Languish.org

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.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 02, 2022, 08:02:53 PMThis could probably go in another thread

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:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PMGuess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PMGuess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .

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.

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:25:06 PMThat was today.  Tomorrow is a different world.  Wind: sowed.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2022, 09:09:20 PMGuess the Dems might have a shot in the midterms after all . . .

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Quote from: The Brain on May 03, 2022, 04:02:59 AMAmerica's is a model supreme court?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  :(

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.  :(

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?

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."

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".

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.

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).

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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 08:24:59 AMThat doesn't sound like a compromise...

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?

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.

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.

Quote from: Zanza on May 03, 2022, 09:05:48 AMcoming from a mother of seven...

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 11:31:01 AMGay rights and gay marriage.

QuoteSegregation.

QuoteGambling.
Sunday shopping.

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.

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.

Quote from: Jacob on May 03, 2022, 11:28:34 AMLooks like the vast right wing conspiracy is really delivering the goods.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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):

Quote from: Barrister on May 03, 2022, 12:05:36 PMSeen speculation on who leaker (or at least - which "side").

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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...

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...

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."

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...

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? 

Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 12:40:54 PMWe were talking about violence. Just to keep us on subject here.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

Quote from: Grey Fox on May 03, 2022, 01:26:35 PMBB, you are doing it again.

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. -_-

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

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.

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.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 03, 2022, 02:31:46 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d85bNTIamM

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.

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

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?

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.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 03, 2022, 03:24:01 PMAnd four out of five dentists surveyed prefer toothless vaginas.

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:19:31 PMBetter get moving fast.

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.

Quote from: Valmy on May 03, 2022, 10:57:54 PMWell it would require 100% support. Is Manchin down?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 03, 2022, 10:17:35 PMSusan Collins?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AMMore wholesome Republican reactions:



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

Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AMMore wholesome Republican reactions:



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

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 05, 2022, 08:51:28 AMGaetz is a pedophile.

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.

Quote from: The Larch on May 05, 2022, 06:44:08 AMMore wholesome Republican reactions:



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

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.

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.

Quote from: alfred russel on May 06, 2022, 06:13:35 AMFrom what I can tell he isn't struggling to get action.

Quote from: Berkut on May 06, 2022, 08:38:39 AMI don't generally share facebook bullshit, but this is just too spot on:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2022, 10:36:26 AMNo one should find that amusing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?

Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?

Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?

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.

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.

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.

QuoteIf putting up justices who outright lie during their confirmation hearings is not cheating, then packing the court isn't cheating either.

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.

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.

Quote from: Zanza on May 30, 2022, 04:14:19 PMWhat's the argument against just naming a handful more Supreme Court justices now?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2022, 09:09:48 AMObviously McConnell got rid of the filibuster on judicial nominees

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.............

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"?

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on May 31, 2022, 03:14:58 PMVote.  Fundraise.  Organize.

You know - politics.

QuotePolitics in aide of what?  What should we be trying to do with political power?

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.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 31, 2022, 04:16:36 PMMake your country better?

I don't understand your question Raz.

Quote from: Iormlund on May 31, 2022, 03:08:34 PMSuch as?

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.

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).

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.

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.

Quote from: celedhring on June 01, 2022, 03:42:41 AM(right now is about to flip from conservative to progressive)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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? 

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.

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? 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2022, 01:19:01 PMI don't think Joe Manchin has been painted as an extreme radical.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 08:25:50 PMDon't be daft.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 03, 2022, 08:39:52 PMLike Barrister said, encourage contraception.  That makes it rarer.

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 04, 2022, 11:45:03 AMYou guys don't teach it in your state?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2022, 09:05:28 PMBy focus do you mean they never mention the other two?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Berkut on June 06, 2022, 12:38:38 AMBeebs, do you support any efforts at all to restrict access to abortion?

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.

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.)

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...

Quote from: viper37 on June 07, 2022, 02:06:34 PMFear that has been unfounded so far.

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

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.

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.

