SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

Again, I don't get you. I quote responded to a person on this forum that was eager to portray Manchin that way.

Absent the specific term, which you introduced.

Don't unperson somebody on the forum just because you want to minimize his perspective.

I'm not. Factually, one person does not a trend make.

[NED funded]

I hate republicans so much

[VMSmith]

I'm not absolutely certain, but didn't Democrats hold the entirety of Congress and the Presidency with a 60-vote majority in early 2010? When they passed the ACA?

What stopped them from making abortion legal besides Roe v Wade then? It couldn't have been a lack of time, as the vote taken today was arranged over the course of ... what, a week or two?

[Endus]

I'm not absolutely certain, but didn't Democrats hold the entirety of Congress and the Presidency with a 60-vote majority in early 2010? When they passed the ACA?

What stopped them from making abortion legal besides Roe v Wade then? It couldn't have been a lack of time, as the vote taken today was arranged over the course of ... what, a week or two?

Fun fact; most Democrats are bigotry-driven neoliberals, too. There hasn't been a left-right divide in the USA since, like, the early 19th Century. Democrats have been pretty consistently center-right, and they've done as much as Republicans, traditionally, to maintain the white supremacist core of the USA.

The Republicans have gone way off the deep end the last decade or so, but let's recall Biden himself was behind the big crime bill in the '90s that is largely responsible for basically every modern problem with racist police policies today. And that shit wasn't accidental oversight.

"Not as violently racist as Republicans, at least" has basically been the Democratic core for, like, 50 years.

[Jastall]

I'm not absolutely certain, but didn't Democrats hold the entirety of Congress and the Presidency with a 60-vote majority in early 2010? When they passed the ACA?

What stopped them from making abortion legal besides Roe v Wade then? It couldn't have been a lack of time, as the vote taken today was arranged over the course of ... what, a week or two?

Likely because nobody thought Roe was going away anytime soon so it wasn't a pressing issue. Passing ACA was already an uphill battle as it was, and cost the Democrats a lot later down the line even with how tame it ended up being. Then of course 2016 happened and in one single election the ACA, Obama's one actual achievement such as it is, was ripped to shreds and SCOTUS veered right for literal decades to come. It's a case of poor projection and Democrat leadership being incapable of keeping their eyes on the prize.

Plus, as Endus said Democrats aren't actually that fan of rocking the boat. Beyond a couple issues that drive publicity and donors most aren't that different from Republicans. It's just that the Republicans, since a while ago but especially after Obama's first election, have spiraled downwards into a reactionary and regressive frenzy so the center-right people who are mostly about upholding the status quo look highly progressive in comparison, but it's mostly surface level.

[s_bushido]

What stopped them from making abortion legal besides Roe v Wade then? It couldn't have been a lack of time, as the vote taken today was arranged over the course of ... what, a week or two?

The Democrat establishment is basically the same as any company that panders to progressive issues. They don't come around on them until there's overwhelming public support. That, and I'm not sure how many people actually expected the SCOTUS to hand down this generation's Dred Scott decision...

[VMSmith]

Thanks for the answers. They line up pretty much with what I expected but had hoped I had missed something that put a positive spin on it.

It really makes voting in the US feel nearly pointless Except, perhaps, for local issues. Except when governors don't like letting cities make rules for themselves. Ugh.

They really nearly all do only care about their positions and power and money, don't they?

[Kaleredar]

The Democrat establishment is basically the same as any company that panders to progressive issues. They don't come around on them until there's overwhelming public support. That, and I'm not sure how many people actually expected the SCOTUS to hand down this generation's Dred Scott decision...

I think people assumed it was settled law. You know, like the conservative supreme court judge nominees said it was when they were up for the position. No need to pass a law that was already settled... or so they thought.

[s_bushido]

It really makes voting in the US feel nearly pointless

It's not pointless. Our democracy may be fundamentally flawed (since the GOP has rigged much of the game in their favor to maintain their minority rule), but had Hillary won in 2016 none of this would be happening. It would be her SCOTUS nominees on the bench, and that court wouldn't be in the process of further undermining the country.

[Mihalik]

It's not pointless. Our democracy may be fundamentally flawed (since the GOP has rigged much of the game in their favor to maintain their minority rule), but had Hillary won in 2016 none of this would be happening. It would be her SCOTUS nominees on the bench, and that court wouldn't be in the process of further undermining the country.

How much do you wanna bet that come November the Jimmy Dores of the "left" will come out of the woodwork shrieking about how "Voting is pointless!"?

[Nymrohd]

Have pretty much all major social progressives policies in the US been passed through the SCOTUS instead of actually being legislated by the body specifically elected to create laws?

[s_bushido]

Have pretty much all major social progressives policies in the US been passed through the SCOTUS instead of actually being legislated by the body specifically elected to create laws?

Most of the socially progressive stuff in this country has been striking down laws that unconstitutionally ban "wrong" behaviors or otherwise curtail people's rights and freedoms.

[AntiFascistVoter]

Have pretty much all major social progressives policies in the US been passed through the SCOTUS instead of actually being legislated by the body specifically elected to create laws?

