality about individuals inside these institutions - whether it's Robert Mueller, James Comey or RBG - are not going to save the day; neither will yearning for a return of "normal order".

I am not sure what constitutional norms you are referring to.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 31, 2022, 03:47:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 31, 2022, 08:54:22 AMAs far as legitimacy of the court goes, I'm not sure why Democrats are supposed to be concerned about damaging it.  If anything, they should be aiming to remove it.  Letting the court keep its legitimacy just gives it more power to inflict fatal damage to democracy.

And then what happens to the Rule of Law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:50:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 03:16:58 PMExactly. Politics. That is what the conservatives in America have turned the USSC into - just another political institution, controlled by the minority, and a radical minority at that.

But politics have always played a role in the courts.

The GOP has just been a lot more naked about it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 04:10:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:14:58 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:01:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 02:43:38 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong but are the options "destroy the supreme court" or "give up"?

Yes, clearly there are no other options.............

Such as?

Vote.  Fundraise.  Organize.

You know - politics.
Politics in aide of what?  What should we be trying to do with political power?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on May 31, 2022, 04:16:36 PM
Make your country better?

I don't understand your question Raz.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 04:18:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:50:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 03:16:58 PMExactly. Politics. That is what the conservatives in America have turned the USSC into - just another political institution, controlled by the minority, and a radical minority at that.

But politics have always played a role in the courts.

The GOP has just been a lot more naked about it.
Politics has always played a role, just like democracy has always played a role, and it used to be that the law and Constitution kind of had a minor role as well.

The systems and checks and balances don't exist independent of one another, so of course "politics has always played a role". But the idea was that it would be a *secondary* role, while the primary role of the USSC was the legal and constitutional role. That is no longer the case, now it is JUST politics. The only relevance to the actual law or constitution is just what you can fig leaf pretend to care about the law or constitution.

This is what comes from the conservative war on facts, reality, science, and rational thinking that has been ongoing for decades now. This is what their "victory" looks like.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 04:55:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:14:58 PMVote.  Fundraise.  Organize.

You know - politics.
Yes. And to be clear on the left/liberal side of this a majority of Americans support abortion rights, gay rights, campaign finance reform and gun rights. That should be the starting point not worrying about the decorum and prestige of the Supreme Court.

I find it mad that people who support those things are in a defensive crouch about this stuff and focused on the courts and law not politics.

QuotePolitics in aide of what?  What should we be trying to do with political power?
That's for people to decide, isn't it? That's what democracy is about is resolving those questions.

QuoteThe systems and checks and balances don't exist independent of one another, so of course "politics has always played a role". But the idea was that it would be a *secondary* role, while the primary role of the USSC was the legal and constitutional role. That is no longer the case, now it is JUST politics. The only relevance to the actual law or constitution is just what you can fig leaf pretend to care about the law or constitution.
I think it's always been political. I don't think the courts of the 19th century with all of their horrendous constitutional rulings or any of those rulings pre-1930 which are about three pages long with minimal reasoning were about law. They've always been about politics because that's the role they've assumed. And that goes both ways for good and bad - we absolutely support the decisions of the Warren court, but let's not pretend they were politically neutral and just good law.

I think the shift is that the current court is, with the exception of Roberts, less interested in preserving its dignity rather than that they're more political. I don't think it's that the role of politics has shifted but there's more open-ness about it because, I think probably since Reagan, the hard right has realised they probably can't do what they want democratically, so they'll do it throught the courts.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 31, 2022, 05:15:39 PM
Yikes, suggesting that all court rulings are political acts is a disturbing extreme.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on May 31, 2022, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 31, 2022, 04:16:36 PMMake your country better?

I don't understand your question Raz.
Politics in relationship to the Supreme Court.  I was asking if our two choices were giving up or destroying the supreme court (by further delegitimizing it) and the answer I got was "politics".  How does Politics give us a third way forward regarding the supreme court?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on May 31, 2022, 06:02:37 PM
I don't know.

There are a lot of structural anomalies in US governance. Your countrymen's reverence for the constitution doesn't help either.

In other words, just like most people in the thread, I'm just bitching without providing solutions. I don't think there are any.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2022, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PMSuch as?

Hold the presidency and the Senate when their are vacancies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Tonitrus on May 31, 2022, 07:06:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 04:18:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:50:16 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 31, 2022, 03:16:58 PMExactly. Politics. That is what the conservatives in America have turned the USSC into - just another political institution, controlled by the minority, and a radical minority at that.

But politics have always played a role in the courts.

The GOP has just been a lot more naked about it.
Politics has always played a role, just like democracy has always played a role, and it used to be that the law and Constitution kind of had a minor role as well.

The systems and checks and balances don't exist independent of one another, so of course "politics has always played a role". But the idea was that it would be a *secondary* role, while the primary role of the USSC was the legal and constitutional role. That is no longer the case, now it is JUST politics. The only relevance to the actual law or constitution is just what you can fig leaf pretend to care about the law or constitution.

This is what comes from the conservative war on facts, reality, science, and rational thinking that has been ongoing for decades now. This is what their "victory" looks like.

Series question (for all, not just Berkut):  If one takes on the view that the USSC has become simply another political player, is it fair game for the Executive/Legislative players to reduce or ignore the respect for Judicial Review?

If the Executive were to no longer respect JR, then doesn't the USSC becomes essentially meaningless (except as a vocal, if impotent, political ally).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2022, 07:28:01 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 31, 2022, 07:06:50 PMSeries question (for all, not just Berkut):  If one takes on the view that the USSC has become simply another political player, is it fair game for the Executive/Legislative players to reduce or ignore the respect for Judicial Review?

If the Executive were to no longer respect JR, then doesn't the USSC becomes essentially meaningless (except as a vocal, if impotent, political ally).

If the government starts obeying only the court decisions they like then you no longer have the rule of law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on May 31, 2022, 07:36:50 PM
It ought to be possible to signal respect for the spirit of the institution, while decrying the fact that your political opponents have thoroughly undermined it. As judges of the Supreme Court have basically abdicated their role as neutral arbiters, and are now judging from their political preferences, make *that* a political goal. As is often the case, people now argue about the filibuster, or no filibuster - but no one is actually arguing about what the filibuster was supposed to be achieving, and why that is important. It's all about technicalities - principles get relegated to the background, as if people all agreed about them.

I said it before, but I noticed that in my students as well. We have been operating as if all the principles of democratic rules, and the spirit of institutions were self-evident for everyone, and all we needed to know were the technicalities. Except that the technicalities were in service of certain important principles.

When I began teaching (it's been a while now...), I often asked students to produce a defense of absolutism - as a way to force them to think differently. They struggled. In recent years (5 years ago, or so), they no longer struggled. It seemed a lot easier for them to justify authoritarian regimes, even if they performed the necessary protestations. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 09:53:16 PM
This is not the first time this has happened.  The first time was in the 1840s and 1850s when the Court increasingly took on the role as final arbiter of the sectional crisis, leading to the grotesque effort by Justice Taney to concoct a jurisprudence of annihilation in Dred Scott, "solving" the crisis through the expedient of denying personhood to non-whites.  That made things worse, to no one's surprise other than Taney himself, leading to catastrophic war and constitutional revolution.

The second time - and the one this episode more closely resembles - was the so-called "Lochner" era of the late 19th century through the mid-1930s. During that period, the justices invoked the 14th amendment to strike down a wide array of economic legislation on abstract "liberty" grounds.  The decisions of this period follow the internal logic of a very particular ideological view of the constitution and its intersection with laissez faire economic theory, until they reach points of absurdity.  This is the same dynamic playing out now with originalist dogma, except that crude third rate historical reasoning now stands in for crude third rate political economy.

That period did result in the proposal - ultimately withdrawn - to enlarge the Court.  But while the popular histories often cite that episode - and the subsequent "switch in time that saved nine" - as the key event, what really undid Lochner was the total domination of US politics by the Roosevelt Democrats for 20 years and the resulting change the Court's composition.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on May 31, 2022, 10:05:34 PM
The court dropped Lochner-type reasoning before the court's composition changed, because the results of the 1936 election gave Roosevelt the power to pack the court without anything to stop him but the court's surrender of their bizarre crusade to make the rich richer.  The court surrendered in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish decided March 29, 1937, some 69 days after Roosevelt's second inauguration.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 10:32:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 31, 2022, 10:05:34 PMThe court dropped Lochner-type reasoning before the court's composition changed, because the results of the 1936 election gave Roosevelt the power to pack the court without anything to stop him but the court's surrender of their bizarre crusade to make the rich richer.  The court surrendered in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish decided March 29, 1937, some 69 days after Roosevelt's second inauguration.

That's the story but Parrish was just one case out of many.  By 1939, 3 of the 4 horsemen had retired and by the early 40s the Court's composition had been utterly reworked.  Time was on FDRs side.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on May 31, 2022, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 31, 2022, 07:36:50 PMIt ought to be possible to signal respect for the spirit of the institution, while decrying the fact that your political opponents have thoroughly undermined it. As judges of the Supreme Court have basically abdicated their role as neutral arbiters, and are now judging from their political preferences, make *that* a political goal. As is often the case, people now argue about the filibuster, or no filibuster - but no one is actually arguing about what the filibuster was supposed to be achieving, and why that is important. It's all about technicalities - principles get relegated to the background, as if people all agreed about them.

I said it before, but I noticed that in my students as well. We have been operating as if all the principles of democratic rules, and the spirit of institutions were self-evident for everyone, and all we needed to know were the technicalities. Except that the technicalities were in service of certain important principles.

When I began teaching (it's been a while now...), I often asked students to produce a defense of absolutism - as a way to force them to think differently. They struggled. In recent years (5 years ago, or so), they no longer struggled. It seemed a lot easier for them to justify authoritarian regimes, even if they performed the necessary protestations.


Yes, I think that is the way forward for the Americans. Those who still understand what the court should be should continue to reinforce that point while also lamenting the fact that the court is no longer what it should be.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: celedhring on June 01, 2022, 03:42:41 AM
I think the fatal flaw is the life appointments, it solidifies court majorities and makes it more viable to employ the court as a tool to shape the law of the land outside of the regular political process. This seems to have had a pernicious effect on American politics (at least in the past cycles), with justice appointments becoming a top electoral issue.

Over here we have staggered 9 year terms for justices, and the court is flipping all the time (right now is about to flip from conservative to progressive).  This makes it hard to use ideologically, since court majorities are just not very stable. Now, the drawback is that the court tends to get stalled in controversial matters, like the 10-years-in-the-making abortion decision. But I'll take that compared to what's happening in the US.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: bogh on June 01, 2022, 03:54:51 AM
We have life long (or rather tenure until age 70 where forced retirement kicks in) appointments, but none of the politics. Supreme Court justices are appointed formally by the Minister of Justice, but all nominations are done by a non-partisan expert panel. Panel members sit for four years and are nominated by the courts themselves (supreme, country and regional) the professional associations for judges and lawyers, state administrative levels and civil society associations. Not perfect, but so broadly based that it's very hard for a minority to seize control in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on June 01, 2022, 04:56:46 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2022, 03:42:41 AM(right now is about to flip from conservative to progressive)

How long overdue is that flip?  :lol:
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Brain on June 01, 2022, 05:00:47 AM
I don't even know the details about the Swedish Supreme Court. Since it is fairly simple to change the constitution in Sweden the Supreme Court is not politically important.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: celedhring on June 01, 2022, 05:10:06 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 01, 2022, 04:56:46 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2022, 03:42:41 AM(right now is about to flip from conservative to progressive)

How long overdue is that flip?  :lol:

Last progressive majority was in 2013. So, 9 years  :P

It will flip in the next round of appointments later this year.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on June 01, 2022, 05:24:54 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2022, 05:10:06 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 01, 2022, 04:56:46 AM
Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2022, 03:42:41 AM(right now is about to flip from conservative to progressive)

How long overdue is that flip?  :lol:

Last progressive majority was in 2013. So, 9 years  :P

It will flip in the next round of appointments later this year.

Just realized that the long overdue renovation is not of the Supreme Court but of the CGPJ, the one PP has been blocking for the last few years.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 06:07:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 31, 2022, 09:53:16 PMThis is not the first time this has happened.  The first time was in the 1840s and 1850s when the Court increasingly took on the role as final arbiter of the sectional crisis, leading to the grotesque effort by Justice Taney to concoct a jurisprudence of annihilation in Dred Scott, "solving" the crisis through the expedient of denying personhood to non-whites.  That made things worse, to no one's surprise other than Taney himself, leading to catastrophic war and constitutional revolution.

The second time - and the one this episode more closely resembles - was the so-called "Lochner" era of the late 19th century through the mid-1930s. During that period, the justices invoked the 14th amendment to strike down a wide array of economic legislation on abstract "liberty" grounds.  The decisions of this period follow the internal logic of a very particular ideological view of the constitution and its intersection with laissez faire economic theory, until they reach points of absurdity.  This is the same dynamic playing out now with originalist dogma, except that crude third rate historical reasoning now stands in for crude third rate political economy.

That period did result in the proposal - ultimately withdrawn - to enlarge the Court.  But while the popular histories often cite that episode - and the subsequent "switch in time that saved nine" - as the key event, what really undid Lochner was the total domination of US politics by the Roosevelt Democrats for 20 years and the resulting change the Court's composition.
Would you not also say the post-Civil War court is another example? A series of rulings that really guts reconstruction and the 14th amendment while helping lay the foundations of Jim Crow.