QuoteTangentially related... I kind of wish we could ban gender discrimination abortion and non-fatal genetic discrimination.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2022, 11:06:55 AMA life with disabilities is going to be different, not necessarily worse.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 12:20:04 PMWhere's Susan Collins? She'll straighten this all out in no time.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 24, 2022, 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.

QuoteShe's in a state of deep concern.

Quote from: HVC on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 12:20:04 PMWhere's Susan Collins? She'll straighten this all out in no time.

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Habbaku on June 24, 2022, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 02:15:24 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on June 24, 2022, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: merithyn on June 24, 2022, 02:22:00 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 02:15:24 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on June 24, 2022, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 02:15:24 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on June 24, 2022, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2022, 01:34:04 PMIs it right that I read the New York gun control law that's been overturned is 108 years old?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2022, 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.

Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2022, 02:48:13 PMSaid it before, will say it again - this will be like the dog catching the car...

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2022, 05:37:51 PMCanada is going to have to increase its quota of refugees.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 24, 2022, 08:05:04 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2022, 05:37:51 PMCanada is going to have to increase its quota of refugees.

They can just come to Joisey (or Oregon).

Quote from: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 10:36:52 PMLet's focus on the important stuff, like Trans ppl in sports or interns at lefty organizations.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 25, 2022, 12:06:20 AMThe privilege of not having a vagina I guess.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2022, 01:47:40 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 25, 2022, 12:06:20 AMThe privilege of not having a vagina I guess.

Does it not bother you that this makes no sense?

Quote from: viper37 on June 25, 2022, 12:27:19 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 10:36:52 PMLet's focus on the important stuff, like Trans ppl in sports or interns at lefty organizations.

Yes, absolutely.  The Democrats should make their priority.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 25, 2022, 02:30:38 AMI remember reading somewhere (don't know where and it was a long time ago) that if the abortion issue had never been decided by the courts but via the regular democratic process it would have been far less contentuous but far more available accross the US than it is now (or will be soon).

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

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2022, 02:12:47 AMI guess if Sheilbh can blame Brexit on Remainers, you can blame this Supreme Court decision on Democrats.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2022, 04:38:14 AM

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2022, 02:12:47 AMI guess if Sheilbh can blame Brexit on Remainers, you can blame this Supreme Court decision on Democrats.

No. But the draft leaked at the start of May. They've had two months to prepare what their response is.

From what I saw yesterday the response was for House Democrats to go to the steps of the Capitol and sing "God bless America", Nancy Pelosi to read a poem (the same poem she read after January 6) and the White House did a statement but then called a lid at 1.30 (ignoring the Congressman who posted pictures of himself doing yoga after the judgment).

Looking at that I don't know what message they were trying to send or to who - I'd add the poem is incredibly passive for a political leader to be quoting ('"I shall not give up on her. I shall remind her, and sing into her ears, until she opens her eyes." Clearly, we hope that the Supreme Court would open its eyes.'). I find it pretty disheartening that that's the best they can come up with, with two months to prepare a response.

The Democrats - or at least the current leadership - seem singularly unfit for this moment or for responding to crises.

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2022, 04:48:35 AMWhat would be the right response?

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2022, 04:59:28 AMSo not much that would have really made a difference right now.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2022, 05:21:41 AM

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2022, 04:59:28 AMSo not much that would have really made a difference right now.

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

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

Quote from: mongers on June 25, 2022, 06:15:28 AMJust pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

Quote from: Solmyr on June 25, 2022, 04:48:53 AMSo which side of the US civil war will the NATO 5th article apply to?

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 25, 2022, 07:41:37 AM

Quote from: mongers on June 25, 2022, 06:15:28 AMJust pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

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

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 25, 2022, 07:41:37 AM

Quote from: mongers on June 25, 2022, 06:15:28 AMJust pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 25, 2022, 05:21:41 AMNo I don't think there is anything that can make a difference right now - although I hope the White House explored executive orders (and I'd fully use orders that you know this court will strike down).

