SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Darththeo]

I voted for Biden too, congrats. And whether you like or dislike what I said doesn't change the fact that its how many voters thing and its not selfish or irrational. You neglect the part where I also said I was willing to vote for Clinton till the specific event that was her fault that crossed the line.

You guys sure go far to blame voters instead of politicians when it comes to running their own voters off, at least when it comes to Clinton.

I mean when it comes to the Republicans you actively admit how the GOP won't come out against racists and racism because they know it would run off their voters if they did. That is admitting right there that it would be the GOP knowingly running off their own voters if they snubbed them, even if those voters deserved to be snubbed for being monsters. But you give Clinton a pass.....

Except your reasons for not voting for Clinton are selfish reasons.

I can't see how you think they are somehow not selfish. It is clearly selfish.

And again, voters are always to blame in a system of elections where the outcome is fairly decided. If you voted in a manner to because you felt slighted or your pride wasn't sated enough, you didn't act rationally. Just because you justified your behavior to yourself does not mean it isn't irrational.

[thilicen]

Land of the free lol

[jonnysensible]

politics isn't about getting what you want, it's about pushing the needle in the direction you want.

no politics is about getting what you want, its why the republicans are good at it, because they know that you use power when you have it to do things you want.

Couldn't be more wrong in your statement.

[DarkTZeratul]

Everyone knows they were lying.

A hyperbolic "everyone knows" is not proof. "Everyone knew" that OJ Simpson killed his wife, or that Dan White's murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone were premeditated, but that didn't see them convicted.

[eschatological]

It's pretty clear from this leak that the reich I mean right wing supreme court plan was to hold on to this until after the midterms so even with these obstacles they realize there is a risk of affecting election outcomes.

This decision would have been published in June/July, well before midterms, no matter what. It's when SCOTUS decisions are published for cases heard in the previous term.

That it was leaked in early May has very little actual ramification, except politically:
1) It could have been leaked by a conservative Justice/clerk, hoping to cool down the electorate before the midterms instead of it coming out potentially right in the middle of campaign season.
2) It could have been leaked by a liberal Justice/clerk, hoping the backlash would sway the votes of other Justices before the vote is final. Drafts of this nature are not final, nor are the votes in favor/against it. So even though it says its the "Opinion of the Court" suggesting a majority agrees with it, that's likely a conference vote where the Justices sat down to see where they were, after which they retreat to their corners and write their opinions, often in collaboration with their concurrents.

- - - Updated - - -

-snip-.

Leftists like to claim that the government is owned by the people. That's a theory I, myself, subscribe to, being a progressive leftist.

So which is it - the voters are responsible for the government they elect in.....or the politician who "didn't run a good enough campaign, where 'good' seems to refer to how much she coddled my feelings, because surely every rational analyst can conclude her policies were not only better, but more clear and well-conveyed to the public as a whole" is responsible for getting Trump elected?

FWIW, Hillary is probably more torn up about this than any American politician. She's always been a civil servant and literally exiled herself for a year after her loss in grief while her surrogates scrambled to save their own political value.

[Edge-]

Yo, are we still retreading the 2016 election instead of focusing on the actual people who put the latest crop of trained, groomed, activist conservative Justices on the court and who voted for them?

I see Collins and Murkowski are both out there trying to talk about their bill to codify Roe - which both know has zero chance of passage in the current Congress - as a pathetic little shield to deflect against their votes for these people. Who they now say are so surprised to find out that these Justices lied to them and told them that Roe was settled!

Because they're apparently fucking gullible retards that believed this shit.

[Kallisto]

Again, I am not Hillary Clinton who actively placed her ego ahead of the civil liberties of women and minority groups thinking the voters had no choice and will fall in line. Try again or not, because no matter how many times you try and go down this train of thought, you will refuse to see the forest from the trees.

Again, better to drop it at this point.

Edit: Let me rephrase that,
You are looking at the forest so long that you lost sight of the trees within it.

Seems more accurate that way.

Stop making feeble excuses. US is a two-party system. If you're against fascism you'll vote for the only p[person that could beat the fascist. Trump was a faswcist, if you didn't vote Hillary you're saying you either are a fascist or ok with fascism.