I think that is part of my point - the court has played an incredibly important role, if not in individual policies, then in setting the conditions of politics. I think to CC's point it would be more disturbing if that period of 1840-1940 was actually just about law and not a fundamentally political agenda. To ignore a hundred years of an institution's history - that looks similar to what's going on now and has been to some extent probably since the Burger court - and pretend it's always been a good court and now it's being politicised, I think, gets the issue wrong. Basically for half of its existence as an institution it's been a very important political and politically motivated actor - and that's a really important part of how you understand and treat it.

My view is there is a similar project happening now with the development of an individual right to bear arms, the personal rights of corporations, another gutting of 14th amendment jurisprudence (probably now on abortion - coming soon gay marriage and anti-sodomy laws).

QuoteWe have life long (or rather tenure until age 70 where forced retirement kicks in) appointments, but none of the politics. Supreme Court justices are appointed formally by the Minister of Justice, but all nominations are done by a non-partisan expert panel. Panel members sit for four years and are nominated by the courts themselves (supreme, country and regional) the professional associations for judges and lawyers, state administrative levels and civil society associations. Not perfect, but so broadly based that it's very hard for a minority to seize control in any meaningful way.
Yeah I think it's similar here. There's life tenure until 75 - but retired judges (if they choose) can be kept on a panel and seconded in to make up the numbers if needed. We also have 12 justices who generally hear cases in panels of 3 or 5 (I think this is similar to the appellate courts in the US) but, on really important issues like a lot of the Brexit litigation they will sit as 9 or 11.

But similar there is an application process and the appointment panel is basically the current President of the Supreme Court, another senior (but non-Supreme Court) judge and then representatives from the judicial appointment committees in England, Scotland and Wales (which are made up of judges, lawyers, academics and lay representatives). Then that appointment panel has to consult with senior judges and politicians from all four nations (basically Ministers of Justice/First Ministers). I think the Justice Secretary then gets a name from the panel and basically they can accept it or reject or ask the panel to reconsider - but they can only do that once so at most they will get two recommendations.

Because we always want to copy America there has been a push for nominees to testify in front of a parliamentary committee. It would be incredibly pointless because the area MPs care about is basically the more controversial/political bits of the job like human rights or administrative law. But in the UK, that's only a small fraction of the cases they hear and they try to get judges from different areas of law - so I'm not sure there'd be much benefit in MPs quizzing, say, Baroness Hale whose background is family law or some of the others whose entire career has been in commercial law :lol:

The reality is with most judges I'm not sure of their politics. There's a bit of a sense of whether they're a bit more experimental or orthodox legally and there's swings between the two over time - but even then I'm not necessarily sure it's political v their temperament as judges/lawyers.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on June 01, 2022, 06:22:38 AM
Quote from: bogh on June 01, 2022, 03:54:51 AMWe have life long (or rather tenure until age 70 where forced retirement kicks in) appointments, but none of the politics. Supreme Court justices are appointed formally by the Minister of Justice, but all nominations are done by a non-partisan expert panel. Panel members sit for four years and are nominated by the courts themselves (supreme, country and regional) the professional associations for judges and lawyers, state administrative levels and civil society associations. Not perfect, but so broadly based that it's very hard for a minority to seize control in any meaningful way.
Our constitutional judges have twelve year terms or until they reach 68 and are elected alternating by each chamber of parliament. As they need a 2/3 majority in the respective chamber, only consensus candidates are ever elected.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 01, 2022, 09:07:32 AM
Quote from: bogh on June 01, 2022, 03:54:51 AMWe have life long (or rather tenure until age 70 where forced retirement kicks in) appointments, but none of the politics. Supreme Court justices are appointed formally by the Minister of Justice, but all nominations are done by a non-partisan expert panel. Panel members sit for four years and are nominated by the courts themselves (supreme, country and regional) the professional associations for judges and lawyers, state administrative levels and civil society associations. Not perfect, but so broadly based that it's very hard for a minority to seize control in any meaningful way.

Very similar here. The PM appoints but only from a short list created by a non partisan council.  Appointments are until the age of mandatory retirement but some step away earlier.  Also the factions on the court bear no resemblance to the political party that appointed them. Rather the factions on the court are identified by their stance on legal interpretation issues.  As an example, one of the biggest debates within the court was how to deal with the standard of review for administrative judicial review cases. It concerns me that people think that courts are political tools and that their decisions are just another exercise of politics. That is what some courts have become. And it is not what they should be.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2022, 10:11:30 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 06:07:12 AMI think to CC's point it would be more disturbing if that period of 1840-1940 was actually just about law and not a fundamentally political agenda.

But one can't draw such a sharp distinction.  Taney in Dred Scott was aware of the political implications of his decision, but he thought he was applying the rule of law, once one accepts the fundamental axiom - shared by most Americans at the time - that persons of African descent were not equal members of the American political community. 

The jurisprudence of the Lochner era was based on certain legal principles that appeared logical and justifiable to the justices who applied them: namely that labor was a form of property and that liberty to contract - including the right to sell one's labor - was a fundamental liberty, a proposition that found internal support within the contacts clause of the Constitution. And Lochner era courts didn't strike down all economic legislation - just the laws that didn't satisfy the narrow definition of legal concept of state police powers.  In fact, the Parrish decision that heralded the end of the era accepted the fundamental proposition of liberty of contract, it just adopted a broader reading the concept of police powers.

The current court majority is operating in the same manner - rather than simply applying political results as fiat, they are adopting modes of reasoning that can be rhetorically described as a political neutral "judicial philosophy" but in reality contain powerful biases that shape political outcomes in a reactionary political direction.  It is tempting to adopt the position of Thrasymachus and view this as simply another manifestation of justice as the whim of the powerful.  But the likes of Thomas or Coney Barret do not see it that way - they honestly believe that their jurisprudential approach is the one most consistent with the constitutional system of ordered liberty and that they are simply following the results of a fair and proper legal analysis.

QuoteTo ignore a hundred years of an institution's history - that looks similar to what's going on now and has been to some extent probably since the Burger court - and pretend it's always been a good court and now it's being politicised, I think, gets the issue wrong. Basically for half of its existence as an institution it's been a very important political and politically motivated actor - and that's a really important part of how you understand and treat it.

I disagree - it has been an important and motivated political actor for 100% of its existence. John Marshall was as a political a man as ever lived in America, but he achieved legitimacy for a struggling institution by controlling and channeling that political motivation through the discipline of legal modes of reasoning around which he could build a consensus.  And that has been the hallmark for the periods when the Court has enjoyed general popular legitimacy.  It's absence has been the hallmark of the periods when the Court has not.

The Warren court became controversial not just because of the content of its opinions but because the left wing of the court - Justice Douglas in particular  - was perceived as acting too overtly to fit reasoning into predetermined political results.  The Burger and Rehnquist courts led a backlash with decisions that dismayed many of the left, but it did not seriously implicate the Court's legitimacy because they acted within the Marshallian mode of adhering to interpretive methods and canons within the jurisprudential mainstream.  That kind of small "c" conservative jurisprudence was able to get to conservative results (albeit within certain limits) without fundamentally implicating the Court's bona fides.  But now the leading representative of that conservative approach, Chief Justice Roberts, finds himself increasingly isolated in the face of a reactionary jurisprudence.  And that is why the Court's popular standing and perceived legitimacy is again under siege.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 12:10:22 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2022, 10:11:30 AMBut one can't draw such a sharp distinction.  Taney in Dred Scott was aware of the political implications of his decision, but he thought he was applying the rule of law, once one accepts the fundamental axiom - shared by most Americans at the time - that persons of African descent were not equal members of the American political community. 

The jurisprudence of the Lochner era was based on certain legal principles that appeared logical and justifiable to the justices who applied them: namely that labor was a form of property and that liberty to contract - including the right to sell one's labor - was a fundamental liberty, a proposition that found internal support within the contacts clause of the Constitution. And Lochner era courts didn't strike down all economic legislation - just the laws that didn't satisfy the narrow definition of legal concept of state police powers.  In fact, the Parrish decision that heralded the end of the era accepted the fundamental proposition of liberty of contract, it just adopted a broader reading the concept of police powers.

The current court majority is operating in the same manner - rather than simply applying political results as fiat, they are adopting modes of reasoning that can be rhetorically described as a political neutral "judicial philosophy" but in reality contain powerful biases that shape political outcomes in a reactionary political direction.  It is tempting to adopt the position of Thrasymachus and view this as simply another manifestation of justice as the whim of the powerful.  But the likes of Thomas or Coney Barret do not see it that way - they honestly believe that their jurisprudential approach is the one most consistent with the constitutional system of ordered liberty and that they are simply following the results of a fair and proper legal analysis.
That's fair and I agree. I think it's why I struggle with the idea that you have a non-political constitutional or supreme court. Or that it is dangerous or wrong to think about what the court or the legal system achieves politically. Of course that doesn't mean that there is no theory or legal reasoning behind that.

That's part of what I mean by the current court being a product of what I mean by the right-wing infrastructure around the court. They have advanced a legal theory - my view is that it's a legal theory to push political ends. That doesn't mean that the judges or the academics or law students are just political hacks, but I don't think they are getting these results or reaching these conclusions without the writing and thinking that goes on around them.

I think there's a question of the extent to which you believe that legal theory is in good faith and the extent to which it's a little bit of the emperor's new clothes. My own view is that the judges, academics etc contributing to this fiercely reactionary approach to law probably start from having certain political views and then find first textualism, then originalism - and who knows what next Vermeule's "common good constitutionalism" - as an attractive and coherent(-ish) theory. In the same way as I think if you're left-wing law student you might get a little more influenced by critical theory and that will have an impact.

QuoteI disagree - it has been an important and motivated political actor for 100% of its existence. John Marshall was as a political a man as ever lived in America, but he achieved legitimacy for a struggling institution by controlling and channeling that political motivation through the discipline of legal modes of reasoning around which he could build a consensus.  And that has been the hallmark for the periods when the Court has enjoyed general popular legitimacy.  It's absence has been the hallmark of the periods when the Court has not.
That's fair and I take the correction. But this is where I would criticise strands on the liberal/left who, I think, do not want to challenge or accept challenges to the court's legitimacy because of the "defend institutions" strain of resistance to Trump. I think there's an element of "not shining light on magic" about that which is not justifiable on a body that has a lot of power and is a political actor.

They may earn legitimacy or a bit of dignity but, despite the robes and the lack of TV cameras and the Norman French which is all their to elevate their office a bit we shouldn't give in to that if it's not true.

And it's very fair on Marshall as political - so was Earl Warren. It is a distinctive feature of the US system that through the history of the court you have figures appointed who are primarily political figures until they're on the Supreme Court. I think that era is probably over - but even the Merrick Garland from Supreme Court nominee to Attorney General in a President's administration is weird from a British perspective and I imagine would also be weird from a German, Danish or Canadian point of view.

QuoteThe Warren court became controversial not just because of the content of its opinions but because the left wing of the court - Justice Douglas in particular  - was perceived as acting too overtly to fit reasoning into predetermined political results.  The Burger and Rehnquist courts led a backlash with decisions that dismayed many of the left, but it did not seriously implicate the Court's legitimacy because they acted within the Marshallian mode of adhering to interpretive methods and canons within the jurisprudential mainstream.  That kind of small "c" conservative jurisprudence was able to get to conservative results (albeit within certain limits) without fundamentally implicating the Court's bona fides.  But now the leading representative of that conservative approach, Chief Justice Roberts, finds himself increasingly isolated in the face of a reactionary jurisprudence.  And that is why the Court's popular standing and perceived legitimacy is again under siege.
Although I think this captures what I mean by the risk of law as an area that normalises quickly and tends to be small-c conservative. Because the pushback I'd make here is that your description understates how radical Rehnquist was - especially on the 14th amendment which is core to Roe and the other judgement's Alito is putting in doubt. I don't think Rehnquist acted within the Marshallian mode - I just don't think he had the votes for his type of radicalism.

They're going to have 10-15 years probably to build on cases like Heller, Citizens United, overturning Roe etc. That will become normalised. The institutionalist, small-c conservative instinct in the law will defer to this growing body of law and the theory behind it will be taught as a prominent way of interpreting the constitution. So if you want it overturned then there will need to be an alternative theory that I don't think exists yet - or at least doesn't seem widespread.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 01, 2022, 02:25:17 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 01, 2022, 12:10:22 PMI think there's a question of the extent to which you believe that legal theory is in good faith and the extent to which it's a little bit of the emperor's new clothes. My own view is that the judges, academics etc contributing to this fiercely reactionary approach to law probably start from having certain political views and then find first textualism, then originalism - and who knows what next Vermeule's "common good constitutionalism" - as an attractive and coherent(-ish) theory. In the same way as I think if you're left-wing law student you might get a little more influenced by critical theory and that will have an impact.

I think you've captured the sociology of it.  Every law student studies the same jurisprudential history and faces the same problem: a purely textualist and formalist approach to interpretation won't give definitive answers to all pertinent legal interpretive questions.  That isn't so much of problem for those at home with critical theory - it's more of a feature.  But it is a problem for those looking for a more self-contained legal framework. If one rejects the pragmatic response epitomized by the publicly popular but often scorned Justice O'Connor - it's easy to be led into desperate stopgaps like originalism.

QuoteBut this is where I would criticise strands on the liberal/left who, I think, do not want to challenge or accept challenges to the court's legitimacy because of the "defend institutions" strain of resistance to Trump. I think there's an element of "not shining light on magic" about that which is not justifiable on a body that has a lot of power and is a political actor.

The liberal concern with Court legitimacy predates Trump and is based on its essential institutional role in containing executive power. As frustrating and disappointing as the Court can be, the most significant structural concern in America since WW2 has been the extraordinary growth in executive and presidential power.  Since Congress has weakened over the same period, exacerbated by many self-inflicted wounds, the Court's institutional role is more significant than ever.  And even a slanted court can usually be counted on to restrain the worst excesses of an otherwise allied executive, as occurred in the GWB and Trump admins.