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

Quote from: Zoupa on June 25, 2022, 02:05:12 AMTo be clear, I don't have a magic solution or anything. Just feel like venting and commenting on how depressing this development is.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 25, 2022, 02:30:38 AMI remember reading somewhere (don't know where and it was a long time ago) that if the abortion issue had never been decided by the courts but via the regular democratic process it would have been far less contentuous but far more available accross the US than it is now (or will be soon).

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

Quote from: grumbler on June 25, 2022, 11:54:25 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 25, 2022, 02:30:38 AMI remember reading somewhere (don't know where and it was a long time ago) that if the abortion issue had never been decided by the courts but via the regular democratic process it would have been far less contentuous but far more available accross the US than it is now (or will be soon).

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

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

Quote from: Tamas on June 25, 2022, 02:12:47 AM

Quote from: viper37 on June 25, 2022, 12:27:19 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 24, 2022, 10:36:52 PMLet's focus on the important stuff, like Trans ppl in sports or interns at lefty organizations.

Yes, absolutely.  The Democrats should make their priority.

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

Quote from: Zoupa on June 25, 2022, 02:02:50 AMMy point: we can talk about sports, the economy, trans sports or interns in lefty orgs. We can safely ignore that if we're raped tomorrow, we won't be going to jail if we try to abort, you know, with us not having a uterus and all that.

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

Quote from: HVC on June 26, 2022, 01:43:50 PMSo if you're going with originality can you revoke universal suffrage and bring back slavery. It's what the founders would have wanted :contract:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2022, 01:41:10 PMAnd to be clear the problem with originalism is not just that it is philosophically incoherent and deepens the very problem it seeks to solve.  It is not just that it is unworkable in practice and will lead to all sorts of technical problems in application the federal courts can't handle.  And is not just that it contains an extreme reactionary bias that will cause enormous suffering for the American people now and the years to come.

It is that as a controlling doctrine for understanding and interpreting the law it is really naive and just plain stupid.  To such a degree that in reading and thinking about these decisions, my personal outrage at the policy implications of the recent decisions keeps being drowned out by my professional embarrassment as an American lawyer that this is end product of our supposedly best legal minds.

Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2022, 02:08:01 PMIt's going to be interesting to see how Thomas bends over backwards to preserve arguments justifying the legality of his own marriage.

Quote from: Zanza on June 26, 2022, 02:35:17 PMHis position - in line with Dobbs - could be that there is no constitutional right to mixed marriage, but that individual states can (and maybe in his view should) grant that right.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2022, 11:15:27 AMI know I've mentioned it before, and it is less important than abortion or gun control, but there's also the EPA case coming up. It seems like there's a strong chance this court effectively guts the power of the federal government to regulate. It's less striking and direct on people's lives but I think its impact across a lot of areas could be huge from what I've read - environmental, financial, credit regulations etc.

And again I think this court is just getting started on their project.

Quote from: Syt on June 26, 2022, 10:24:48 PMHeading for the Gilded Age V2.0, then?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2022, 02:04:52 PMI think that might be why there are legal thinkers on the right looking beyond originalism and that it will be a staging post to something else in the same way as textualism was on the road to originalism.

Arguably politically it's starting to reach the point where it's served its purpose. And as the new dominant school on the Supreme Court, it feels like it is going to be the base layer of arguments and opinions even by non-originalist/right-wing lawyers and judges.

Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2022, 05:59:17 PMI wonder how this decision will, in the history books, impact Ruth Bader Ginsberg's reputation.  There were any number of calls for her to retire during the Obama administration, but she declined, apparently believing that Hillary Clinton would nominate a more liberal replacement than Obama. That was a disastrous gamble.

I find it plausible that Roberts would, in the 4-4 tie that would have resulted from an Obama appointee holding the seat  Comey-Barret holds, have decided that stare decisis was more important than the Federalist Society.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 25, 2022, 07:41:37 AM

Quote from: mongers on June 25, 2022, 06:15:28 AMJust pack the court with 4 new judges and overturn the vote and the one from the previous day.

