SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[jonnysensible]

???

Challenge the status quo? What's happening right now is the result of people being complacent on their rights and thinking that voting doesn't matter because their rights are constitutionally protected. In 2016 46% of young people age 18-29 voted. Most people currently protesting right now and demanding radical change had the chance to prevent this and push for their own agenda but refused to do so

It's clear to me that people peddling for radical changes don't matter. They don't vote. AOC might be elected in like some super blue district but that doesn't matter if you can't win states like Florida where old people dominate.

thought mr obama said he'd do it if you voted him and then he didnt.

[Adam Jensen]

I mean, the USA is on the precipice of outright murderous fascism. Pretty much one bad election cycle away. So it's like driving on a high mountain road curving along a narrow cliff face; every turn is the most important turn you've ever made in your life, because missing any turn means you fall to your death. And that'll remain true until you're off that road.

And SCOTUS just gave states oversight to federal elections, so we're screwed basically. If an election goes badly for the Republicans, they'll scream FRAUD and put their guy in anyways, just as they've been saying they'll do, just as they've been planning to do.

Put a fork in this fucking country, it's done.

Under His Eye.

- - - Updated - - -

I was one of the people who saw the writing on the wall all the way back in 2016. The only reason why I didn't leave back then, and can't leave now, is I lack the money and the means to do so.

And that's just me. I'm a lower middle-class white guy, who lives in a swing state. I can only imagine how much worse it is for any of the poorer minorities living in the deep red states who likewise just want to fucking leave.

I live in New England, maybe we'll just split off and make our own nation.

With cabot cheese and maine lobster.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...abor-rcna36156

Just as a reminder for how partisan, stupid, and dishonest Clarence Thomas in particular is - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1143_3f14.pdf

They object on religious grounds to all available COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.

They may object for that reason, but that doesn't make it true. Because it's absolutely not true, yet here Clarence Thomas is, accepting their dishonest objection to the vaccine without question.

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/...ll_Handout.pdf

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna do not require the use of any fetal cell cultures in order to manufacture (produce) the vaccine.

Early in the development of mRNA vaccine technology, fetal cells were used for “proof of concept” (to demonstrate how a cell could take up mRNA and produce the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) or to characterize the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were found to be ethically uncontroversial by the pro-life policy organization the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Further, the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, a committee within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has stated: “neither Pfizer nor Moderna used an abortion-derived cell line in the development or production of the vaccine. However, such a cell line was used to test the efficacy of both vaccines. Thus, while neither vaccine is completely free from any use of abortion-derived cell lines, in these two cases the use is very remote from the initial evil of the abortion…one may receive any of the clinically recommended vaccines in good conscience with the assurance that reception of such vaccines does not involve immoral cooperation in abortion.”

Why am I posting this here when it's not directly related to this ruling?

To highlight just how deeply stupid and partisan Clarence Thomas is, and how his rulings require that he reject facts and reality. Including his ruling on this case in particular.

[Adam Jensen]

They may object for that reason, but that doesn't make it true. Because it's absolutely not true, yet here Clarence Thomas is, accepting their dishonest objection to the vaccine without question.

Pisses me off that he's literally lying to the American people in that ruling. The mRNA vaccine is not using aborted fetal tissue, holy shit.

Roger B Taney in his grave like "hey, I'm no longer the worst!"

[DarkTZeratul]

thought mr obama said he'd do it if you voted him and then he didnt.

Which is a dig that's really either dishonest or ignorant; the Democrats had a supermajority for only a very brief time (because Kennedy died suddenly), they had to focus on digging us out of the recession first, and that Democrat supermajority was, on the whole, considerably more lukewarm regarding abortion. I suspect, too, that there may have been a thought about wrapping it into the ACA until Kennedy's death forced them to compromise more heavily to get Republican votes on it. He may deserve flack for saying "this is the first thing I'll do" and then not doing it, but he wasn't wrong that there were higher priorities at the time and the reality is that it was unlikely to have succeeded anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

And SCOTUS just gave states oversight to federal elections, so we're screwed basically.

They did not. They merely agreed to hear the case, which won't happen until the fall and probably won't have a decision until next year.

[Gestopft]

In 2016 46% of young people age 18-29 voted. Most people currently protesting right now and demanding radical change had the chance to prevent this and push for their own agenda but refused to do so

Tell me you haven't bothered looking up historical voting trends for this age group without telling me you haven't bothered looking up historical trends for this age group.

[jonnysensible]

Which is a dig that's really either dishonest or ignorant; the Democrats had a supermajority for only a very brief time (because Kennedy died suddenly), they had to focus on digging us out of the recession first, and that Democrat supermajority was, on the whole, considerably more lukewarm regarding abortion. I suspect, too, that there may have been a thought about wrapping it into the ACA until Kennedy's death forced them to compromise more heavily to get Republican votes on it. He may deserve flack for saying "this is the first thing I'll do" and then not doing it, but he wasn't wrong that there were higher priorities at the time and the reality is that it was unlikely to have succeeded anyway.

yea bailing out bankers and passing mitts healthcare plan took priority.