No yo8u can't say "I voted third party." as they're nothing but waste of space until the US gets a PR system. Every human has a DUTY to vote for the only person who can defeat a fascist even if they're centre right. Deal with it

[Sorshen]

Leftists like to claim that the government is owned by the people. That's a theory I, myself, subscribe to, being a progressive leftist.

So which is it - the voters are responsible for the government they elect in.....or the politician who "didn't run a good enough campaign, where 'good' seems to refer to how much she coddled my feelings, because surely every rational analyst can conclude her policies were not only better, but more clear and well-conveyed to the public as a whole" is responsible for getting Trump elected?

FWIW, Hillary is probably more torn up about this than any American politician. She's always been a civil servant and literally exiled herself for a year after her loss in grief while her surrogates scrambled to save their own political value.

Voters have this shit habit of not holding politicians accountable for doing fuckall when they get the mandate. More primaries should be in order.

[jonnysensible]

So which is it - the voters are responsible for the government they elect in.....or the politician who "didn't run a good enough campaign, where 'good' seems to refer to how much she coddled my feelings, because surely every rational analyst can conclude her policies were not only better, but more clear and well-conveyed to the public as a whole" is responsible for getting Trump elected?

This argument is a dead end. You could have voted Obama, Hilary, Biden to protect you from theocracy and yet it hasn't protected you from theocracy.

attacking powerless people on the forum to shield powerful people from very valid criticism is lame.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm still reading the decision. Remember, this was the work of the conservative legal movement for 40 years. I'm not rushing.

I think just the first two pages should settle in your mind what I think about "historical bigotedness of states it shouldnt be left to them." It's a Democracy. If it's not in the constitution, agreed with upon states joining/founding, then the people's representatives decide. Not somebody that thinks government is too important to be left to people that think differently than you. You're the bigot in their eyes, and them in yours.

This "State's rights" argument has always been horse shit. It's taking control of one's own bodily autonomy from women and unilaterally only religious zealots and conservative men who want to do so.

I am eternally amused that every election, liberals worry that conservatives are going after abortion rights and conservatives say "Naw, we don't want to make abortion illegal, we just want to <insert excuse here>" We all knew it was a lie of course, but they pretended they weren't going after abortion rights in the same way they pretend to care about "the little guy" over big corp.

How about this, if a woman doesn't want to get an abortion, she doesn't get an abortion, and everyone else stops trying to control women's bodies. Sounds perfectly reasonable. Which is why we know they won't go for it. Because conservatives are never reasonable.

[eschatological]

This argument is a dead end. You could have voted Obama, Hilary, Biden to protect you from theocracy and yet it hasn't protected you from theocracy.

attacking powerless people on the forum to shield powerful people from very valid criticism is lame.

I'm not shielding them. Democrats have the House, Senate, and Presidency. They can pass a law to codify Roe v. Wade today. As many pointed out, Obama made that a campaign promise in 2008, and Biden did it again in 2020. I imagine Hillary probably did too but she lost.

And if people want to argue that having 50 Democratic Senators with a Democratic VP as tiebreaker isn't having control of the Senate, they need to go fuck themselves. Republicans seem to whip their Romneys and Murkowskis and Collins into lockstep pretty regularly except when they know it won't fucking matter at all so they can save minor "moderate" face, why the fuck can't we?

[Edge-]

This "State's rights" argument has always been horse shit.

It also largely ignores that last really inconvenient bit of the 10th Amendment where the rights are also guaranteed to the people, which ostensibly requires federal protection to ensure states don't violate said rights.

But whatever, that's really inconvenient and as a Strict Originalist I shall freely pick and choose of which parts of the Constitution and Amendments that I'll say matter and are important to whatever ideological argument I need to make now.

[Nurasu]

Ah, good, Schumer has at least scheduled a performative vote.

[Mihalik]

50 Democratic Senators

48 Senators.

Sinema and Manchin would block it or outright vote it down. Manchin has already voted against the attempt to codify Roe in February. Manchin doesn't believe in abortion rights, he never did. Sinema...Sinema will wear a pink tutu and do a ballet spin as she gives it a thumbs down.

Can we please stop pretending Sinema and Manchin are democrats? Can we? Please?

[DarkTZeratul]

48 Senators.

Sinema and Manchin would block it or outright vote it down. Manchin has already voted against the attempt to codify Roe in February.