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

Quote from: Oexmelin on June 26, 2022, 02:08:01 PMIt's going to be interesting to see how Thomas bends over backwards to preserve arguments justifying the legality of his own marriage.

Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2022, 07:26:43 AMFUCK I HATE THIS ARGUMENT SO MUCH.

The Republicans will do whatever the fuck they want to do. They have proven clearly that they are NOT constrained by anything other then what power they have.

They are not refraining from packing the court because the Dems haven't done it first. They are refraining from doing so because they figured out a better way to take control of it while destroying its legitimacy.

There is no scenario where the USSC has any remaining relevance as a legal institution. There is no "legitimacy" to protect.

If the Republicans are going to counter pack the court, then let them do so if they get the power. THEY WILL DO SO ANYWAY IF THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2022, 07:34:01 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2022, 07:26:43 AMFUCK I HATE THIS ARGUMENT SO MUCH.

The Republicans will do whatever the fuck they want to do. They have proven clearly that they are NOT constrained by anything other then what power they have.

They are not refraining from packing the court because the Dems haven't done it first. They are refraining from doing so because they figured out a better way to take control of it while destroying its legitimacy.

There is no scenario where the USSC has any remaining relevance as a legal institution. There is no "legitimacy" to protect.

If the Republicans are going to counter pack the court, then let them do so if they get the power. THEY WILL DO SO ANYWAY IF THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.

Sort of like how the republicans would get rid of the filibuster once they controlled the white house, senate and house, or how post 2020 census they were going to gerrymander the democrats into oblivion?

Roe v. Wade lasted for 49 years. There have been a lot of rulings that didn't go their way. They didn't pack the court.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 26, 2022, 01:41:10 PMAnd to be clear the problem with originalism is not just that it is philosophically incoherent and deepens the very problem it seeks to solve.  It is not just that it is unworkable in practice and will lead to all sorts of technical problems in application the federal courts can't handle.  And is not just that it contains an extreme reactionary bias that will cause enormous suffering for the American people now and the years to come.

It is that as a controlling doctrine for understanding and interpreting the law it is really naive and just plain stupid.  To such a degree that in reading and thinking about these decisions, my personal outrage at the policy implications of the recent decisions keeps being drowned out by my professional embarrassment as an American lawyer that this is end product of our supposedly best legal minds.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2022, 11:15:27 AMI know I've mentioned it before, and it is less important than abortion or gun control, but there's also the EPA case coming up. It seems like there's a strong chance this court effectively guts the power of the federal government to regulate. It's less striking and direct on people's lives but I think its impact across a lot of areas could be huge from what I've read - environmental, financial, credit regulations etc.

Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2022, 07:42:15 AMIt is three rational, reasonable jurists who happen to lean a little left against 4 fucking insane right wing fanatics and 2 right wing approved milquetoasts who go along with the radicalized friends. 

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2022, 07:54:43 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2022, 07:42:15 AMIt is three rational, reasonable jurists who happen to lean a little left against 4 fucking insane right wing fanatics and 2 right wing approved milquetoasts who go along with the radicalized friends.

Out of curiosity, who are the two right wing milquetoasts? Roberts and Gorsuch/Kavanaugh?

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2022, 08:00:13 AMI have the feeling that "lying piece of shit" applies to several of them too.

Quote from: Berkut on June 27, 2022, 07:42:15 AMThey did not pack the court, because they figured out a better way to take control of it - they just refused to let Dems appoint judges.

QuoteIf the republicans did not get rid of the filibuster, they made that choice because they decided the best way to maintain power is to not get rid of it, not because they care about its integrity.

QuoteIf they did not gerrymander the Dems into non-existence, it is because they lacked the power to do so.

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2022, 07:51:15 AMI mentioned it in the Climate Change thread, I was not aware of it until recently and it sounds really terrifying, basically shackling government's ability to regulate. It attacks not just what has been done but also what can be done in the future. It feels truly as if the Judicial branch is out of control and is the one that dictates official activities. What does it matter that Congress or the President do if the courts will thwart and reinterpret it in the most reactionary way possible?