[Miffinat0r]

yea bailing out bankers and passing mitts healthcare plan took priority.

Not sure but Medicare for All would be found unconstitutional because the Federal government doesn't have an clear mandate in the constitution that they can administer healthcare, take on healthcare costs, or have any program for healthcare.

Even the ACA got torn to shreds and that was GOP Lite policy. What makes you think the SCOTUS would allow for that, even if you had the votes?

[Rasulis]

It appears that Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision had some impact in Georgia.

New polling conducted by Quinnipiac University from June 23 to 27 showed Abrams in a tied race with Kemp for the first time in a public survey of Georgia's voters. Previous polls all showed the Democratic candidate trailing the incumbent Republican by a range of 2 to 7 percent.

The same poll showed Warnock now has double digit lead over Walker. Part of it likely due to the reveal that he has multiple secret children. Even for GA that's a bit much.

[D3thray]

Pisses me off that he's literally lying to the American people in that ruling. The mRNA vaccine is not using aborted fetal tissue, holy shit.

Roger B Taney in his grave like "hey, I'm no longer the worst!"

It’s a fruit-of-the-poisonous tree argument. I don’t have a problem with the use of fetal cell lines (might as well use them for something, we use cancer cells from a long dead woman all the time), but his argument is hardly original or unique. I hear plenty of this ridiculous line of reasoning all the time from partisans pushing some agenda or another. I understand the argument, mind, I just disagree with the conclusion (and the framing as well tbh).

[NED funded]

Tell me you haven't bothered looking up historical voting trends for this age group without telling me you haven't bothered looking up historical trends for this age group.

I know that historically young people don't vote or have ever voted. Which makes it more puzzling that democrats are pushing a strategy to cater to them???

Go for the people that actually bother to vote they are the ones making change in this country not those that just protest in the streets

- - - Updated - - -

Also I find it extremely funny that a leftist from Britain is saying liberalism is an ineffective strategy when Labour had their worst years under Corbyn. But that doesn't belong in this thread

[Cthulhu 2020]

As I said in another thread yesterday, this may be a case where there was already an ideological war for the future of the USA, and the Democrats lost. Completely. Before Biden ever took office.

If Supreme Court justices are willing to be partisan rather than rule on the law itself, then the nation's already fatally wounded, it just hasn't bled out yet. The knife's still blocking the wound, but Roe v. Wade's annulment was the first shift at pulling the knife out. And Thomas was clear they're pulling it all the way, and targeting a whole host of other civil rights in the near future.

If they're willing to do that, they're probably willing to hand-wave election fraud by Republicans. And if that's true, there's no path to victory for Democrats. You'll lose in 2022, because any blatant election fraud will get their case appealed up through the courts and the corrupted SCOTUS will rubber-stamp the frauds as legitimate, securing a Republican win. Republicans could stuff ballot boxes with more votes than there are voters, and SCOTUS can still do that. And if they do, then Republicans win every election moving forward. Maybe not all of them right off, maybe just cleaning up the purple and battleground States before aiming at Democratic strongholds, but that's about how quickly they take control, not whether they can.

There's no way to remove these justices, no matter how obviously-dishonest their actions are; that takes impeachment, which you need to get through House and Senate, and see above; you're losing those elections forever now, and SCOTUS is guaranteeing that. We've now discovered it's also self interest, is all.

From here, it's a short hop to hand-waving literal murders of anyone the Republicans see as "undesirable" or "traitors", and the inevitable spiral into the worst excesses of fascism, and there's no lawful path to stopping it.

And all it takes is that these 5 SCOTUS judges actually are as partisan and corrupt as they appear to be, for taking out Roe v. Wade. If they'll do that, where will they stop? When you have no means to act against them?

I also suspect the "leak" of the Roe v. Wade reversal was done by Republicans, so State governments could get their trigger laws set up in time. They're literally the only people who benefited from the leak. The decision was already made, and public outcry and Democratic condemnation was never gonna change it. The leak was a statement that the Republican Justices are on-board and it's full-steam-ahead.

Man doooood, man. It's almost as if several of us said that the supreme court seat was more important than people getting angry over some emails.

But you're right, as the courts are now packed with ideological conservative judges, nothing really seems off limits. There doesn't seem to be any recourse against the USA slowly sliding back into a theocracy. Anything the Dems do will either be overthrown by the court now, and I imagine the fuckwads are eyeing Brown vs Board and Plessy vs Ferguson next.

Feels like we're in the worst timeline, where the USA might actually become the Republic of Gilead.

[Elegiac]

Also I find it extremely funny that a leftist from Britain is saying liberalism is an ineffective strategy when Labour had their worst years under Corbyn. But that doesn't belong in this thread

They're not wrong, however. And Trump and the current direction of the Republican Party are evidence of this.

How could a far right party be evidence that neoliberalism is anemic? Well, that's very simple; because it's fundamentally based on the same set of political and economic assumptions as post-Thatcher/Reagan conservatism which is also proving itself to be anemic in the face of right wing populism. In the US, that's manifested as Trumpism; in the UK, it's manifested as Brexiteers.