QuoteThey're going to have 10-15 years probably to build on cases like Heller, Citizens United, overturning Roe etc. That will become normalised. The institutionalist, small-c conservative instinct in the law will defer to this growing body of law and the theory behind it will be taught as a prominent way of interpreting the constitution. So if you want it overturned then there will need to be an alternative theory that I don't think exists yet - or at least doesn't seem widespread.

Unfortunately, this is probably right, at least in the limited sense that legal culture cannot avoid being influenced by and engaging with interpretive approaches that are dominant in the Supreme Court and prevalent throughout the federal court system.  And we see that already with lower court decisions engaging in the same kind of freewheeling antiquarianism seen in Heller and the Alito draft.  But it's hard seeing it become *too* normalized when it involves pushing an interpretive theory so naive that it would get you laughed out of an undergrad seminar.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on June 02, 2022, 02:35:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2022, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PMSuch as?

Hold the presidency and the Senate when their are vacancies.

The Senate is designed to represent backward, dim-witted folks. There's no way progressives are going to dominate it for an entire generation, which is what it would take to reverse a 3-6 minority.

If any active Dem politician wants to regain control in their lifetime packing it is the only way. So what if the GOP does the same right after? You can do it all over again when it is your turn. And at least you get a sane court half the time.

It's not like the court has any legitimacy left anyway. A RvW reversal is just the icing on the cake.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 02, 2022, 02:35:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2022, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PMSuch as?

Hold the presidency and the Senate when their are vacancies.

The Senate is designed to represent backward, dim-witted folks. There's no way progressives are going to dominate it for an entire generation, which is what it would take to reverse a 3-6 minority.

If any active Dem politician wants to regain control in their lifetime packing it is the only way. So what if the GOP does the same right after? You can do it all over again when it is your turn. And at least you get a sane court half the time.

It's not like the court has any legitimacy left anyway. A RvW reversal is just the icing on the cake.

Call me crazy, but maybe the Democratic Party could change it's policies in order to appeal to voters in red states, instead of just dismissing them as "backward, dim-witted folks"?

Nah - that would never work...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 02:41:49 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 02, 2022, 02:35:12 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2022, 06:59:10 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PMSuch as?

Hold the presidency and the Senate when their are vacancies.

The Senate is designed to represent backward, dim-witted folks. There's no way progressives are going to dominate it for an entire generation, which is what it would take to reverse a 3-6 minority.

If any active Dem politician wants to regain control in their lifetime packing it is the only way. So what if the GOP does the same right after? You can do it all over again when it is your turn. And at least you get a sane court half the time.

It's not like the court has any legitimacy left anyway. A RvW reversal is just the icing on the cake.

Call me crazy, but maybe the Democratic Party could change it's policies in order to appeal to voters in red states, instead of just dismissing them as "backward, dim-witted folks"?

Nah - that would never work...

Do you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 02, 2022, 02:46:12 PM
Yeah Beeb, they could maybe appeal to rural voters by becoming another Republican party, but that would sort of defeat the purpose.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on June 02, 2022, 04:10:47 PM
It sure would be more democratic if SC nominees needed to be confirmed by the House and not the Senate.

The Democratic party already is more popular in the general population, why would it need to adopt regressive policies to please a minority of voters and potentially alienating a majority?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 02, 2022, 04:14:38 PM
That is WAD
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 02, 2022, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Solmyr on June 03, 2022, 12:54:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2022, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 

Beeb thinks the CENTER is just left of fascism.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 01:12:02 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

The Dems ARE the center. In fact, in any sane country they would be conservatives.

If your only realistic choices are embracing the Alt-Right or (figuratively) burning the SC to the ground, then it's time to get some gas.

Who knows, maybe THAT would galvanize Dem voters. Show them their votes actually get something done.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2022, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 

-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 10:35:47 AM
You are a good little GOPer BB, its a shame you are in the wrong country.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2022, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 

-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx
These aren't Democratic Party platform policies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:49:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:25:47 AM-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx
These aren't Democratic Party platform policies.

Perfect!  Then Democratic politicians should have no problem denouncing these policies.

Oh wait... they don't actually do that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:53:20 AM
I mean I think we've learned that actual policy platforms don't matter.  Perhaps they did at one point, but they don't any longer.

I mean when the 2020 GOP platform was just "we support what Trump supports" and they didn't lose a bit of support we learned that lesson.  It's all about messaging, and the Dems have been piss-poor about messaging.  They all too frequently allow themselves to get defined by the most radical voices within their party because, like I just said, they refuse to stand up against them.

Which alienates the center and somehow makes monstrous MAGAhead candidates apparently seem more palatable to voters.

You can complain all you want, but that's the world you're living in.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on June 03, 2022, 11:08:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:49:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:25:47 AM-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx
These aren't Democratic Party platform policies.

Perfect!  Then Democratic politicians should have no problem denouncing these policies.

Oh wait... they don't actually do that.

Why would the Dems denounce random Tucker Carlson made-up talking points? Not denouncing is not equivalent to endorsement. It could just mean you don't want to engage with the crazies.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 11:09:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:49:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 10:46:26 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:25:47 AM-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx
These aren't Democratic Party platform policies.

Perfect!  Then Democratic politicians should have no problem denouncing these policies.

Oh wait... they don't actually do that.
They do, well at least the ones that are actual policies.  Except student debt.  The majority support that already.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 11:14:18 AM
Republicans can make claims faster than Democrats can denounce them.  Besides it starts to look weird if all you do is talk about what you don't want to do.  The current claim by the GOP is that Democrats are grooming children for pedophiles...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:15:22 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 03, 2022, 11:08:11 AMWhy would the Dems denounce random Tucker Carlson made-up talking points? Not denouncing is not equivalent to endorsement. It could just mean you don't want to engage with the crazies.

"random Tucker Carlson made-up talking points" would be replacement theory.  That's just sheer fantasy.  Or QAnon, pizzagate, or frazzledrip (look up the last one).  I agree Democratis shouldn't even engage with notions that they're secret satan-worshipers who kill or molest babies.

But every single one of those points I said are all well inside the progressive norm and you can find multiple quotes of Democratic-aligned politicians supporting each of them.

Doing this, by the way, is what allowed Joe Biden to become President!  He did denounce defund the police for example.  But he hasn't governed in the same manner.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on June 03, 2022, 11:19:34 AM
I really don't think that's why Biden became president.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on June 03, 2022, 11:21:31 AM
Truth of the matter is that Democratic policies are already centrist. They govern (when they can) in a centrist manner. They consistently win the popular vote.

I'm not sure what else can be done here, when the obstacles are structural.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 11:09:09 AMThey do, well at least the ones that are actual policies.  Except student debt.  The majority support that already.

You sure about that?

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-04-25/only-38-of-young-americans-support-total-cancellation-of-student-loan-debt-poll

And that's just when asked in the abstract.  People generally like the idea of free money when asked, but less so when presented as actual policy.

Doing a quick google it suggests that 37% of Americans above the age of 25 graduated from college.  That of course means 63% did not.  Imagine you're a welder struggling with lots of debts of your own - a mortgage, car loan, credit cards - and you hear that a bunch of graduates from fancy schools are suddenly having their debt forgiven.

Or even if you are a college graduate yourself, but you decided to go to a less expensive state school, or gave up on graduate school, because you didn't want to take on so much debt.  Or you scrimped and saved for years in order to pay off your student debt.  Are you going to be happy that Biden is forgiving student loans for other people?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: alfred russel on June 03, 2022, 11:25:06 AM
An example of a profound failure is the bill last month that lost 51-49 in the senate to nationally protect abortion rights legislatively.

The bill was actually more broad than the about to be overturned USSC protections. Obviously republicans were united in opposition and Manchin voted against it citing that the bill would expand rather than just protect abortion rights.

Democrats really needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Maybe any bill couldn't do that. But why not propose an extremely narrow bill that for example only protected abortion rights if the life of the mother was at risk, or if the mother was raped, or in the first 8 weeks? In the case republicans keep 40 votes against and the bill still fails, you've got them in the voting record on some really unpopular issues. In the event the bill gets the votes to pass, you are actually protecting some elements of rights that are going to go away in some states. In either event it seems a superior outcome to what we got.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on June 03, 2022, 11:21:31 AMTruth of the matter is that Democratic policies are already centrist. They govern (when they can) in a centrist manner. They consistently win the popular vote.

I'm not sure what else can be done here, when the obstacles are structural.

As we have seen, winning the popular vote doesn't actually matter.

Democrats should try to win votes in places that matter.  If you can't change the rules of the game, then you play within the rules of the game as they are.  Which goes to my point - you tailor your message to win votes in purple states, not run up the margins in places where the votes don't matter.


Look, I've had this debate with people on the right too (before a certain portion of the right went crazy).  You're better off getting 60% of what you want, then running a candidate promising 100% of what you want and losing.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 03, 2022, 11:25:06 AMAn example of a profound failure is the bill last month that lost 51-49 in the senate to nationally protect abortion rights legislatively.

The bill was actually more broad than the about to be overturned USSC protections. Obviously republicans were united in opposition and Manchin voted against it citing that the bill would expand rather than just protect abortion rights.

Democrats really needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Maybe any bill couldn't do that. But why not propose an extremely narrow bill that for example only protected abortion rights if the life of the mother was at risk, or if the mother was raped, or in the first 8 weeks? In the case republicans keep 40 votes against and the bill still fails, you've got them in the voting record on some really unpopular issues. In the event the bill gets the votes to pass, you are actually protecting some elements of rights that are going to go away in some states. In either event it seems a superior outcome to what we got.

Excellent example.

Put the GOP on the defensive by forcing them to defend voting against an extremely popular bill.

Instead they managed to split their own party by pushing a maximalist bill that the GOP could comfortable vote against, and that was never going to pass anyways.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 11:41:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 11:09:09 AMThey do, well at least the ones that are actual policies.  Except student debt.  The majority support that already.

You sure about that?

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-04-25/only-38-of-young-americans-support-total-cancellation-of-student-loan-debt-poll

And that's just when asked in the abstract.  People generally like the idea of free money when asked, but less so when presented as actual policy.

Doing a quick google it suggests that 37% of Americans above the age of 25 graduated from college.  That of course means 63% did not.  Imagine you're a welder struggling with lots of debts of your own - a mortgage, car loan, credit cards - and you hear that a bunch of graduates from fancy schools are suddenly having their debt forgiven.

Or even if you are a college graduate yourself, but you decided to go to a less expensive state school, or gave up on graduate school, because you didn't want to take on so much debt.  Or you scrimped and saved for years in order to pay off your student debt.  Are you going to be happy that Biden is forgiving student loans for other people?

I'm currently imagining the fantasy where I can hold down a job as welder.  A house not in foreclosure! A car!  A credit card!  You want me to believe that someone with such abundant wealth and fortune is jealous?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 11:41:19 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2022, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 

-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx
Defund the police is not a Democratic Party platform

Cancel student debt is dumb, but I don't think it is scaring people away, certainly not centrists.

No restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth is not supported by really anyone, and you fucking know that perfectly well. Further, centrists are MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with Democratic Party views on abortion.

I don't even know what the last thing even means.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:47:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 11:41:18 AMI'm currently imagining the fantasy where I can hold down a job as welder.  A house not in foreclosure! A car!  A credit card!  You want me to believe that someone with such abundant wealth and fortune is jealous?

Have you met other people?  While I know you are an enlightened person who doesn't feel jealousy, most are not.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 12:15:50 PM
I took some courses on sociology and psychology if that's what you mean.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 12:22:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 10:25:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 02, 2022, 05:24:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 02, 2022, 04:34:53 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 02, 2022, 02:43:52 PMDo you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights". :rolleyes:

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 

-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx

None of these are actual Democratic Party positions.  They are just your Fox News boogieman lies.  I am hoping that the CENTER isn't foolish enough to believe Faux Snooze lies.  You Faux Snooze-watching folks on the far right are not reachable in any case.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 12:24:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 11:41:19 AMDefund the police is not a Democratic Party platform

Cancel student debt is dumb, but I don't think it is scaring people away, certainly not centrists.

No restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth is not supported by really anyone, and you fucking know that perfectly well. Further, centrists are MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with Democratic Party views on abortion.

I don't even know what the last thing even means.

Defunding the police isn't Democratic policy?  Well it has been loudly proposed by "the Squad".  But if it isn't Dem policy then Dem politicians should have no problem saying so.

Cancelling student debt?  Maybe not in the official policy, but Dem politicians like AOC, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all support it.  Maybe not a huge vote-killer yet, but if it actually happens watch out.

No restrictions on abortion?  Again the activists are simply saying "my body, my choice".  Again - if late-term abortions are so rare Dem politicians should have no problem saying they should be banned.

The last was just my shorthand for all the goofiness around language.  The "not all women have vaginas" people.  Latinx, despite approximately 1% of people of latin/hispanic heritage use that kind of language.  Why do you think that after promising to build a wall Trump's support among hispanics went up in 2020?


All the culture war bullshit is just that - bullshit.  But it's effective.  Democrats need to stop fighting losing culture war battles, surrender where appropriate, and fight on friendlier terrain.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 12:26:15 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 12:22:34 PMNone of these are actual Democratic Party positions.  They are just your Fox News boogieman lies.  I am hoping that the CENTER isn't foolish enough to believe Faux Snooze lies.  You Faux Snooze-watching folks on the far right are not reachable in any case.

Lets, for the sake of argument, suggest that perhaps the center is foolish enough to believe "Faux Snooze lies".  Or, at least, enough of them are.