QuoteI really wonder what will it take, once it's clear that Roe v. Wade is only the first of many reactionary judicial decisions, for Biden (or the Dems as a whole) to get his act together and actually do something about it, not just banale calls for voting. I guess it might depend on the result of the mid terms.

QuoteRemember when the imperative of conservative judicial thinking was certainty and incremental change?  You know the things the majority said they would apply during their confirmation hearings.

QuoteOf course. Certainly the last three all said straight out that Roe was settled law.

QuoteI think a lot of people laughed at evangelicals for supporting Trump, but maybe that was wrongheaded? This was probably #1 on their agenda for 50 years, and was a part of every republican platform between roe v. wade and trump. But looking at USSC justice nominations by republican president, none of them appointed a majority in favor of completely overturning (I could be making a mistake somewhere):

QuoteOut of curiosity, who are the two right wing milquetoasts? Roberts and Gorsuch/Kavanaugh?

Quote from: Solmyr on June 27, 2022, 08:44:59 AM

QuoteA pregnant American woman who suffered heavy bleeding while on holiday on Malta but was denied an abortion has flown to Spain where she is "out of harm's way", her partner said Friday.

Andrea Prudente, 38, and Jay Weeldreyer, 45, were told their baby had no chance of surviving, but doctors refused to intervene despite her fear of deadly infection due to Malta's total ban on terminations.

"Medical evacuation got us safely to Spain where Andrea is out of harm's way and finally receiving the medical care and treatment denied her in Malta," Weeldreyer said in a text message to AFP.

Asked how they were feeling, he said: "Relief. And the sudden, smashing waves of grief at losing our little girl.

"We've been so consumed with fear and intense focus on Andrea's safety, that now she's finally out of harm's way, there are cascades of mixed emotions that just come in waves."

In an interview by telephone on Wednesday with AFP, he had condemned the "callous" and "cruel" treatment of Prudente, after she was rushed to hospital during a "babymoon" holiday to the Mediterranean island.

She had suffered heavy bleeding in her 16th week of pregnancy and later her waters broke, with an ultrasound showing a partially detached placenta, he said.

An ultrasound two days later showed no amniotic fluid left, meaning the foetus had "no chance of survival", according to a doctor with campaign group Doctors for Choice, which was involved with the case.

But doctors had refused to intervene, waiting for Prudente to miscarry naturally, for the baby's heartbeat to stop or "for her to have a life-threating infection" that would spur them to act, Weeldreyer had explained.

He feared she would not survive if she developed sepsis, saying they were "playing chicken with the death of the mother".

The couple's lawyer, Lara Dimitrijevic, posted on social media that Prudente was "weak and exhausted, relieved and grieving".

The case made headlines around the world as evidence of the intransigence of the law in Malta, the only country in the European Union to have a total ban on abortion.

Women who have abortions face a maximum of three years in prison, while doctors who help them face up to four years, campaigners say.

Doctors for Choice welcomed the fact that Prudente had been able to finally receive help in Spain, saying she was given abortion pills.

But it said many Maltese women did not have that option.

"Are we really prioritising women's lives, or are we treating them merely as incubators? We can do much better than this as a country," it said.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 09:00:13 AM

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2022, 07:51:15 AMI mentioned it in the Climate Change thread, I was not aware of it until recently and it sounds really terrifying, basically shackling government's ability to regulate. It attacks not just what has been done but also what can be done in the future. It feels truly as if the Judicial branch is out of control and is the one that dictates official activities. What does it matter that Congress or the President do if the courts will thwart and reinterpret it in the most reactionary way possible?

Yeah that's the challenge. I think there is an argument for shackling the administrative/regulatory state. I think the traditional conservative narrative (and criticism) of this vastly growing Federal bureaucracy under the control of the executive is broadly true. Similarly I think there's merit in the argument that this is ultimately legislating through administrative/regulatory law on issues that should be decided by the legislature.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2022, 02:31:44 PM

Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2022, 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.