People on both sides are increasingly of the same opinion that the existing political paradigm of free market capitalism doesn't work. Where they differ is that the right wing thinks fascism is the solution (which it isn't, because capitalism and fascism are bedfellows).

- - - Updated - - -

Man doooood, man. It's almost as if several of us said that the supreme court seat was more important than people getting angry over some emails.

But you're right, as the courts are now packed with ideological conservative judges, nothing really seems off limits. There doesn't seem to be any recourse against the USA slowly sliding back into a theocracy. Anything the Dems do will either be overthrown by the court now, and I imagine the fuckwads are eyeing Brown vs Board and Plessy vs Ferguson next.

Feels like we're in the worst timeline, where the USA might actually become the Republic of Gilead.

Doomerism is massively unhelpful, just fyi.

It also doesn't account for the fact that unlike, say, the Weimar Republic or Soviet Russia or post-Imperial China the current crop of American fascists are not capable of delivering improvements to most people's material conditions because they fundamentally support the same forces that are causing a decline in most people's material conditions.

American neo-fascism is dangerous, but it's also febrile and empty-headed.

[Endus]

Doomerism is massively unhelpful, just fyi.

It also doesn't account for the fact that unlike, say, the Weimar Republic or Soviet Russia or post-Imperial China the current crop of American fascists are not capable of delivering improvements to most people's material conditions because they fundamentally support the same forces that are causing a decline in most people's material conditions, which is how you get lasting authoritarian regimes.

American neo-fascism is dangerous, but it's also febrile.

Apparently necessary reminder that the Nazi Reich lasted just over a decade before failure.

It doesn't have to last all that long to cause absolutely horrendous human rights atrocities.

[Elegiac]

Apparently necessary reminder that the Nazi Reich lasted just over a decade before failure.

It doesn't have to last all that long to cause absolutely horrendous human rights atrocities.

I look at it the same way as I look at the climate crisis.

Insisting that fascism has already won and that there's nothing that can be done to halt its advance is the political analogue to the last stage of climate change denial. It's not helpful and ultimately just services malign interests.

[Gestopft]

Which makes it more puzzling that democrats are pushing a strategy to cater to them???

Yes, their whole "not make any recognizable progress on the issues younger voters care about" strategy is a definite pander...

[Miffinat0r]

I look at it the same way as I look at the climate crisis.

Insisting that fascism has already won and that there's nothing that can be done to halt its advance is the political analogue to the last stage of climate change denial. It's not helpful and ultimately just services malign interests.

I mean ultimately you have to realize under the current system of government there's literally nothing you can do.

Rural power rules the US, always will, always has been, always will be.

I was thinking of applying for visas because this country is just headed down a Christian Nationalist place.

[Endus]

I look at it the same way as I look at the climate crisis.

Insisting that fascism has already won and that there's nothing that can be done to halt its advance is the political analogue to the last stage of climate change denial. It's not helpful and ultimately just services malign interests.

I'm not saying "nothing can be done". I'm saying "the systems and processes of the US government have already been suborned". Things can still be done, they're just not gonna happen through official channels, most likely.

The Conservative justices could die, for instance, whether by force or natural causes. Being unable to replace them, for either side, could "fix" things in the short term. You could also convict them of felonious crimes which wouldn't remove them from office, but they can't legislate from a prison cell either, I don't believe.

It may also create such a lock-up that the government officially fails and chooses to Balkanize itself into two separate legal entities, going their separate ways, each with a selection of the States that favored their "side".

I don't see a way forward through the normal processes of government to surmount this, though. You can't impeach SCOTUS justices without controlling the House and Senate, and there are no ethical obligations on SCOTUS justices in the first place. That's not "doomerism", that's recognizing where effective change can be made, and not wasting time and effort on situations where change simply won't happen.

Like with climate change; it would've been nice to just stop using gasoline-powered cars back in 1995 or so, but that was never gonna happen, and pushing for that rather than effective policy would have ensured nothing got done.

[Shadowferal]

Jefferson is my least favorite founding father. I call him a fraud if I get drunk. The dude was a walking hypocrisy. He personally reviled Slavery, he said so often when speaking around Franklin, but in his personal life he raped his female slaves and refused to acknowledge his children. Even generations after Slavery had died the Jefferson estate iirc didn't recognize them until like the 80's almost 200 years after when this occurred.

You're wrong. Sally Hemings

[unfilteredJW]

You’re not going to change old voters minds, tho. People are statistically more likely to lean more right the older they get. That’s why Dems target young people. But as you said, younger voters are harder to get to the polls. It’s not exactly because they won’t or that they're lazy, it’s because they’re more likely to just not have the time. They’re in school, in jobs that don’t allow them the time off, they can't afford to, etc.

That’s why I fully support voting days to be national holidays, but Republicans will never agree to it because they know it won’t go in their favor.

The point you make about getting older and becoming more conservative is a myth.

Just the current crop of boomers are awful.