What then should be the democratic response be?

I'm going to suggest that just calling them "Faux snooze lies" isn't particularly effective.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 12:36:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:22:22 AMYou sure about that?

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-04-25/only-38-of-young-americans-support-total-cancellation-of-student-loan-debt-poll

And that's just when asked in the abstract.  People generally like the idea of free money when asked, but less so when presented as actual policy.

Doing a quick google it suggests that 37% of Americans above the age of 25 graduated from college.  That of course means 63% did not.  Imagine you're a welder struggling with lots of debts of your own - a mortgage, car loan, credit cards - and you hear that a bunch of graduates from fancy schools are suddenly having their debt forgiven.

Or even if you are a college graduate yourself, but you decided to go to a less expensive state school, or gave up on graduate school, because you didn't want to take on so much debt.  Or you scrimped and saved for years in order to pay off your student debt.  Are you going to be happy that Biden is forgiving student loans for other people?

The Biden position (which is the Democratic position) is for targeted relief, which is popular according to your source.  Complete cancellation is not popular, but that's not the Democratic policy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 12:24:01 PMDefunding the police isn't Democratic policy?  Well it has been loudly proposed by "the Squad".  But if it isn't Dem policy then Dem politicians should have no problem saying so.

Indeed.  They have had no problem saying so.

QuoteCancelling student debt?  Maybe not in the official policy, but Dem politicians like AOC, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all support it.  Maybe not a huge vote-killer yet, but if it actually happens watch out.

So, you are conceding that your original contention was false.  Smart move.

QuoteNo restrictions on abortion?  Again the activists are simply saying "my body, my choice".  Again - if late-term abortions are so rare Dem politicians should have no problem saying they should be banned.

The Democratic position is unchanged on late-term abortions.  The Roe (and subsequent) decisions would stand in the Democratic bill.  What would not stand are the bullshit rules designed in the Red States to drive up the cost of abortions and make them maximally inconvenient.  None of the rules that would be prohibited by the Democratic bill have any medical purpose.

QuoteThe last was just my shorthand for all the goofiness around language.  The "not all women have vaginas" people.  Latinx, despite approximately 1% of people of latin/hispanic heritage use that kind of language.  Why do you think that after promising to build a wall Trump's support among hispanics went up in 2020?

The Democratic Party has no position on such issues as to whether people should be allowed to use the term Latinx.  That is a typical culture war Faux Snooze fake issue.

QuoteAll the culture war bullshit is just that - bullshit.  But it's effective.  Democrats need to stop fighting losing culture war battles, surrender where appropriate, and fight on friendlier terrain.

90+% of the "culture war bullshit" is the product of addled right wing brains.  They NEED the culture war so that they can be heroes in it, even if it requires believing in vast imaginary conspiracies. 

The problem the Democrats have is in motivating the CENTER to vote, not in getting them to vote Democratic when they do vote.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 12:47:36 PM
Bless your heart grumbler.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 12:48:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 12:26:15 PMLets, for the sake of argument, suggest that perhaps the center is foolish enough to believe "Faux Snooze lies".  Or, at least, enough of them are.

What then should be the democratic response be?

I'm going to suggest that just calling them "Faux snooze lies" isn't particularly effective.

If, for the sake of argument, the CENTER is going to believe lies no matter what the evidence says, then the Democrats are screwed.  There is no way the left will ever sacrifice their self-respect enough to lie like the right.  If the voters are only motivated by a belief in vast conspiracies by supervillains, then democracy is dead.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 01:00:57 PM
As your interventions make clear, BB, and as we have covered multiple times:

These are not Democratic policies: these are things that have been demonized by Conservatives. Which, fair enough, is politics. 

But, as the Republicans' case also make it clear: "popular politics" can be a fool's errand. Conservative policies are generally quite unpopular. But they sure commit to their bit.

A lot of it is about energy, and committment. Democrats generally cede control of the discourse to Republican talking points. They have nothing else. It is in that vaccuum that people who *do* have something, i.e., the progressives, have an actual alternative discourse. I am pretty sure the American people whouldn't necessarily subscribe to all that progressives propose: yet they sure don't have a clear sense of what Republicans propose either, and yet they vote for these fuckers. Above all, the progressives seem to be about the only ones in the democratic party that *do* have policies that touch matters like "everyday life". But obviously, these are not the things that Republicans emphasize in their opponents.

I don't think there is a magical solution that suddenly makes the Democrats the winning ticket, whether turning into democratic Republicans, or democratic Socialists. I tend to think that either strategy can actually yield results. One thing seems sure though: the sort of ambivalent, non-committal, programme-by-committee, tsk-tsk-ing, awaiting for a sudden realization of your opponent's own immorality kind-of approach seem capable of delivering tiny, uncertain winning margins - which is terribly high risk strategy. Is that sort of approach, the Center? It seems that way to me - but I am no centrist. The problem with "centrism" is that the need to distance yourself from extremes often dispenses you from having any clear sense about what, exactly, you stand for.

At this stage, I am pretty sure that any sort of moderate Democrat would be painted as some sort of extreme radical. The trick isn't to find some sort of Republican that would run Democrat. That won't happen. The trick is finding a Democrat that is passionate, has a clear sense of what they stand for, know how to answer to the death cult, and authority cult of the Conservatives (and just isn't content to whine about it), and isn't a fucking billion years old.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 01:00:57 PMAt this stage, I am pretty sure that any sort of moderate Democrat would be painted as some sort of extreme radical. The trick isn't to find some sort of Republican that would run Democrat. That won't happen. The trick is finding a Democrat that is passionate, has a clear sense of what they stand for, know how to answer to the death cult, and authority cult of the Conservatives (and just isn't content to whine about it), and isn't a fucking billion years old.

I don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Now obviously, while Joe Manchin is a great candidate to run in WV, he's not the kind of candidate you'd run in California.  But I think he is an example of a moderate candidate who can win in an otherwise red state, and why you should run a purplish candidate in purplish states.

Just look at Beto O'Rourke.  Running as a centrist he came very close to defeating Ted Cruz in Texas.  Then he went and ran for president and decided he had to go hard-left.  It didn't work but now he's on record saying "yes I will take away your guns".  That's going to just kill him in his gubernatorial race in November - but it sure makes it easy for him to raise money from progressives.

When you describe "a Democrat that is passionate, has a clear sense of what they stand for" - you're calling for a base turnout strategy.  'We just need to get our voters to the polls'.  I think the evidence that a base turnout strategy works for Democrats seems to be lacking.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 03, 2022, 01:46:57 PM
So the argument is less the Democrats need to move to the right and more they need to ruthlessly crush every politician within the party who does not strictly tow the party line?

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 02:12:54 PM
Beto ran a hard left presidential campaign? 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 01:19:01 PMI don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Habbaku on June 03, 2022, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 01:19:01 PMI don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

He's the kind of guy who votes with Biden 95.5% of the time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 02:42:54 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 01:19:01 PMI don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.

He absolutely should not be the face of the party.  He's out of step with his party on some important issues.

But Donald Fucking Trump won West Virginia by 68% to 29%.  Yet Joe Manchin won as a Democrat.  Without Joe Manchin it's not that the WV Senate seat would be held by a more liberal Democrat - it would be held by a Republican.

The Democratic Party should run solid progressives in solidly progressive areas, and Joe Manchin-types in conservative areas.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2022, 02:54:54 PM
Part of the problem is talking about the "center" as though that is something that still exist in American political discourse.  As if there is a coherent continuum of policy positions running neatly from left to right and as if voters are making there decision depending on how candidates line up on preferred policy.  As an approximation to reality I suppose that worked well enough back when I was kid in the 80s but as a description of political reality now it fails.

One of the two major parties has no policy platform anymore.  They literally stand for nothing other than retaining power. How do you triangulate that?

The Democrats have plenty of policies that are popular in red states.  Affordable health care, child care, taxing billionaire hedge fund guys, cleaning up Wall Street.  But people who like that agenda still vote against because they don't like Hillary's pants.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 03:03:37 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 03, 2022, 02:35:16 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 01:19:01 PMI don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

Isn't this the guy who votes with the GOP against LGBT & abortion rights and the environment?
That's the kind of Dem you think should be the face of the party? Because he sounds like a Republican to me.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

He's the kind of guy who votes with Biden 95.5% of the time.

He also voted with Trump for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, which is a lot more pertinent to this thread.

PS. I don't like FPTP systems, but I love that you guys can track votes like this.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:13:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2022, 02:54:54 PMPart of the problem is talking about the "center" as though that is something that still exist in American political discourse.  As if there is a coherent continuum of policy positions running neatly from left to right and as if voters are making there decision depending on how candidates line up on preferred policy.  As an approximation to reality I suppose that worked well enough back when I was kid in the 80s but as a description of political reality now it fails.

One of the two major parties has no policy platform anymore.  They literally stand for nothing other than retaining power. How do you triangulate that?

The Democrats have plenty of policies that are popular in red states.  Affordable health care, child care, taxing billionaire hedge fund guys, cleaning up Wall Street.  But people who like that agenda still vote against because they don't like Hillary's pants.

"American political discourse" though is different from "American politics".

There's still a centre out there, just the two parties aren't speaking to it.

So take those popular policy positions and run with them - I'm not suggesting the democrats become the GOP-lite.  But back off on some of the culture war fights you can't win.  Make sure voters know you support border security, although you support more legal immigration.  You want police reform, not abolition.  You support trans people, but not trans athletes in competitive sports.  You believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 03:28:26 PM
Or, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 03:28:26 PMOr, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 03:28:26 PMOr, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And GOP voters will fall for it every time. Remind me again, why was it wrong to call them backward dim-witted folks?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:56:51 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 03:28:26 PMOr, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And GOP voters will fall for it every time. Remind me again, why was it wrong to call them backward dim-witted folks?

You call them what you want.

But it's counter-productive for Dem politicians to think of them that way because they're trying to get these people to vote for them.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: DGuller on June 03, 2022, 03:58:19 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 03:28:26 PMOr, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And GOP voters will fall for it every time. Remind me again, why was it wrong to call them backward dim-witted folks?
It's not a question of correct or wrong, it's a question of winning elections.  Sometimes your boss is backwards and dim-witted, and it's a terrible situation, but generally speaking calling him backwards and dim-witted won't make it any better.  That doesn't mean that he isn't, but even the most convincing argument to that effect won't help you with the big picture.  The big picture is that you need to find a way to get your dim-witted boss to not make a catastrophic decision.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 04:14:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:13:08 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 03, 2022, 02:54:54 PMPart of the problem is talking about the "center" as though that is something that still exist in American political discourse.  As if there is a coherent continuum of policy positions running neatly from left to right and as if voters are making there decision depending on how candidates line up on preferred policy.  As an approximation to reality I suppose that worked well enough back when I was kid in the 80s but as a description of political reality now it fails.

One of the two major parties has no policy platform anymore.  They literally stand for nothing other than retaining power. How do you triangulate that?

The Democrats have plenty of policies that are popular in red states.  Affordable health care, child care, taxing billionaire hedge fund guys, cleaning up Wall Street.  But people who like that agenda still vote against because they don't like Hillary's pants.

"American political discourse" though is different from "American politics".

There's still a centre out there, just the two parties aren't speaking to it.

So take those popular policy positions and run with them - I'm not suggesting the democrats become the GOP-lite.  But back off on some of the culture war fights you can't win.  Make sure voters know you support border security, although you support more legal immigration.  You want police reform, not abolition.  You support trans people, but not trans athletes in competitive sports.  You believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

That is exactly the GOP lite you say you are not advocating for.  Why, for example should abortion be rare?  That is the kind of logic that renders abortion services rare to non existent.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 04:21:09 PM
The obvious solution is to simply tell lurid lies like the GOP does. 

"The GOP is planning to put all non-white 'Replacers' into to camps for deportation!"

"Republicans don't want to let you choose you religion.  Will institute mandatory services!"

"Religious Right will dock you pay 10% for mega churches!"

"Saying 'Godamn' will be a felony".
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:56:51 PMYou call them what you want.

But it's counter-productive for Dem politicians to think of them that way because they're trying to get these people to vote for them.
Why though?

The votes they should be looking for are those of progressive people who don't bother going to the polls.
And who can blame them? Lets face it, it's not like the Dems are going to do anything actually progressive with those votes.

Decent healthcare? Socialism! What are we, Europe?
Curtailing corporations/billionaires' power on the political system? Yikes!
Packing the Court, which would at least provide judicial cover to millions for a few years? Heresy! That would destroy the institution's prestige!

Yeah, much better idea to chase a mythical "center" ever shifting right.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 04:52:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:35:37 PMWon't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And that will always happen - they were able to make Hilary into an unhinged leftist, ffs. To let the Republicans occupy that space is a losing strategy. Meanwhile, conservatives seem utterly happy to think what Cawthorne, or Taylor Green, or the other fascists is just fine and dandy, and not worthy of comment or distance. You want Dems to answer those accusations because these are elements that concern you as a conservative. But I don't think the center that you think is there for the taking, share in that major concern. 

Flood the waves with what you want to do, and make Republicans appear as if they were concerned with silly stuff and/or naked power grab.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 05:06:02 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:56:51 PMYou call them what you want.

But it's counter-productive for Dem politicians to think of them that way because they're trying to get these people to vote for them.
Why though?

The votes they should be looking for are those of progressive people who don't bother going to the polls.
And who can blame them? Lets face it, it's not like the Dems are going to do anything actually progressive with those votes.

Decent healthcare? Socialism! What are we, Europe?
Curtailing corporations/billionaires' power on the political system? Yikes!
Packing the Court, which would at least provide judicial cover to millions for a few years? Heresy! That would destroy the institution's prestige!