QuoteThe object of this book is to present a general view of the Common Law. To accomplish the task, other tools are needed besides logic. It is something to show that the consistency of a system requires a particular result, but it is not all. The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics. In order to know what it is, we must know what it has been, and what it tends to become. We must alternately consult history and existing theories of legislation. But the most difficult labor will be to understand the combination of the two into new products at every stage.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2022, 09:17:53 AMWest Virginia vs EPA is all about one specific sector (utilities with coal-fired plants) attempting to dodge its regulatory requirements which already fall under the Clean Air Act. There's no larger philosophical argument at play in this case.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 27, 2022, 05:49:45 AMIn a case for "what ifs", it may have been a mistake for democrats to join with conservative republicans to torpedo harriet miers. The result was Alito getting the nomination. I'm not sure that could have been played much differently, however.

QuoteErick Erickson
@EWErickson
One of my favorite stories about the Miers nomination was how conservative staffers in the Senate, so pissed off their bosses were even considering her, began leaking unfavorable stuff to the press, including her performance in private conversations, much of which wasn't true.
They ran an aggressive campaign to sabotage the nomination.  What helped them was that when Meirs did have the private conversations and provided documents, she was as bad or worse than they'd been leaking.  Caused the Senate GOP to rapidly shift against her.
But it was a staff driven operation in revolt to Bush that then paved the way for the Senate GOP to revolt against Bush on a host of issues, including immigration.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 10:58:50 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2022, 09:17:53 AMWest Virginia vs EPA is all about one specific sector (utilities with coal-fired plants) attempting to dodge its regulatory requirements which already fall under the Clean Air Act. There's no larger philosophical argument at play in this case.

Isn't the risk - and I could be totally wrong - that while it's about just a technical issue for one utility under the Clean Air Act, the court will ask the bigger question of what's the limit of what an administrative body can decide and what is such serious regulation that it requires legislation? What's the extent of power that Congress has delegated to that regulatory to make rules?

QuoteThose are legitimate questions, I think, but I think this court will most likely find that it's very, very limited and for political reasons. While it will apply to these specific rules but the conservative legal movement will then have a precedent to challenge all sorts of other regulations as so grave and serious that they actually require legislation.

QuoteWest Virginia v. E.P.A., No. 20–1530 on the court docket, is also notable for the tangle of connections between the plaintiffs and the Supreme Court justices who will decide their case. The Republican plaintiffs share many of the same donors behind efforts to nominate and confirm five of the Republicans on the bench — John G. Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

(...)

The pattern is repeated in other climate cases filed by the Republican attorneys general and now advancing through the lower courts: The plaintiffs are supported by the same network of conservative donors who helped former President Donald J. Trump place more than 200 federal judges, many now in position to rule on the climate cases in the coming year.

At least two of the cases feature an unusual approach that demonstrates the aggressive nature of the legal campaign. In those suits, the plaintiffs are challenging regulations or policies that don't yet exist. They want to pre-empt efforts by President Biden to deliver on his promise to pivot the country away from fossil fuels, while at the same time aiming to prevent a future president from trying anything similar.

QuoteThe ultimate goal of the Republican activists, people involved in the effort say, is to overturn the legal doctrine by which Congress has delegated authority to federal agencies to regulate the environment, health care, workplace safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

Known as "Chevron deference," after a 1984 Supreme Court ruling, that doctrine holds that courts must defer to reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes by federal agencies on the theory that agencies have more expertise than judges and are more accountable to voters. "Judges are not experts in the field and are not part of either political branch of the government," Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his opinion for a unanimous court.

But many conservatives say the decision violates the separation of powers by allowing executive branch officials rather than judges to say what the law is. In one of his most famous opinions as an appeals court judge, Associate Justice Gorsuch wrote that Chevron allowed "executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power."