Can we please stop pretending Sinema and Manchin are democrats? Can we? Please?

They're Democrats for the purpose of avoiding Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and that's about it.

[eschatological]

48 Senators.

Sinema and Manchin would block it or outright vote it down.

Can we please stop pretending Sinema and Manchin are democrats? Can we? Please?

Sinema is actually very pro-choice, iirc. Her policy positions which break from the Dems have all been economic. And of course procedural, in re: getting rid of the filibuster. She has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood on abortion rights.

Manchin is a problem, but how come our problems have to be catered to, when right wing "problems" are simply threatened or cronied into compliance? One of the problems of a big tent is herding cats, for sure - but protecting Roe v. Wade is a central plank of Democratic politics for 50 years.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Yep. We fought a war over it. If it's such a big deal that it's worth fighting a literal war on it, breaking apart the union, then I'm all aboard. Sometimes, it feels like some states want a peaceful divorce when they can't force their morality on a national basis. 9 legislators wearing black robes nation, and a collection of states nation.

The articles of secession didn't just say they fought the civil war of State's Rights. The articles of secession were literally the conservative states saying that the federal government weren't going to let them have slaves so they were going to withdraw from the union.

Anyone who thinks the civil war wasn't for bigoted reasons needs to learn a little history. One of the first sentences in the Georgia articles of secession says that the non confederate states were not respecting their rights to their property, property that was the "African" population. Most other articles of secession have similar stances. I think it was maybe two states that did not explicitly state slavery was their prime concern, but strongly alluded to slavery being the reason anyway.

So no, nobody believes this state's rights horseshit being the center of the war or any other concern. Conservatives just want to force their biblical morality onto other's lives. There's no other reason. And anyone with two firing brain cells knows "State's rights" is just a smoke screen for conservatives to force their morality on the rest of the populace, since the conservatives know that church and state must be separate, they have to come up with other excuses. Any individual who is not religious and still pushes for this shit has simply jumped on the religious conservative train and is denying the name of the train.

[Mihalik]

Manchin is a problem, but how come our problems have to be catered to, when right wing "problems" are simply threatened or cronied into compliance? One of the problems of a big tent is herding cats, for sure - but protecting Roe v. Wade is a central plank of Democratic politics for 50 years.

Manchin shouldn't be catered to. Nor should Sinema (I'll wait and see with Sinema, she might just do a contrarian princess dick move anyway), but that is neither here nor there right now. Both of them should have been whipped, primaried and beaten into submission but the democratic party is utterly incapable of doing anything but fucking losing.

[Levelfive]

I'm not shielding them. Democrats have the House, Senate, and Presidency. They can pass a law to codify Roe v. Wade today. As many pointed out, Obama made that a campaign promise in 2008, and Biden did it again in 2020. I imagine Hillary probably did too but she lost.

And if people want to argue that having 50 Democratic Senators with a Democratic VP as tiebreaker isn't having control of the Senate, they need to go fuck themselves. Republicans seem to whip their Romneys and Murkowskis and Collins into lockstep pretty regularly except when they know it won't fucking matter at all so they can save minor "moderate" face, why the fuck can't we?

We really have no leverage with Manchin. McConnell's caucus stays in line because they understand the importance and utility of doing so--half (or more) of Manchin's brand is sticking it to the Democrats. Sinema is a clown who also stands for nothing besides raw self-interest but could probably be persuaded. What perplexes me is why we don't seem to have leftist billionaires willing to buy Manchin and Sinema. We can pretend they benefit more from Republican policies, but Democrats take excellent care of the very richest, too.

[Mihalik]

We really have no leverage with Manchin. McConnell's caucus stays in line because they understand the importance and utility of doing so--half (or more) of Manchin's brand is sticking it to the Democrats. Sinema is a clown who also stands for nothing besides raw self-interest but could probably be persuaded. What perplexes me is why we don't seem to have leftist billionaires willing to buy Manchin and Sinema. We can pretend they benefit more from Republican policies, but Democrats take excellent care of the very richest, too.

Because progressive billionaires don't exist. A progressive billionaire is an oxymoron. It doesn't work. Billionaires COULDN'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK about other people's rights, and this simply doesn't affect them. They'll just fly to a progressive state or country if they need access to reproductive care. They can afford it. This, this is neither here nor there for them.