Yeah, much better idea to chase a mythical "center" ever shifting right.

That's the base turnout strategy.  Which has the added benefit of telling activists they don't need to compromise on anything in order to win.

It also hasn't shown itself to work very well.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 03, 2022, 05:09:22 PM
I've noticed that in recent weeks, it's a funny thing. The word "activist" being used to mean left wing people in general. Like the right doesn't have activists?

As I said, even if the democratic party totally set themselves at odds with AOC and Co... Will that really sway many people? I doubt it. It would do more harm than good to divide the left from the centre. Already people on the left are flaky when it comes to voting dem. And there are a lot of people in the US who sit left of americas very right wing centre.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 06:20:28 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on June 03, 2022, 02:35:16 PMhttps://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

He's the kind of guy who votes with Biden 95.5% of the time.

Which is in the bottom 10% of Democratic Senators.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 06:30:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:13:08 PM"American political discourse" though is different from "American politics".

There's still a centre out there, just the two parties aren't speaking to it.

So take those popular policy positions and run with them - I'm not suggesting the democrats become the GOP-lite.  But back off on some of the culture war fights you can't win.  Make sure voters know you support border security, although you support more legal immigration.  You want police reform, not abolition.  You support trans people, but not trans athletes in competitive sports.  You believe abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Those are the Democratic platform positions, by and large (though their definition of which sports can and which can't survive the participation of transwomen may differ from yours).

The Democrats definitely have a communication problem, and an age image problem.  Perhaps they really SHOULD become as shamelessly dishonest as the Republicans and their pet network, but they lack both the party discipline and the party hypocrisy to pull it off.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 06:34:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 04:14:32 PMThat is exactly the GOP lite you say you are not advocating for.  Why, for example should abortion be rare?  That is the kind of logic that renders abortion services rare to non existent.

Abortion (at least, surgical abortion) should be rare because it is traumatic, carries some risk, and takes time and money away from medical treatments than cannot be easily avoided.  Contraception is superior to abortion in every sense.  And heart transplants are rare, yet heart transplant services are not rare to non-existent.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 08:24:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 06:34:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 04:14:32 PMThat is exactly the GOP lite you say you are not advocating for.  Why, for example should abortion be rare?  That is the kind of logic that renders abortion services rare to non existent.

Abortion (at least, surgical abortion) should be rare because it is traumatic, carries some risk, and takes time and money away from medical treatments than cannot be easily avoided.  Contraception is superior to abortion in every sense.  And heart transplants are rare, yet heart transplant services are not rare to non-existent.

In an ideal world, yes.  But a terrible public policy position.  If abortions should be rare then it's ok to restrict access.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 08:25:50 PM
Don't be daft.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 08:31:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 08:25:50 PMDon't be daft.

How would you ensure abortions are rare?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 08:39:52 PM
Like Barrister said, encourage contraception.  That makes it rarer.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 03, 2022, 08:51:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 08:24:43 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2022, 06:34:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 03, 2022, 04:14:32 PMThat is exactly the GOP lite you say you are not advocating for.  Why, for example should abortion be rare?  That is the kind of logic that renders abortion services rare to non existent.

Abortion (at least, surgical abortion) should be rare because it is traumatic, carries some risk, and takes time and money away from medical treatments than cannot be easily avoided.  Contraception is superior to abortion in every sense.  And heart transplants are rare, yet heart transplant services are not rare to non-existent.

In an ideal world, yes.  But a terrible public policy position.  If abortions should be rare then it's ok to restrict access.
We do restrict access. Roe v Wade didn't say you could not restrict access at all. In fact, it said you very much could.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2022, 09:43:25 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:56:51 PMYou call them what you want.

But it's counter-productive for Dem politicians to think of them that way because they're trying to get these people to vote for them.
Why though?

The votes they should be looking for are those of progressive people who don't bother going to the polls.
And who can blame them? Lets face it, it's not like the Dems are going to do anything actually progressive with those votes.

Decent healthcare? Socialism! What are we, Europe?
Curtailing corporations/billionaires' power on the political system? Yikes!
Packing the Court, which would at least provide judicial cover to millions for a few years? Heresy! That would destroy the institution's prestige!

Yeah, much better idea to chase a mythical "center" ever shifting right.

 :wacko: Do progressives not care about abortion?  Gun control?  Stopping Trumpists?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Solmyr on June 04, 2022, 12:58:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 11:22:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 11:09:09 AMThey do, well at least the ones that are actual policies.  Except student debt.  The majority support that already.

You sure about that?

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-04-25/only-38-of-young-americans-support-total-cancellation-of-student-loan-debt-poll

And that's just when asked in the abstract.  People generally like the idea of free money when asked, but less so when presented as actual policy.

Doing a quick google it suggests that 37% of Americans above the age of 25 graduated from college.  That of course means 63% did not.  Imagine you're a welder struggling with lots of debts of your own - a mortgage, car loan, credit cards - and you hear that a bunch of graduates from fancy schools are suddenly having their debt forgiven.

Or even if you are a college graduate yourself, but you decided to go to a less expensive state school, or gave up on graduate school, because you didn't want to take on so much debt.  Or you scrimped and saved for years in order to pay off your student debt.  Are you going to be happy that Biden is forgiving student loans for other people?

So what you are saying is, people hate it when good things happen to other people and therefore decide they must support the party of crazies?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Solmyr on June 04, 2022, 01:06:56 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:56:51 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 03, 2022, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on June 03, 2022, 03:28:26 PMOr, perhaps: STFU about these topics, which have been defined by Republicans for years, and talk about other things.

Won't work - because you'll always have your AOCs (and if not elected politicians, then your activist base) talking about these topics.  And as a response you'll have the GOP trying to tie all Dems to what the fringiest parts of the left are saying.

And GOP voters will fall for it every time. Remind me again, why was it wrong to call them backward dim-witted folks?

You call them what you want.

But it's counter-productive for Dem politicians to think of them that way because they're trying to get these people to vote for them.

In what universe are these people ever going to vote for the Dems? These are people who depend on Obamacare but hate Obama and want to overturn... Obamacare.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2022, 01:56:47 AM
I think what he's saying is, if free money is being handed out, most people want their cut.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 07:51:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 08:39:52 PMLike Barrister said, encourage contraception.  That makes it rarer.

Yeah, planned parenthood right.  That is the answer conservatives always give.  And then they go to no sex.  The thing that goes hand in hand is limiting access to abortion.

By the way, contraception education has been in place for many decades.

If that is the answer, what more would you do to make abortions rare?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on June 04, 2022, 08:04:20 AM
I'm not sure it is though - contraception is part of it (including the morning after pill), so is sex education and so is a welfare state.

If contraception is available and affordable, people are educated about sex and what help is available and there's a social support systems that allows an actual choice.

My understanding is that the US has more abortions than Canada, or most Western European countries. It feels like that's either because those countries are more restrictive than the US, which I don't think is correct, or because those countries' attitudes to contraception, education and welfare mean there are fewer abortions. But I don't think Canada and Western Europe are limiting access - they have different conditions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 08:22:02 AM
I think you've hit upon an important factor. Contraception education is all well and good, but what about the cost of actually obtaining of the contraception. It's one of the dangers of the mantra that abortions should be rare. The conservatives who spout the mantra are the very same people who talk about small government.  They were very happy to make broad statements about whether women should rarely have an abortion without putting other supports in place so that women rarely are in the position of having an unwanted pregnancy.

The mantra of rare abortions alone, simply leads to the logic of reduced access to make it rare.

It's interesting that you rarely hear a conservative say unwanted pregnancies should be rare. That of course is the real answer to making abortions rare. But that cuts across a difficult religious question for the right.



Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Grey Fox on June 04, 2022, 08:50:23 AM
BB is only using a classic right tactic of keeping the insane position right and a sensible yet discriminatory position center all in an effort to keep the Overton window in the right. Its a downright Putinesque strategy.


Raz was posting it in jest but I do think the USA left should constantly call the GOP for all it's insane positions. In some circles, it's what is happening but it needs to start reaching mainstream media.

First they go for abortion than it'll be casual sex than it'll be interracial relationships. It is easy to find those positions in GOP circles. Start screaming how backwards that is all the time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 09:21:58 AM
And of course there are religious conservatives who strongly believe there should be no pre-marital sex - which fits in nicely with the mantra that abortions should be rare.  In that world view abortions would essentially become unnecessary.

But I am not sure Raz was not being serious.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 04, 2022, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2022, 08:50:23 AMBB is only using a classic right tactic of keeping the insane position right and a sensible yet discriminatory position center all in an effort to keep the Overton window in the right. Its a downright Putinesque strategy.

Fuck off.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2022, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2022, 08:50:23 AMBB is only using a classic right tactic of keeping the insane position right and a sensible yet discriminatory position center all in an effort to keep the Overton window in the right. Its a downright Putinesque strategy.

Fuck off.

You are all about tolerance and listening the views of others, except when there is criticism of your views.  Classic right wing move.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 04, 2022, 11:37:00 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 07:51:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 08:39:52 PMLike Barrister said, encourage contraception.  That makes it rarer.

Yeah, planned parenthood right.  That is the answer conservatives always give.  And then they go to no sex.  The thing that goes hand in hand is limiting access to abortion.

By the way, contraception education has been in place for many decades.

If that is the answer, what more would you do to make abortions rare?
You've already done it.  They are rare.  Congrats.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 11:45:03 AM
You guys don't teach it in your state?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: DGuller on June 04, 2022, 11:53:18 AM
If we want to keep this forum as a place where we aim to discuss issues, maybe it would be best to not label people Putinesque.  I know it's a big if, previous discussions indicate that some would be perfectly okay with this place becoming a safe place to get validation for one's existing opinions, but I'm just throwing this out there in case there is still some appetite for discussing things across the echo chambers.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 04, 2022, 12:05:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 11:45:03 AMYou guys don't teach it in your state?
I live in Missouri...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 12:05:52 PM
Really, commenting on the hypocrisy of the conservative position on abortion is seeking validation within an echo chamber.  Buddy, stop watching Fox.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2022, 12:05:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 11:45:03 AMYou guys don't teach it in your state?
I live in Missouri...

 :D  I keep forgetting.  :)

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on June 04, 2022, 12:30:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 09:21:58 AMAnd of course there are religious conservatives who strongly believe there should be no pre-marital sex - which fits in nicely with the mantra that abortions should be rare.  In that world view abortions would essentially become unnecessary.

But I am not sure Raz was not being serious.
I think those are different entirely.

To make it really clear the examples of Catholic Ireland and Poland did/do not think abortion should be rare - it should be prohibited. They also thought no pre-marital sex and no contraception and, in the case of Ireland, built coercive mechanisms to enforce that. But they were not triangulating their position as Bill Clinton did with "safe, legal and rare" - and I don't think opponents of abortion now are triangulating either.

I'd be astonished if any opponent of Roe right now was saying it should be rare as opposed to it was wrongly decided/bad law (which is the more triangulate-y cover) or just morally wrong. I think you're misplacing where the energy and radicalism is on this issue: "safe, rare and legal" is not the thin end of the wedge for banning abortion, but for legalising it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 04, 2022, 04:28:49 PM
In theory, you could be against Roe v Wade, and in favor of easy access to abortion.

You could just think it ought to be left up to the states, and the states ought to make it easily accessible.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 04, 2022, 04:34:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2022, 09:57:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2022, 08:50:23 AMBB is only using a classic right tactic of keeping the insane position right and a sensible yet discriminatory position center all in an effort to keep the Overton window in the right. Its a downright Putinesque strategy.

Fuck off.
You literally said that the Democratic Party platform was access to abortion up until the moment of birth.

If that isn't characterizing the position unfairly, what was it?

The current "law of the land" is that you cannot ban abortion before viability of the fetus, which is around 21 weeks. Which I am pretty sure you knew.

I think the characterization of your argument is pretty accurate - if it is wrong, it is a failure of how you framed your position rather then how others saw it as being framed.

IMO, of course.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2022, 12:30:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 09:21:58 AMAnd of course there are religious conservatives who strongly believe there should be no pre-marital sex - which fits in nicely with the mantra that abortions should be rare.  In that world view abortions would essentially become unnecessary.

But I am not sure Raz was not being serious.
I think those are different entirely.

To make it really clear the examples of Catholic Ireland and Poland did/do not think abortion should be rare - it should be prohibited. They also thought no pre-marital sex and no contraception and, in the case of Ireland, built coercive mechanisms to enforce that. But they were not triangulating their position as Bill Clinton did with "safe, legal and rare" - and I don't think opponents of abortion now are triangulating either.

I'd be astonished if any opponent of Roe right now was saying it should be rare as opposed to it was wrongly decided/bad law (which is the more triangulate-y cover) or just morally wrong. I think you're misplacing where the energy and radicalism is on this issue: "safe, rare and legal" is not the thin end of the wedge for banning abortion, but for legalising it.

There a lot of conservatives in North America who share the view that there should be no abortions and who will and do readily interpret rare in exactly the way I have suggested.





Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on June 04, 2022, 04:52:39 PM
"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 04, 2022, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2022, 04:52:39 PM"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.

I don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on June 04, 2022, 06:38:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2022, 05:56:20 PMI don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.

It is. Here anti-abortion activism is typically focused on making "rare" = "practically unobtainable in a number of jurisdictions" while making sure "crisis pregnancy counselling" to encourage foregoing abortion is widely available.

There are still some hardliners who look wistfully to the US on this, but they are politically marginal at the moment (but still operating and present).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2022, 06:53:11 PM
Odd that anti-abortion activists in Canada want to keep it safe and legal.  Maybe they should call themselves something other than anti-abortion activists.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on June 04, 2022, 08:25:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2022, 06:53:11 PMOdd that anti-abortion activists in Canada want to keep it safe and legal.  Maybe they should call themselves something other than anti-abortion activists.