There's these things call Constitutional Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th were really big deals for social progression. They started in the LEgislature.
The Civil Rights Act, and the Voter's Rights Act were also really big deals,that came from the LEgislature.

It's not surprising that bored white dudes on the internet forget all this shit. Because they always take this shit for granted.

• They spent most of 2016 saying the TPP was a bigger deal than Roe.
• Get bored, voted Trump or Harambe for the lulz ....
• Expect everyone else to fix their mess every 8-12 years.
• Get "disappointed" the fixer upper didnt totally remake society in 2 years.
• Can't be bothered to vote in midterms. Expac or osemnthe

[Nymrohd]

There's these things call Constitutional Amendments, the 13th, 14th, and 15th were really big deals for social progression. They started in the LEgislature.
The Civil Rights Act, and the Voter's Rights Act were also really big deals,that came from the LEgislature.

It's not surprising that bored white dudes on the internet forget all this shit. Because they always take this shit for granted.

• They spent most of 2016 saying the TPP was a bigger deal than Roe.
• Get bored, voted Trump or Harambe for the lulz ....
• Expect everyone else to fix their mess every 8-12 years.
• Get "disappointed" the fixer upper didnt totally remake society in 2 years.
• Can't be bothered to vote in midterms. Expac or osemnthe

Or you know, we are not from the US or even raised in common law systems.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Or you know, we are not from the US or even raised in common law systems.

Supreme Court decisions are treated as law because Supreme Court decisions happen when something occurs and it's unclear whether it's constitutional or not (federal or state constitutions). When the decision is made, that becomes the de facto interpretation of that amendment. Yes, a lot of important "laws" over the last several decades have happened in supreme courts, largely because something will happen that infringes on the most basic of human and civil rights, and we must once again go to the supreme court to reaffirm that yes, conservative bigotry and hatred against minorities/women/LGBTQ is illegal, and their right to not be harassed and to live their life peacefully without conservatives trying to morally police them on something that hurts nobody.

[Poopymonster]

I 100% think judges in red states would find a woman guilty under that circumstance.

Your honor, we move that the defendant acted with callous disregard for the life inside her. I mean, what was the defendant thinking, being out of the kitchen. They was even wearing shoes!

[Beefhammer]

This. You'd be hard pressed to call any of the ACA flips "Democrats with an R next to their name".

Then again, considering tehdang's dishonest hyperfocusing on the exceeding minority of abortions done in the late term I'm not surprised he's trying to claim this as a victory for his depraved views.

He as much full of BS as littleTexaslies he just doesn't cross the lines to get banned regularly like the former.

[Darththeo]

Supreme Court decisions are treated as law because Supreme Court decisions happen when something occurs and it's unclear whether it's constitutional or not (federal or state constitutions). When the decision is made, that becomes the de facto interpretation of that amendment. Yes, a lot of important "laws" over the last several decades have happened in supreme courts, largely because something will happen that infringes on the most basic of human and civil rights, and we must once again go to the supreme court to reaffirm that yes, conservative bigotry and hatred against minorities/women/LGBTQ is illegal, and their right to not be harassed and to live their life peacefully without conservatives trying to morally police them on something that hurts nobody.

It isn't just the Supreme Court decision, it is the decision of any court (essentially where ever the case ends). Some lower court decisions are treated as law too.

[Mihalik]

Have pretty much all major social progressives policies in the US been passed through the SCOTUS instead of actually being legislated by the body specifically elected to create laws?

US legislatures are broadly not representative of the population (voting or otherwise) due to severe partisan gerrymandering and the fucked up first past the post weighted electoral system we use.

In most states and especially federally often less than a third of the population is calling the shots for everyone else. These people are usually the ones that hold some of the most extreme views on any subject and whose inherent extremism leads to a willingness to rig the system. There have been some cases when the courts would step in to curtail some of the most radically abusive laws which in turn gave the perception that the courts are "progressive".

The courts have never ever been progressive, on the contrary historically speaking the courts lean from conservative to extremely conservative to a point that constitutional reforms were required to budge the position of the courts on issues such as black people not being property and segregation not being acceptable.

What we are experiencing now is the courts coming full circle back into the era where their job is to curtail and not promote rights and freedoms.

If the Democrats wouldn't be such utter useless pieces of incompetent corrupt shits, they'd recognize the obvious, that the only way to fix this, is electoral activism and sweeping reforms such as the expansion of the Supreme Court and push for constitutional amendments.

Fact is moderate to progressives vastly outnumber conservatives. But because the Democrats fucking suck ass, they absolutely refuse to engage in the necessary activism to mobilize voters, get them to the ballots AND THEN FUCKING DO SOMETHING USEFUL SO PEOPLE WOULD KEEP FUCKING GOING BACK TO THE BALLOTS.

[Flarelaine]

The courts have never ever been progressive, on the contrary historically speaking the courts lean from conservative to extremely conservative to a point that constitutional reforms were required to budge the position of the courts on issues such as black people not being property and segregation not being acceptable.

Which is really not surprising as the core task of a judge - any judge, anywhere - is maintaining the existing order.