The constitutional dispute is not necessarily political, because Chevron deference applies to agency actions in both Republican and Democratic administrations. But conservative hostility to the doctrine may be partly rooted in distrust of entrenched bureaucracies and certain kinds of expertise.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2022, 09:17:53 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 09:00:13 AM

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2022, 07:51:15 AMI mentioned it in the Climate Change thread, I was not aware of it until recently and it sounds really terrifying, basically shackling government's ability to regulate. It attacks not just what has been done but also what can be done in the future. It feels truly as if the Judicial branch is out of control and is the one that dictates official activities. What does it matter that Congress or the President do if the courts will thwart and reinterpret it in the most reactionary way possible?

Yeah that's the challenge. I think there is an argument for shackling the administrative/regulatory state. I think the traditional conservative narrative (and criticism) of this vastly growing Federal bureaucracy under the control of the executive is broadly true. Similarly I think there's merit in the argument that this is ultimately legislating through administrative/regulatory law on issues that should be decided by the legislature.

The Legislature passes laws and budgets, the administrative ability to enforce them falls under the Executive.  This is US Civics 101. 

QuoteAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for supreme court justices to be impeached
The congresswoman says Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath to Congress about their views on Roe

Political pressure is mounting on Joe Biden to take more action to protect abortion rights across the US as firebrand New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for supreme court justices to be impeached for misleading statements about their views on Roe v Wade.

Ocasio-Cortez's remarks took aim at justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Both were appointed by former president Donald Trump and had signaled that they would not reverse the supreme court's landmark 1973 decision in Roe v Wade during confirmation hearings as well as in meetings with senators.

On Friday, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch formed part of the conservative majority which in effect ended legal access to abortion in most states, and Ocasio-Cortez said "there must be consequences" for that.

"They lied," the leftwing, second-term representative said on NBC's Meet the Press. "I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense ... and I believe that this is something that should be very seriously considered."

Ocasio-Cortez added that standing idly by "sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure ... confirmations and seats on the supreme court".

She also mentioned impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife Ginni emailed 29 Republican lawmakers in Arizona as she tried to help undermine Biden's victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Thomas has not recused himself from election-related cases, drawing criticism.

"I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in with very deep violations of conflict of interest are also impeachable offenses," Ocasio-Cortez said.

House members can impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. But to be removed from office a justice would need to be convicted by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

Biden's Democratic party controls the House with a clear majority, but its standing in the Senate is much more tenuous. The Senate is split 50-50, though Biden's vice-president, Kamala Harris, can serve as a tiebreaker for votes that can be carried by a simple majority.

The president dismissed the overturning of Roe v Wade as "cruel" but stopped well short of calling for the impeachment of any justices. He has also rejected the strategy proposed in some quarters to expand the supreme court in a way that would allow for the addition of more liberals and blunt the bench's current conservative majority.

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2022, 02:12:27 PMIIRC I brought up the possibility of impeaching the offending SC justices back in the day and it didn't seem to be very feasible. Now, with even Republican senators like Collins and Murkowski feeling that they were taken for fools, and I believe that Manchin also came out against them, could it be a possibility?

Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2022, 02:18:56 PM

Quote from: The Larch on June 27, 2022, 02:12:27 PMIIRC I brought up the possibility of impeaching the offending SC justices back in the day and it didn't seem to be very feasible. Now, with even Republican senators like Collins and Murkowski feeling that they were taken for fools, and I believe that Manchin also came out against them, could it be a possibility?

50 Dem senators plus Murkowski and Collins is 52.  You need 14 more in order to remove.

Unless you have a reasonable prospect of getting those 14 additional votes calling for impeachment is purely performative on the part of AOC.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 02:41:24 PMShe's lying. At best they were wilfully blind and wanting to be fooled.

I agree with AR - I don't see how saying "Roe is the settled law of the land" is an indication that they don't think it should be overturned, or that they wouldn't overturn. It's just a factual statement with very little meaning - unless you're basically looking for a pretext to support them.

QuoteStart with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the Constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law. I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it. Roe is 45 years old. It has been reaffirmed many times. Lots of people care about it a great deal, and I've tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences. I am a don't-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 02:41:24 PMShe's lying. At best they were wilfully blind and wanting to be fooled.