They focus on the "rare" part.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2022, 09:05:28 PM
By focus do you mean they never mention the other two?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 04, 2022, 10:14:55 PM
Well, I learned something out of this.  Pro-life Canadians and pro-choice Americans use the same slogan.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on June 05, 2022, 01:23:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2022, 04:28:49 PMIn theory, you could be against Roe v Wade, and in favor of easy access to abortion.

You could just think it ought to be left up to the states, and the states ought to make it easily accessible.

Are there any causes where an average person (so not a politician or lobbyist or corporate interest) would support states rights for an issue? Feels like often just a way to say we want a defense to hold onto something outmoded in our state.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on June 05, 2022, 01:30:21 AM
Recent progress in civil liberties, be it same-sex marriage or marijuana liberalization also came first on state level as it was not possible to enact it on federal level (yet). So states having the right to deviate from the federal policy seems to go both ways.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on June 05, 2022, 01:44:07 AM
Quote from: Zanza on June 05, 2022, 01:30:21 AMRecent progress in civil liberties, be it same-sex marriage or marijuana liberalization also came first on state level as it was not possible to enact it on federal level (yet). So states having the right to deviate from the federal policy seems to go both ways.

California was a state that had gay marriage and then voted against it ahead of national legalization.

I believe marijuana is a grey area as the federal government has the law on its side and could crack down on it if the feds so desired.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 07:20:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2022, 01:23:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 04, 2022, 04:28:49 PMIn theory, you could be against Roe v Wade, and in favor of easy access to abortion.

You could just think it ought to be left up to the states, and the states ought to make it easily accessible.

Are there any causes where an average person (so not a politician or lobbyist or corporate interest) would support states rights for an issue? Feels like often just a way to say we want a defense to hold onto something outmoded in our state.
Yes, in a practical sense around these kinds of things, I think that is mostly correct.

I think the fundy minority, due to structural issues, has a lot more power to impose their minority views on the state level.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 10:26:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2022, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2022, 04:52:39 PM"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.

I don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.
Quote from: grumbler on June 04, 2022, 05:56:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2022, 04:52:39 PM"Safe legal and rare" is a way for middle range politicians to triangulate anti-abortion voters and pro-choice voters at the same time.

"Safe legal and rare" is ALSO a way for anti-abortion activists to justify any and all obstacles and roll-backs to abortion access where they don't have the clout to outlaw it.

It goes both ways.

I don't know of any anti-abortion activists who accept, let alone promote, the "safe, legal, and rare" formula.  Canada may be different.

You need look no further than BB to know it is different here.  It is the mantra of the right wing in Canada, and it is code for reducing access.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 10:28:57 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2022, 09:05:28 PMBy focus do you mean they never mention the other two?

Think about the ways the other two can be interpreted, and you can then begin to understand why it does not create too much cognitive dissonance for the anti abortion crowd.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 01:59:54 PM
That is interesting.

In the US, "SL, R" is used by the pro-choice crowd to make it clear they don't think of abortion as contraception. The "rare" part is stated as a outcome of comprehensive programs designed to educate and empower women (and their partners) to not get themselves (as much as is possible) into positions where an abortion is something they feel they have to do. Basically make abortion the outcome of unfortunate circumstances. The "rare" part is not the primary message - the primary message if "Safe and legal".

I can see how if you have resigned yourself to not being able to ban abortion, you could adopt that mantra, and focus not on the safe and legal, but on the rare. Sure, let it be "legal", and when it happens, it should be safe. But if there aren't any abortion clinics around, why, that would certainly make it rare, right? And if your goal is in fact to make it rare, then you should have no problem with me passing this law to make it so that only doctors with permits can perform them. It is legal of course, but sadly, there are no more permits available.

Etc., etc.

It's pretty clever, actually.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 05, 2022, 02:22:04 PM
SLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 02:36:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 05, 2022, 01:59:54 PMThat is interesting.

In the US, "SL, R" is used by the pro-choice crowd to make it clear they don't think of abortion as contraception. The "rare" part is stated as a outcome of comprehensive programs designed to educate and empower women (and their partners) to not get themselves (as much as is possible) into positions where an abortion is something they feel they have to do. Basically make abortion the outcome of unfortunate circumstances. The "rare" part is not the primary message - the primary message if "Safe and legal".

I can see how if you have resigned yourself to not being able to ban abortion, you could adopt that mantra, and focus not on the safe and legal, but on the rare. Sure, let it be "legal", and when it happens, it should be safe. But if there aren't any abortion clinics around, why, that would certainly make it rare, right? And if your goal is in fact to make it rare, then you should have no problem with me passing this law to make it so that only doctors with permits can perform them. It is legal of course, but sadly, there are no more permits available.

Etc., etc.

It's pretty clever, actually.

That is pretty much how it played out in the 80s under the BC Social Credit government (right leaning coalition).  Sure abortions are legal, and if you can get one we're sure it would be safe - but good luck finding a publicly funded doc to do it (cause we ain't funding it very much).  In response private abortion clinics were created - and were the focus points for a lot of right wing protests and some violence.  It became so bad that the court ordered bubble zones around the clinics so that women could actually access them.  Then the government changed and all that nonsense went away (or so we thought).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 02:38:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2022, 02:22:04 PMSLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.

You will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: grumbler on June 05, 2022, 05:30:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 02:38:54 PMYou will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.

Very occasionally you see US public figures use the term, but they quickly regret it and backtrack.  I presume that's not the case with Canadian Conservatives.  Oh, well.  Maybe Bill Clinton is secretly proud.  It worked really well for him (even Planned Parenthood used it for a while after he coined it).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 06, 2022, 12:24:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 02:38:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2022, 02:22:04 PMSLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.

You will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.

I have never heard "safe legal and rare" used in Canada.

The only "resurgence" in Canada has been my use of it over the past several years on Languish.  True pro-lifers in Canada would never use it.  Otherwise conservatives try to avoid the topic as much as they can.

I swear - you hate me so much you have somehow confused me with Canadian conservatism writ large.  Maybe you just don't have any other Canadian conservatives you interact with in real life so you take out all your hatred on me.  I dunno, it puzzles me.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 12:38:38 AM
Beebs, do you support any efforts at all to restrict access to abortion?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 06, 2022, 07:57:42 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2022, 12:24:13 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 05, 2022, 02:38:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 05, 2022, 02:22:04 PMSLR is a dead issue in US politics.  The Democrats have abandoned the "rare" part of it and the Republicans never really used the phrase at all.  It was originally coined by Bill Clinton to reconcile his earlier opposition to abortion with his ambitions to be President. 

The vague "rare" formulation allowed him to argue that one could oppose abortion in general terms while support allowing it when other contraceptive measures failed.  The abortion rights movements bought into it for a while, but later realized that the "rare" formulation was essentially blaming women for whom abortion became necessary. Hillary Clinton was still using it in 2016, but rejected it later when she began to pursue her own presidential ambitions.

Languish may be the last place where SLR is a contentious issue.

You will not be pleased to know that it has found a resurgence with the Conservative Party of Canada - or at least MPs within that party. That is why BB used it.

I have never heard "safe legal and rare" used in Canada.

The only "resurgence" in Canada has been my use of it over the past several years on Languish.  True pro-lifers in Canada would never use it.  Otherwise conservatives try to avoid the topic as much as they can.

I swear - you hate me so much you have somehow confused me with Canadian conservatism writ large.  Maybe you just don't have any other Canadian conservatives you interact with in real life so you take out all your hatred on me.  I dunno, it puzzles me.

BB, you defended a conservative MPs position on abortion using that terminology just a few months ago.

Also, you certainly have heard conservatives talk about it if you have been paying any attention to the leadership race

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6439660

"Brown said abortion in Canada should be "safe, legal and, in my opinion, rare." He said that if he's elected, he would not make any changes to Canada's abortion laws."

Please, stop internalizing all my criticism of your political beliefs.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 06, 2022, 10:42:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 12:38:38 AMBeebs, do you support any efforts at all to restrict access to abortion?

Umm, yes?

I'm pretty okay with banning late-term abortion.  You know, like Roe v Wade allowed.  I can't agree with either the hard-core pro-lifers, or pro-choicers: "personhood" doesn't happen at the moment of conception any more than it happens at the moment of birth - it's somewhere in the messy middle.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 10:57:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2022, 10:42:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 12:38:38 AMBeebs, do you support any efforts at all to restrict access to abortion?

Umm, yes?

I'm pretty okay with banning late-term abortion.  You know, like Roe v Wade allowed.  I can't agree with either the hard-core pro-lifers, or pro-choicers: "personhood" doesn't happen at the moment of conception any more than it happens at the moment of birth - it's somewhere in the messy middle.


Sorry, that isn't what I meant.

I mean do you support restricting access to abortion in any way assuming that otherwise the abortion itself is legal.

IE, you would support making it difficult to open a clinic that provides abortions, or you think there should be rules, laws, or procedures in place that make access itself harder, or more difficult.

Assume for the sake or argument that the legal terms under which an abortion is strictly legal are agreed upon - do you support any laws or procedures that could make it more "rare" simply because it is harder to actually get one (no clinic available, lack of doctors, not covered by insurance, protesters outside clinics, etc., etc.)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 06, 2022, 11:18:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 10:57:36 AMSorry, that isn't what I meant.

I mean do you support restricting access to abortion in any way assuming that otherwise the abortion itself is legal.

IE, you would support making it difficult to open a clinic that provides abortions, or you think there should be rules, laws, or procedures in place that make access itself harder, or more difficult.

Assume for the sake or argument that the legal terms under which an abortion is strictly legal are agreed upon - do you support any laws or procedures that could make it more "rare" simply because it is harder to actually get one (no clinic available, lack of doctors, not covered by insurance, protesters outside clinics, etc., etc.)

Should access to abortion be made harder just for the sake of making it harder?  Fuck no.

Obviously you should have good-faith regulation over abortion clinics and the like - that's all a part of making it "safe".  You want trained professionals, clean facilities, that kind of thing.  But of course I'm against any bad-faith banning abortion by stealth.

Protestors - well protestors have their own free speech rights of course.  But as long as they're not physically blocking access in any way I don't see it being any kind of stealth ban.  Abortion protests outside of clinics are also just not a thing in Canada (we do have the annual Right to Life march and other protests, just not outside of hospitals).

When I say abortion should be rare, I mean the following: there should be easy access to contraception; there should be easy access to morning after / plan B type medicine (which doesn't as far as I can tell count as abortion anyways); we culturally and societally should encourage women to not abort through better supports for children/pregnancy/adoption.



Tangentially related... I kind of wish we could ban gender discrimination abortion and non-fatal genetic discrimination.  I've mentioned a few times my adorable 7 year old identical twin Down Syndrom nephews.  Doctors didn't encourage both to be aborted, but they definitely encouraged selective abortion of one of them.  But the government trying to make rules about why you can or can not have an abortion is just such an ethical minefield I think it's best left alone.


I'm sure CC will come along any minute now though to explain that what I'm suggesting is just a secret front / hidden agenda however.  I am a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm) after all...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 11:27:18 AM
Thanks. Nothing there I disagree with, and I certainly don't buy the idea that this is some kind of secret anti-abortion strategy (at least insofar as you are concerned).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 07, 2022, 11:31:30 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 06, 2022, 11:18:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 10:57:36 AMSorry, that isn't what I meant.

I mean do you support restricting access to abortion in any way assuming that otherwise the abortion itself is legal.

IE, you would support making it difficult to open a clinic that provides abortions, or you think there should be rules, laws, or procedures in place that make access itself harder, or more difficult.

Assume for the sake or argument that the legal terms under which an abortion is strictly legal are agreed upon - do you support any laws or procedures that could make it more "rare" simply because it is harder to actually get one (no clinic available, lack of doctors, not covered by insurance, protesters outside clinics, etc., etc.)

Should access to abortion be made harder just for the sake of making it harder?  Fuck no.

Obviously you should have good-faith regulation over abortion clinics and the like - that's all a part of making it "safe".  You want trained professionals, clean facilities, that kind of thing.  But of course I'm against any bad-faith banning abortion by stealth.

Protestors - well protestors have their own free speech rights of course.  But as long as they're not physically blocking access in any way I don't see it being any kind of stealth ban.  Abortion protests outside of clinics are also just not a thing in Canada (we do have the annual Right to Life march and other protests, just not outside of hospitals).

When I say abortion should be rare, I mean the following: there should be easy access to contraception; there should be easy access to morning after / plan B type medicine (which doesn't as far as I can tell count as abortion anyways); we culturally and societally should encourage women to not abort through better supports for children/pregnancy/adoption.



Tangentially related... I kind of wish we could ban gender discrimination abortion and non-fatal genetic discrimination.  I've mentioned a few times my adorable 7 year old identical twin Down Syndrom nephews.  Doctors didn't encourage both to be aborted, but they definitely encouraged selective abortion of one of them.  But the government trying to make rules about why you can or can not have an abortion is just such an ethical minefield I think it's best left alone.


I'm sure CC will come along any minute now though to explain that what I'm suggesting is just a secret front / hidden agenda however.  I am a member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy(tm) after all...

Quite the contrary BB, I have no doubt you would do as you say.  I have much less faith in those you support policitally.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: viper37 on June 07, 2022, 02:06:34 PM

Fear that has been unfounded so far.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 07, 2022, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 07, 2022, 02:06:34 PMFear that has been unfounded so far.

