SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[uuuhname]

you heard it folks, unless you are white, straight and a man, you're civil rights are on the chopping block. maybe, my greatest hope is with Alto being such a brazen dullard to give the end game away with this, might actually spark a real grassroots movement to change the fact that a purely undemocratic body gets to roll back civil rights by at least 70 years. because I wish I could count on the Democrats to do anything about this, but I have no reason to believe they will.

- - - Updated - - -

I object not to your characterization of miscegenation

but you can't point out what they said was wrong. curious.

[Paranoid Android]

ok what if u voted obama, clinton, biden and this still happens

I sorta don't get what this means? My single vote doesn't determine elections (this is snark).

I don't know how you can answer if this would or would not happen with past 3 Dem Presidents. On the level I would safely say that Roe v Wade would be protected if everything went the way it did there would be 5 judges who would uphold RoevWade to 4 against. Best I can answer.

[Kaleredar]

you heard it folks, unless you are white, straight and a man, you're civil rights are on the chopping block. maybe, my greatest hope is with Alto being such a brazen dullard to give the end game away with this, might actually spark a real grassroots movement to change the fact that a purely undemocratic body gets to roll back civil rights by at least 70 years. because I wish I could count on the Democrats to do anything about this, but I have no reason to believe they will.

I'm not too sure what they... can do. And by can, I mean "actually accomplish," rather than simply theorycrafting a possible way to get it done that ignores the unfortunate reality of the situation.

They can't expand the court without dissolving the filibuster. They can't dissolve the filibuster without the approval of Manchin/Sinema.

They could try codifying it into law, but again, that would require the assent of Manchin/Sinema, who probably know that they're in a precarious enough situation in their own states that voting in the affirmative to what the democrats are trying to do could see them unseated by a republican in the next election.

The democrats/Biden/whoever threatening Sinema and Manchin to "primary them" to try and get them to agree clearly either hasn't been effective thus far or they know wouldn't be effective if they tried it, because having two stick-in-the-mud DINO's that give the democrats a technical numbers is better than the GOP having the numbers advantage... because if the latter was true, this effort would be utterly wasted anyway.


I do suppose an effort by the democrats is still in order, though. To show their voters that they aren't taking this lying down and show where each and every congressperson falls on this. And maybe, just maybe, it could work.

[Paranoid Android]

And, pragmatically:

I know where this image is from but not much about the context, but that's fine.

This goes to my point that RoevWade or however framed is supported by a solid majority of generally 60% or higher but people on the pro-choice side seem not to go out and vote for it. Even if we go with the Republican numbers, those seem to vote for a Republican who would a) outright overturn pro-choice by a law or b) vote for sure a conservative judge vetted by some right wing extreme, aka The Federalist, who would kill Roe v Wade, in turn for I guess lesser taxes or small government, etc.

This might have been the case in Maine with her promise not to vote for a judge. Idk if the people of Maine were stupid believing her or didn't care.

[uuuhname]

alright well, fuck it, let's watch gay rights get taken way, let's watch interracial marriage be taken away. let's look on as various other civil rights are taken away. because we have such a fantastic system where decades and decades of social and legal progress can and will just be wiped off like a chalk board. really love it, we should do more of it. /S

[PACOX]

But these are the reasons why people are against banning post 20 week abortions.

For one...we're talking about ~1% of all abortions. The woman that have abortions at that point of their pregnancy, in nearly all cases, wanted to have that child. It took something major to get them to decide to terminate their pregnancies.

For another...these are rules being put into place about medical procedures by politicians...not doctors.

And, pragmatically:

Unfortunately its also how many of those people polled actually vote? Even then, popular opinion only means so much in the US where a few people holding key positions can impact the entire country. McConnell engineered secured the bag for his party years ago.

[Kaleredar]

I know where this image is from but not much about the context, but that's fine.

This goes to my point that RoevWade or however framed is supported by a solid majority of generally 60% or higher but people on the pro-choice side seem not to go out and vote for it. Even if we go with the Republican numbers, those seem to vote for a Republican who would a) outright overturn pro-choice by a law or b) vote for sure a conservative judge vetted by some right wing extreme, aka The Federalist, who would kill Roe v Wade, in turn for I guess lesser taxes or small government, etc.

This might have been the case in Maine with her promise not to vote for a judge. Idk if the people of Maine were stupid believing her or didn't care.

It's the unfortunate case that people often don't look at the big picture on these sort of things. Potentially a case of "When I voted for them, I didn't think the 'Leopards Eating People's Faces Party' would eat my face!"

Anyone that thought that Clinton and Trump "might as well be the same," was acting in blinding stupidity, precisely because of this reason, right here. Either they 1) didn't think about it, which means they were dangerously short-sighted, 2) didn't think it would happen, which means they were dangerously naive, or 3) were okay with it happening, which means they were dangerously apathetic.

[PACOX]

Liberals talk about better childcare. Conservatives outlaw abortion, so the proposed childcare gets used. Sounds like a win-win. Its not like Millennials are just popping out babies anyway!

[Gaidax]

I don't understand this desire to police other people's wombs. If a woman wants to have an abortion - let her have it. Give the consultation and support, but in the end she should be the decision maker, not some court.