I agree with AR - I don't see how saying "Roe is the settled law of the land" is an indication that they don't think it should be overturned, or that they wouldn't overturn. It's just a factual statement with very little meaning - unless you're basically looking for a pretext to support them.

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2022, 02:56:46 PMI disagree.  The words he used in the meeting he had with Collins have meaning, and particular legal meaning.  You can fault her for believing him.  But you cannot claim she is lying when she says she believed he would not support what the court has now done.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 03:04:23 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on June 27, 2022, 02:56:46 PMI disagree.  The words he used in the meeting he had with Collins have meaning, and particular legal meaning.  You can fault her for believing him.  But you cannot claim she is lying when she says she believed he would not support what the court has now done.

I just don't think someone who's been a Senator for twenty five years can realistically be that credulous or naive.

How is it that no-one here is really surprised that Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe - given his ideological credentials and who nominated him and that it's the number one goal of the conservative legal movement that he comes from - but Susan Collins or Joe Manchin are?

I think the more likely argument is that one wanted to vote with their party and the other was up for re-election in West Virginia. But they both wanted to get to "yes" - that seems more plausible than all of us being smarter or more cynical.

QuoteTrump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case
Published Wed, Oct 19 2016

Donald Trump said the overturning of the landmark Supreme Court decision giving women the right to abortion "will happen, automatically," if he is elected president and gets to appoint justices to the high court.

"I am pro-life," Trump said during Wednesday night's presidential debate when asked whether he wanted that decision, Roe v. Wade, reversed by the Supreme Court.

Trump said that if the ruling were to be reversed, laws on the legality or illegality of abortion would "go back to the individual states" to decide, which was the case prior to Roe v. Wade.

But when moderator Chris Wallace pressed him on whether he wanted the ruling overturned, Trump said, "That will happen, automatically in my opinion," because he would get to nominate potentially several justices to the court.

In response, Hillary Clinton said, "I strongly support Roe v. Wade."

"I will defend Roe v. Wade, I will defend a woman's right to make her own decision," Clinton said.

She criticized Trump for having said in the past that a woman should be punished if she got an abortion when it was made illegal.

Trump fired back, saying Clinton was in favor of partial-birth abortions being legal, which meant that a fetus could be "ripped out" of a mother's womb a day before she was due to give birth.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 03:04:23 PMHow is it that no-one here is really surprised that Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2022, 03:59:55 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2022, 03:04:23 PMHow is it that no-one here is really surprised that Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe

I was surprised to learn Kavanaugh made that statement in the meeting.  It may have not been under oath but it crosses a line in my book.  he should not get a pass because of Susan Collins being naive.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2022, 03:31:45 PMHE TOLD YOU WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO. HE DID WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO.

To think that senators that have a career reputation of playing both sides of the aisle are actually shocked, shocked that this could happen falls in the same bag of bullshitters that told the left for years that there was nothing to worry about with Roe v Wade, they'd never overturn it, you're just being hysterical.

QuoteTrump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case
Published Wed, Oct 19 2016

Donald Trump said the overturning of the landmark Supreme Court decision giving women the right to abortion "will happen, automatically," if he is elected president and gets to appoint justices to the high court.

"I am pro-life," Trump said during Wednesday night's presidential debate when asked whether he wanted that decision, Roe v. Wade, reversed by the Supreme Court.

Trump said that if the ruling were to be reversed, laws on the legality or illegality of abortion would "go back to the individual states" to decide, which was the case prior to Roe v. Wade.

But when moderator Chris Wallace pressed him on whether he wanted the ruling overturned, Trump said, "That will happen, automatically in my opinion," because he would get to nominate potentially several justices to the court.

In response, Hillary Clinton said, "I strongly support Roe v. Wade."

"I will defend Roe v. Wade, I will defend a woman's right to make her own decision," Clinton said.

She criticized Trump for having said in the past that a woman should be punished if she got an abortion when it was made illegal.

Trump fired back, saying Clinton was in favor of partial-birth abortions being legal, which meant that a fetus could be "ripped out" of a mother's womb a day before she was due to give birth.