My recollection is that they have not been in power since Harper.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 03:00:21 AM
I'd be strongly against a ban on abortion based on disabilities.
Someone I know recently had an abortion when it was found out the fetus had a heart abnormality which would have meant quite a horrid life of multiple surgeries and a big chance they wouldn't survive past 16. They wanted a kid but they didn't want to have one that endured such suffering in life so after a lot of anguish over the decision they pressed the reset switch.

A key reason for abortion is that having a kid just wouldn't fit into somebody's life. It's for the well being of the woman, her family, any potential kids, and society as a whole that they be allowed the choice of whether to have a kid or not.
Introduce a disability and you amplify quite how much of a impact it can have on their life. If someone isn't sure about raising a healthy kid then a kid with down syndrome would be a nightmare.
The key however is choice. Some people may be comfortable enough in life that they do think that's a challenge they can take on and produce thriving kids. But that's not everyone
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 08, 2022, 09:54:41 AM
The difficulty I have with the concept is how does one determine the intent of the women having the abortion.

One hypothetical-a woman says the pregnancy is wanted, but she wants to have a abortion for whatever the genetic reason might be.  But really the woman did not want the pregnancy but is afraid of that information being leaned by others.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 10:40:34 AM
Quote from: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 03:00:21 AMI'd be strongly against a ban on abortion based on disabilities.
Someone I know recently had an abortion when it was found out the fetus had a heart abnormality which would have meant quite a horrid life of multiple surgeries and a big chance they wouldn't survive past 16. They wanted a kid but they didn't want to have one that endured such suffering in life so after a lot of anguish over the decision they pressed the reset switch.

A key reason for abortion is that having a kid just wouldn't fit into somebody's life. It's for the well being of the woman, her family, any potential kids, and society as a whole that they be allowed the choice of whether to have a kid or not.
Introduce a disability and you amplify quite how much of a impact it can have on their life. If someone isn't sure about raising a healthy kid then a kid with down syndrome would be a nightmare.
The key however is choice. Some people may be comfortable enough in life that they do think that's a challenge they can take on and produce thriving kids. But that's not everyone

Sigh... I had a lot more typed, now deleting.  I really don't want to debate abortion again - it's just pissing into the wind.

People with disabilities though - are people.  They have challenges and successes like anyone else.  Someone with Down Syndrome isn't like some birth defect where the child will die within minutes of being born - they can have long and healthy lives.  They have meaningful lives.

Just as one local example: Joey Moss worked for the NHL Edmonton Oilers for over 30 years.  He has a mural dedicated to him.  He was given a medal by the Queen.  In their recent playoff run the Oilers would play Joey's favourite song La Bamba after every win.  A new school named after him opens this fall.  And yes, he had Down Syndrome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_Moss

When you say how raising a child with a disability will affect someone's life you're quite right of course.  But you don't realize how much it can affect your life for the better.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 10:45:38 AM
Nobody is saying a person with a disability is not a person though. I don't understand your point here.

The issue is not a debate about whether or not they are a person, just like the issue about abortion is not a debate about whether or not the fetus is a person once they are born. Of course they are.

The issue is about whether or not a individual has the right to choose the circumstances under which they end a pregnancy.

I am kind of confused at the idea that you support their right to choose ending a pregnancy when the fetus, so far as they are aware, is perfectly healthy, but not when they are aware that it is not perfectly healthy.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 10:45:38 AMI am kind of confused at the idea that you support their right to choose ending a pregnancy when the fetus, so far as they are aware, is perfectly healthy, but not when they are aware that it is not perfectly healthy.

Someone with a disability *IS* perfectly healthy - they're just different.

I even said before I would not support a ban on genetic discrimination abortions.  But in a world where the majority of fetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted, I just wish people wouldn't.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 10:57:43 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 10:45:38 AMI am kind of confused at the idea that you support their right to choose ending a pregnancy when the fetus, so far as they are aware, is perfectly healthy, but not when they are aware that it is not perfectly healthy.

Someone with a disability *IS* perfectly healthy - they're just different.

I even said before I would not support a ban on genetic discrimination abortions.  But in a world where the majority of fetuses diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted, I just wish people wouldn't.
Srry, I thought this comment:

QuoteTangentially related... I kind of wish we could ban gender discrimination abortion and non-fatal genetic discrimination.
was saying you would support such a ban.

But you are saying you just wish people simply would not do it.

I don't think a semantic argument about disabilities and perfectly healthy is useful.

I wish people would simply not get abortions at all, so I don't see much distinction here.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 10:59:53 AM
Yeah, its quite a pretty horrid tactic I've seen anti-abortion people use in the past to wheel out people with disabilities and get them to say "So you're saying I shouldn't have been born and don't have the right to exist!". Not to say thats what Barrister did there, but got that bell ringing in my head.

Disabled people have all the rights of non-disabled people. A lot of them do go on to have great lives.
But its simply dishonest to pretend having a disabled kid doesn't present a greater chance of difficulties than having a non-disabled kid.

We aren't talking about any people who have already been born here.
We are talking about the women deciding whether to have a disabled kid or not in the first place. Its not an easy decision whether to abort for any reason. I hope I am never in a position where I have to be part of a decision to do this. But there should be zero shame in disabilities adding a few points to the abort side of the decision. Its not about whether you respect disabled people or anything like that.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 11:06:55 AM
Quote from: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 10:59:53 AMBut its simply dishonest to pretend having a disabled kid doesn't present a greater chance of difficulties than having a non-disabled kid.

It's not dishonest at all.

A life with disabilities is going to be different, not necessarily worse.  Regularly-abled people run into all kinds of difficulties in their lives as well.  Trust me, working in the criminal justice field I run into them all the time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 11:08:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2022, 10:57:43 AMSrry, I thought this comment:

QuoteTangentially related... I kind of wish we could ban gender discrimination abortion and non-fatal genetic discrimination.
was saying you would support such a ban.

I mean, I did say in the same paragraph:

QuoteBut the government trying to make rules about why you can or can not have an abortion is just such an ethical minefield I think it's best left alone.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 11:14:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 11:06:55 AM
Quote from: Josquius on June 08, 2022, 10:59:53 AMBut its simply dishonest to pretend having a disabled kid doesn't present a greater chance of difficulties than having a non-disabled kid.

It's not dishonest at all.

A life with disabilities is going to be different, not necessarily worse.  Regularly-abled people run into all kinds of difficulties in their lives as well.  Trust me, working in the criminal justice field I run into them all the time.


I said greater chance.
Life doesn't work in absolutes.
A kid who can't walk is going to face a lot of problems a kid with no troubles walking will never have to even consider.
This one factor of what makes them doesn't dictate everything about them, there's totally a chance the walking kid could be an absolute piece of trash whilst the wheelchair kid becomes the next Stephen Hawking.
But all else being equal when you're rolling the dice your odds of getting a higher number are more with a 10 sided than a 6 sided dice. And thats before we even consider intersectionality- to be a poor minority disabled person is going to be a massive multiplier of the odds of shit in life.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Brain on June 08, 2022, 12:44:46 PM
If a disability means you're still perfectly healthy then that has weird effects all over the board.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: viper37 on June 08, 2022, 01:47:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 07, 2022, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 07, 2022, 02:06:34 PMFear that has been unfounded so far.

My recollection is that they have not been in power since Harper.
and how have abortion rights been limited under Harper?
how has gay marriage been limited under Harper? (at the time, we weren't using half the alphabet)

The only social conservative thing they did was to limit foreign aid to countries that did not include abstinence in their sex-ed teachings to prevent STDs.  Nothing that left any permanent damage.

Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2022, 12:44:46 PMIf a disability means you're still perfectly healthy then that has weird effects all over the board.

Health is not the same as ability.  You can be healthy but blind, or have your sight and be sick.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Brain on June 08, 2022, 02:37:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 02:28:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 08, 2022, 12:44:46 PMIf a disability means you're still perfectly healthy then that has weird effects all over the board.

Health is not the same as ability.  You can be healthy but blind, or have your sight and be sick.

The conventional view is that making someone say blind means that you have done them permanent harm.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 08, 2022, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 08, 2022, 01:47:05 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 07, 2022, 08:12:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 07, 2022, 02:06:34 PMFear that has been unfounded so far.

My recollection is that they have not been in power since Harper.
and how have abortion rights been limited under Harper?
how has gay marriage been limited under Harper? (at the time, we weren't using half the alphabet)

The only social conservative thing they did was to limit foreign aid to countries that did not include abstinence in their sex-ed teachings to prevent STDs.  Nothing that left any permanent damage.



You missed my point, Harper kept the social conservatives in check.  Now they run the party
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: viper37 on June 08, 2022, 07:26:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 08, 2022, 03:45:16 PMYou missed my point, Harper kept the social conservatives in check.  Now they run the party
they still don't.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Iormlund on June 10, 2022, 01:22:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 11:06:55 AMA life with disabilities is going to be different, not necessarily worse.

As someone who can make a direct comparison between having no disability and having one -- so slight people constantly around me won't ever take notice -- you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

My life was changed forever. What I can do and when I can do it was changed forever. And not for the better. I would give A LOT to get back what I lost.

Can't even imagine what it is for someone with serious disabilities to go through life.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 10, 2022, 01:33:47 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 10, 2022, 01:22:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 11:06:55 AMA life with disabilities is going to be different, not necessarily worse.

As someone who can make a direct comparison between having no disability and having one -- so slight people constantly around me won't ever take notice -- you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

My life was changed forever. What I can do and when I can do it was changed forever. And not for the better. I would give A LOT to get back what I lost.

Can't even imagine what it is for someone with serious disabilities to go through life.

Remember the context here - talking about abortion.

On old friend of mine is a quadriplegic as a result of hitting a moose back in the 1990s.  Prior to his accident his was very athletic and outdoorsy, in particular a big fan of canoeing / kayaking.  Now he's stuck in a chair and requires 24/7 care.

He's never said but I have no doubt he'd give almost anything to not have to live life paralyzed from the neck down.  But he is also a big activist for the rights of the disabled and that the lives of the disabled have as much dignity as anyone else.

I'm very sorry for your disability Iormlund, but I don't think we're really very far apart in our positions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 10, 2022, 01:39:55 PM
I don't understand this reply.
What have the rights of the disabled got to do with anything here?
The issue was do disabled people face more struggles in life than able bodied people. Iormlund agrees they do.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 10, 2022, 02:02:21 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 10, 2022, 01:39:55 PMI don't understand this reply.
What have the rights of the disabled got to do with anything here?
The issue was do disabled people face more struggles in life than able bodied people. Iormlund agrees they do.

Quote from: BarristerPeople with disabilities though - are people.  They have challenges and successes like anyone else.  Someone with Down Syndrome isn't like some birth defect where the child will die within minutes of being born - they can have long and healthy lives.  They have meaningful lives.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on June 10, 2022, 02:20:02 PM
I don't follow the abortion debate closely, but I was under the impression that the controversy is not about the rights, dignity and value of the life of born people, disability or no.

I had the impression that the controversy is about the rights of the mother versus the rights of the unborn child and at what point the one or the other weighs more heavily and should be given preference.

In jurisdictions that give the mother the right to abort non-disabled (I would use healthy but understood that this term seems unfitting as per Barristers earlier comment) children, e.g. Canada or currently the United States, the question whether or not a child would be disabled once born seems inconsequential to the abortion debate.

This would be different in a jurisdiction that limits abortions to embryos that are expected or certain to be disabled once born. But that's not the case as far as I understood the Canadian law.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Berkut on June 10, 2022, 03:18:41 PM
I think I get what Beebs is saying.

He agrees that a women has the right to choose abortion. He doesn't like it, but he agrees they have that right, and can at least understand it from the perspective of someone who just doesn't think they can handle a pregnancy or child right now.

His objection here is to someone who DOES think they can handle a pregnancy and child right now, they just decide they don't want some particular child - specifically a boy when they would prefer a girl, or a child with Downs when they would prefer one without.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 10, 2022, 03:24:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2022, 03:18:41 PMHis objection here is to someone who DOES think they can handle a pregnancy and child right now, they just decide they don't want some particular child - specifically a boy when they would prefer a girl, or a child with Downs when they would prefer one without.

But not that I think we should pass a law banning it.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 10, 2022, 03:27:25 PM
QuoteI think I get what Beebs is saying.

He agrees that a women has the right to choose abortion. He doesn't like it, but he agrees they have that right, and can at least understand it from the perspective of someone who just doesn't think they can handle a pregnancy or child right now.

His objection here is to someone who DOES think they can handle a pregnancy and child right now, they just decide they don't want some particular child - specifically a boy when they would prefer a girl, or a child with Downs when they would prefer one without
Which is valid. A severely disabled child will most likely be more difficult to look after  than a healthy one.
If you rate your readiness for a kid as 7/10, the disability the fetus tests for requires a 8/10...well its just logical to reset, as hard as the decision might be at the time.


Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2022, 02:02:21 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 10, 2022, 01:39:55 PMI don't understand this reply.
What have the rights of the disabled got to do with anything here?
The issue was do disabled people face more struggles in life than able bodied people. Iormlund agrees they do.

Quote from: BarristerPeople with disabilities though - are people.  They have challenges and successes like anyone else.  Someone with Down Syndrome isn't like some birth defect where the child will die within minutes of being born - they can have long and healthy lives.  They have meaningful lives.