[tehdang]

"states rights" are not sufficient on the matter because it's obvious that some states do not possess the means to govern themselves on such matters. Like... with the entirety of the South, and slavery. Slavery was not going to be ended until it had to be ended for them. That was right, because slavery is wrong, no matter how many southerners at the time thought it was "right," and no matter how they tried to justify it.

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.

Furthermore, states that have passed these restrictive abortion laws have also began to basically illegalize it in other states, which breaches their own supposed goal of "state's rights."

Maybe just some states have proposed "illegalizing" it in other states?

Because this isn't about state's rights, just like how the civil war wasn't about state's rights. This is clearly a moralistic move on the part of the GOP, in attempting to inflict their specific brand of morality on others, full-stop.

The whole "legal under any circumstances" and "legal only under certain circumstances" polling over time suggests that it's competition among various brands of morality.

And those morals are wrong. There exist such things as right and wrong in this world. Slavery, "anti-miscegenation laws," laws that deny the existence of LGBTQ+ people, and laws that control what women can and can't do with their bodies are wrong. It doesn't matter how many people believe they're right or if they happen to all be clumped together, because their ability to impress them upon people that think they are wrong is unacceptable.

This really sounds like you're imposing your specific brand of morality on others. I know you expect many to share this, but you're really hurting the previous bit. You get to decide which laws "deny the existence of LGBTQ+ people" and we already control "what women can and can't do with their bodies" in both abortion and unborn female children.

[Mihalik]

I'll post it here cause this thread is more specific.

The ruling itself isnt even the most terrifying part. Its the logic used in it. Right now its abortion, but Alito also specifically called out gay marriage and sodomy decisions. Whats next, Inter race marriages? Contraception use?

WTF conservatives

I refrained from commenting until I could read into it a bit.

While this decision was not unexpected, the reasoning is indeed fucking horrifying. It opens the door to all sorts of fucking things from restrictions on gay rights to literally miscegination laws.

They went from zero to eleven out of the gate.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately it's starting to look like RBG's most enduring legacy will be facilitating the hijacking of the Supreme Court due to her refusal to step down at a safe time.

I mean ... I won't pin this on her exclusively. It's more of an issue of Democrats overall not giving a fuck about the court because fundamentally their donors love this court as much the Republicans do.

You know a court that will rubber stamp every corporate deregulation and tax dodge they can dream up.

[s_bushido]

I don't understand this desire to police other people's wombs.

These are the same people who pretend to worship an all-powerful entity that polices their every thought. This is nothing compared to that.

[Kaleredar]

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.

Maybe just some states have proposed "illegalizing" it in other states?

The whole "legal under any circumstances" and "legal only under certain circumstances" polling over time suggests that it's competition among various brands of morality.

This really sounds like you're imposing your specific brand of morality on others. I know you expect many to share this, but you're really hurting the previous bit. You get to decide which laws "deny the existence of LGBTQ+ people" and we already control "what women can and can't do with their bodies" in both abortion and unborn female children.

I'll entrust LGBTQ+ people and women to have better understanding of what kinds of legislation are actively denying them rights or denying their existence, and they seem to be pretty vociferously against the kinds of legislation the GOP are proposing here.

Wonder why that is. So your entreatment of "I do not feel that this legislation unfairly targets the people who aren't me" is pretty hollow when the people it is targeting are saying the opposite of what you are.

And again, you seem to be approaching this as some form of "no right or wrong, only consensus," and that is errant. There is right, and there is wrong. "Moral relativism" is only an excuse for apathy at best and actual unspoken support at worst.

[NED funded]

Elections matter. 2016 was the most important election but a decent number of americans were too stuck up in their own arses to think about it

"don't threaten me with the Supreme Court!"

[uuuhname]

Elections matter. 2016 was the most important election but a decent number of americans were too stuck up in their own arses to think about it

"don't threaten me with the Supreme Court!"

wish RBG got that memo. could have spared us all a lot of trouble.

[Dontrike]

Hence, I was confused by the post I quoted. I've stated my opinions on a broad number of topics over time, and been subjected to criticism for them. Is this Shrodinger's Poster: You both haven't stated your views on subjects, but have also stated terrible and wrong views on subjects?

"You haven't stated your opinion" as though that matters even in the least bit. I'd rather not state my opinion then have a shitty one like you and GreenJesus.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Unfortunately its also how many of those people polled actually vote? Even then, popular opinion only means so much in the US where a few people holding key positions can impact the entire country. McConnell engineered secured the bag for his party years ago.

Well, the thing of it is...even if they say they don't think it's worth legislators spending time on... that doesn't mean they're going to break ranks when the legislators do.

[Kaleredar]

wish RBG got that memo. could have spared us all a lot of trouble.

Likely an unfortunate holdover of thinking the GOP would act like decent human beings, instead of the opportunistic rats they've proven to be. Obama fell into the same trap during his years as president, especially when the dems held the majority.

Biden and co. seem to be less under that superstition. Unfortunately, they don't possess numbers solid enough to basically bulldoze through the GOP's bullshit to put them in their place.

[Slirith]

I wish the world would put the US in it's place.

[Zaydin]

Gorusch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all need to be impeached and removed from the Supreme Court for perjury.

I really hope this turns into a Monkeys Paw curse for the GQP.