This doesn't explain anything.
Whether disabled people have rights and whether women have rights don't conflict.
Disabled rights have very little to do with abortion beyond cases where a woman has a disability that makes delivering a child harder.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: DGuller on June 10, 2022, 03:28:26 PM
At what point does selective abortion become eugenics?  What if in the future you can do a prenatal test that with high confidence could predict your child's IQ, personality, predisposition to mental problems, predisposition to certain illnesses, and keep aborting until you hit bingo?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on June 10, 2022, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2022, 03:28:26 PMAt what point does selective abortion become eugenics?  What if in the future you can do a prenatal test that with high confidence could predict your child's IQ, personality, predisposition to mental problems, predisposition to certain illnesses, and keep aborting until you hit bingo?
That is an interesting ethical question, but I think the much more likely scenario to discuss this is selective IVF instead of repeated abortions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 10, 2022, 03:40:40 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2022, 03:28:26 PMAt what point does selective abortion become eugenics?  What if in the future you can do a prenatal test that with high confidence could predict your child's IQ, personality, predisposition to mental problems, predisposition to certain illnesses, and keep aborting until you hit bingo?
When it's the state telling you that you can't breed.

But yeah, what Zanza says. If you care that much and have access to all this testing then ivf makes more sense.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on June 10, 2022, 03:43:30 PM
Well also how do you usefully tell someone's motivation for getting an abortion. You might be able to on an aggregate level but how could you with an individual patient seeking treatment?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zanza on June 10, 2022, 03:45:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2022, 03:24:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2022, 03:18:41 PMHis objection here is to someone who DOES think they can handle a pregnancy and child right now, they just decide they don't want some particular child - specifically a boy when they would prefer a girl, or a child with Downs when they would prefer one without.

But not that I think we should pass a law banning it.
Ok, got your perspective now and understand it.

There actually are countries where abortion based on the sex of the child is illegal, specifically India. They have a huge imbalance with much more males due to cultural preferences.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 10, 2022, 03:57:01 PM
India is a weird example on selective abortion as there it is very logical to have a boy on a personal level with the whole culture of dowrys et al. It isn't just a case of basic preference.
But of course for society as a whole this is not a good decision, so the ban comes in.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on June 10, 2022, 04:49:52 PM
So how would this work in practice?

You can have an abortion as long as there are no signs the foetus is likely to have a disability? But if there are signs the foetus if carried to term will result in a child with a disability, then you may not have an abortion?
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: alfred russel on June 10, 2022, 04:59:17 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 10, 2022, 03:36:47 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 10, 2022, 03:28:26 PMAt what point does selective abortion become eugenics?  What if in the future you can do a prenatal test that with high confidence could predict your child's IQ, personality, predisposition to mental problems, predisposition to certain illnesses, and keep aborting until you hit bingo?
That is an interesting ethical question, but I think the much more likely scenario to discuss this is selective IVF instead of repeated abortions.

I don't think so. IVF is very expensive and the technology limited. Gender ID before birth and genetic screens are very common currently. I think the evidence from China is that people have been getting abortions based on gender on a significant scale already.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on June 24, 2022, 09:42:28 AM
:(  :ultra:
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 09:45:12 AM
13 states have a trigger ban in effect.

One might qualify those as cesspools.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: garbon on June 24, 2022, 10:28:22 AM
I saw the BBC and CNN trying to be 'balanced' to give anti abortionists screen time to talk about how they've always responded with love. Fuck that noise.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2022, 11:08:54 AM
This is what result oriented jurisprudence looks like - same court, same majority, same 24-hour period:

QuoteOrdered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary be␂tween competing interests. Roe and Casey each struck a  particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed "potential life."  But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. In some  States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be  even more extensive than the right that Roe and Casey rec␂ognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight  restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an  "unborn human being." Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191(4)(b). Our Nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people's elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.

QuoteIf the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked  with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding firearm regulations under the banner of "intermediate scru␂tiny" often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is  not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment "is the very product of an interest balanc␂ing by the people" and it "surely elevates above all other  interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to
use arms" for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is this balance—struck by the traditions of the American peo␂ple—that demands our unqualified deference

Threats to "pontential life" - requires interest balancing.  Threats to actual life - nothing to see here, move along.

A woman's right to autonomy and control over her body - must yield to legislative judgments about other interests.
 A man's right to conceal carry on a crowded NYC street - absolute and cannot be overcome by even the most compelling state interest in public safety.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HVC on June 24, 2022, 11:17:31 AM
Insurrections, crackpot leaders, weekly and sometimes daily mass shootings, Banning abortions. Throw in inequality and povwrty and the US is giving south American countries a run for their money as far as crappy  countries go.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Jacob on June 24, 2022, 11:23:15 AM
I continue to be concerned.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HVC on June 24, 2022, 11:30:40 AM
It's fucked up that Americans are going to have to escape to Mexico for abortions.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Syt on June 24, 2022, 11:41:21 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 11:08:54 AMThreats to "pontential life" - requires interest balancing.  Threats to actual life - nothing to see here, move along.

A woman's right to autonomy and control over her body - must yield to legislative judgments about other interests.
 A man's right to conceal carry on a crowded NYC street - absolute and cannot be overcome by even the most compelling state interest in public safety.

(https://external-preview.redd.it/nZ0KOcbdhQo5nMhlPxG1o7miIPXe0j3jvfpemVyvqkk.jpg?auto=webp&s=579d3f35c6e69c767741e3005c354b27d404f083)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 24, 2022, 12:10:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on Today at 10:28:22 AMI saw the BBC and CNN trying to be 'balanced' to give anti abortionists screen time to talk about how they've always responded with love. Fuck that noise.

the misguided policy of giving equal time has lead us into a number of disasters - including inaction on climate change. At least on climate change, news outlets have stopped giving platforms to nonsense.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: FunkMonk on June 24, 2022, 12:11:12 PM
Fairly sure a national ban in abortion will get passed by a GOP Congress and Presidency in the not too far future  :(
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 12:20:04 PM
Where's Susan Collins? She'll straighten this all out in no time.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 24, 2022, 12:41:27 PM
Incoming boom in construction of clinics along the Canada/US border to provide medical services to American women fleeing the US for proper medical care.  A modern underground railroad may also need to be developed to get them across unfriendly states.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HisMajestyBOB on June 24, 2022, 01:21:39 PM
No abortions for some, and guns for all.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: DGuller on June 24, 2022, 01:31:55 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:20:04 PMWhere's Susan Collins? She'll straighten this all out in no time.
She's in a state of deep concern.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on June 24, 2022, 01:34:04 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on Today at 11:08:54 AMThis is what result oriented jurisprudence looks like - same court, same majority, same 24-hour period:
[...]
Threats to "pontential life" - requires interest balancing.  Threats to actual life - nothing to see here, move along.

A woman's right to autonomy and control over her body - must yield to legislative judgments about other interests.
 A man's right to conceal carry on a crowded NYC street - absolute and cannot be overcome by even the most compelling state interest in public safety.
Is it right that I read the New York gun control law that's been overturned is 108 years old? It also seems like "historical understanding" is relevant to some issues but not others.

QuoteShe's in a state of deep concern.
Thoughts and prayers.

It's really grim :(
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 24, 2022, 01:53:52 PM
Let me get this straight. Not only is America not doing the sensible thing out of the latest school shooting but they're actually doing the opposite?

They can't seriously believe this will help. Must be the politics of spite.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on June 24, 2022, 02:04:39 PM
Quote from: HVC on Today at 11:17:31 AMInsurrections, crackpot leaders, weekly and sometimes daily mass shootings, Banning abortions. Throw in inequality and povwrty and the US is giving south American countries a run for their money as far as crappy  countries go.

Many South American countries are better than we are now.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on June 24, 2022, 02:06:37 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on Today at 12:20:04 PMWhere's Susan Collins? She'll straighten this all out in no time.

 If she's smart, she'll be hiding in her bunker with McConnell.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 02:11:47 PM
So now it goes to a state vs state battle until the Republicans gain control of the house/senate/presidency again.

Up to the American people how they want this to go.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Habbaku on June 24, 2022, 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:11:47 PMSo now it goes to a state vs state battle until the Republicans gain control of the house/senate/presidency again.

Up to the American people how they want this to go.

You already know how they'll choose.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on Today at 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:11:47 PMSo now it goes to a state vs state battle until the Republicans gain control of the house/senate/presidency again.

Up to the American people how they want this to go.

You already know how they'll choose.

Do I? Thanks to Roe this hasn't really been a single issue voting deal for a lot of people. We'll see.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: merithyn on June 24, 2022, 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on Today at 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:11:47 PMSo now it goes to a state vs state battle until the Republicans gain control of the house/senate/presidency again.

Up to the American people how they want this to go.

You already know how they'll choose.

Do I? Thanks to Roe this hasn't really been a single issue voting deal for a lot of people. We'll see.

If you don't, you haven't been paying attention. It will be a Republican rout and abortions will be illegal because THEN the SCOTUS will decide that it really is a federal thing and shouldn't be left to the states.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 02:24:49 PM
Quote from: merithyn on Today at 02:22:00 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on Today at 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:11:47 PMSo now it goes to a state vs state battle until the Republicans gain control of the house/senate/presidency again.

Up to the American people how they want this to go.

You already know how they'll choose.

Do I? Thanks to Roe this hasn't really been a single issue voting deal for a lot of people. We'll see.

If you don't, you haven't been paying attention. It will be a Republican rout and abortions will be illegal because THEN the SCOTUS will decide that it really is a federal thing and shouldn't be left to the states.


This country is pretty gerrymandered, I don't think a huge rout when the Dems are already in a pretty weak state is possible.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on June 24, 2022, 02:25:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 01:34:04 PMIs it right that I read the New York gun control law that's been overturned is 108 years old? It also seems like "historical understanding" is relevant to some issues but not others.

And I read somewhere that it quotes as part of its historical reasoning to defend its decision the post-English Civil War period. Truly relevant.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Sheilbh on June 24, 2022, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: The Larch on Today at 02:25:24 PMAnd I read somewhere that it quotes as part of its historical reasoning to defend its decision the post-English Civil War period. Truly relevant.
It's really weird how big a deal 17th and 18th century jurists are in the US and how basically irrelevant in England. I suppose it's because that is the intellectual context of the founders but it's still odd.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2022, 02:36:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on Today at 02:13:23 PM
Quote from: Valmy on Today at 02:11:47 PMSo now it goes to a state vs state battle until the Republicans gain control of the house/senate/presidency again.

Up to the American people how they want this to go.

You already know how they'll choose.

Do I? Thanks to Roe this hasn't really been a single issue voting deal for a lot of people. We'll see.

LOL. It's been a single issue voting deal for more than enough people the last 40 years to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish. Just like the guns.

If only there was some way this sort of thing could've been prevented...

(https://images.app.goo.gl/jTt4nPJv9VZrZ1MT9)
 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Barrister on June 24, 2022, 02:48:13 PM
Said it before, will say it again - this will be like the dog catching the car...
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2022, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on Today at 01:34:04 PMIs it right that I read the New York gun control law that's been overturned is 108 years old?

Yes and generations of legislators, judges and scholars lived and died without anyone ever thinking there was anything unconstitutionally unfirm about it.

One of the most iconic episodes in American history, glorified repeatedly in film, are the Earp brothers' adventures in western boom towns.  And of course whenever Wyatt took on the badge, he put in place the sensible rule - no guns in town.  There is no record of any frustrated unarmed cow hand invoking the 2nd amendment . . .

The appeal to history is just a judicial 3 card monty game, where the "history" always seems to support one's side, and where the inconvenient examples are just swept away. 

The end result is work like Thomas' opinion in that case falls that repeatedly into unintended parody of itself, for example as it seriously discusses the supposed details of 14th century regulations of lances vs. dirks. 
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on June 24, 2022, 03:16:06 PM
From WSJ, a graph on where states stand on abortion at the moment:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/semantic_core_img/1540371053813174280/7TE-DBBS?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2022, 03:24:10 PM
Missouri's trigger law to ban all abortions kicked in minutes after the SCOTUS decision.  Medical emergency only.  No exemption for rape and incest, which are apparently acts of love when she's really hot.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on June 24, 2022, 03:28:17 PM
Missouri has just triggered its abortion ban law. It will now only be allowed in case of grave danger to the mother's physical health.

Edit: CdM'ed.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 24, 2022, 03:29:26 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on Today at 03:24:10 PMMissouri's trigger law to ban all abortions kicked in minutes after the SCOTUS decision.  Medical emergency only.  No exemption for rape and incest, which are apparently acts of love when she's really hot.

This is the Ozarks.  If there were exemptions for incest basically all abortion would be legal.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2022, 04:05:28 PM
heh
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Josquius on June 24, 2022, 05:36:00 PM
Next up - gay marriage, homosexuality itself, and contraception?
:blink:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90764394/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-gay-marriage-contraception-sex
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 24, 2022, 05:37:51 PM
Canada is going to have to increase its quota of refugees.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: HVC on June 24, 2022, 08:04:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on Today at 02:48:13 PMSaid it before, will say it again - this will be like the dog catching the car...

Several states have already caught the car, humped it against its will, and then refused it an abortion.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2022, 08:05:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 05:37:51 PMCanada is going to have to increase its quota of refugees.

They can just come to Joisey (or Oregon).
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: The Larch on June 24, 2022, 08:10:54 PM
Read only if you want to puke inside your own mouth:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWBuAu6X0AAJPsO?format=jpg&name=small)
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: crazy canuck on June 24, 2022, 08:20:27 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on Today at 08:05:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on Today at 05:37:51 PMCanada is going to have to increase its quota of refugees.

They can just come to Joisey (or Oregon).

I was referring to the post that they are coming for homosexuals next.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Razgovory on June 24, 2022, 08:32:12 PM
The 2022 election really needs to be a referendum on abortion.  I doubt it will.
Title: Re: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
Post by: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 10:36:52 PM
Let's focus on the important stuff, like Trans ppl in sports or interns at lefty organizations.