SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Captain N]

"I don't agree with the hateful rhetoric and hateful policy of these politicians, I just vote them into office."

It just means that shitty and inhumane behavior isn't a deal breaker for them. Often the sign that they've radicalized themselves into believing that the accepted existence of LGBTQ peoples and other minorities is somehow worse.

- - - Updated - - -

Immediate recall and special election. I'm wondering if Republicans got her to run as a Democrat again with this in mind somehow. Like, at this point I'm absolutely not ruling anything out given everything else they've done in recent years.

Agreed. This is rat fucking the election process and I'd like to believe that there is something written somewhere about switching parties to avoid exactly what this is causing (a veto proof majority for the GOP for those who didn't read the link).

[Fugus]

It just means that shitty and inhumane behavior isn't a deal breaker for them. Often the sign that they've radicalized themselves into believing that the accepted existence of LGBTQ peoples and other minorities is somehow worse.

- - - Updated - - -



Agreed. This is rat fucking the election process and I'd like to believe that there is something written somewhere about switching parties to avoid exactly what this is causing (a veto proof majority for the GOP for those who didn't read the link).

Blocking from switching parities wouldn’t block from voting with them.

[Captain N]

Blocking from switching parities wouldn’t block from voting with them.

I'm sure it wouldn't as we've seen numerous times with Manchin and Sinema. However running a Republican on a Democratic ticket just so that they end up with 2 Republicans in office is a massive bait and switch to the voter base.

[Fugus]

I'm sure it wouldn't as we've seen numerous times with Manchin and Sinema. However running a Republican on a Democratic ticket just so that they end up with 2 Republicans in office is a massive bait and switch to the voter base.

Yes, and if we can prove that, it’s their ass.

But my point was that just blocking them from officially switching parties while in office wouldn’t stop them from voting them.

And I can definitely see the GOP running in the Democratic primaries and even lying about what they stand for to do it given who they have been caught trying to run spoilers as independents to win and I remember at least one story where one person was caught changing parties before an election to run as what they claimed to stand against prior.

But blocking them from flipping parties officially won’t change much.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure it wouldn't as we've seen numerous times with Manchin and Sinema. However running a Republican on a Democratic ticket just so that they end up with 2 Republicans in office is a massive bait and switch to the voter base.

Looking up on this woman, she doesn't seem like a plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricia_Cotham

She evidently served from around 2007 to 2017 and then lost the 2016 election and just now got back.

So it wasn't a run as something to lie, it is more likely doing what is most beneficial to her regardless of whom she represents. Whether that be bribery, blackmail, or just how running her own business and figuring she can make more money if she can screw who workers harder. But it doesn't look like she changed affiliation just for the election.

- - - Updated - - -
@cubby

With the woman who decided to flip parties against the will of the heavily blue district that elected her, is there anything the people of that district can do to force her to step down? Maybe force a special election with a call of no confidence in her or something? Or are they, along with the rest of the state, screwed till the next election?

[Breccia]

So long as you don’t use party identity to decide whether to generalize an action or minimize it.

They are in your party, either voted in by people in spite of their words and actions, or because of their words and actions.

We're not generalizing it. You and your fellow Party of Trumpers have generalized it, as in "general election". We're just pointing it out.

By the way, it would have taken minimal effort to say "I don't agree with some of the things that were said by my party membersa". You didn't. That means you're one of the people that made this happen.

So, this is your fault.

In other news, tehdang's deplorable party passed a "you can't get an abortion in another state" law update in Idaho. Sound unConstitutional? The ACLU agrees. They're suing.

Idaho’s attorney general Raúl Labrador issued a legal opinion last week that said state law prohibits medical providers from referring a patient across state lines to undergo an abortion, or from prescribing abortion pills for a patient to pick up across state lines.

“Preventing health care providers from referring patients out of state to get an abortion? Extreme, unprecedented, and unconstitutional. Attorney General Labrador, we’ll see you in court,” Planned Parenthood said on Twitter.

The ACLU also said it’s suing Labrador “for threatening health care providers who exercise their First Amendment right to give patients information about out-of-state abortion care.”

“Labrador’s interpretation is unprecedented and amounts to a clear threat that Idaho will seek to punish individuals for speech and conduct related to abortions that take place in states where abortion is legal,” Planned Parenthood Great Northwest said in a Wednesday filing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Idaho, Southern Division.

The lawsuit comes after Republican Idaho Gov. Brad Little on Wednesday signed into law a new bill that makes it a crime for an adult to aid a minor in undergoing an abortion or obtaining abortion pills out-of state without parental permission.

[Fugus]

@Breccia

Kinda reminds me of some conversations I have had over the years locally (North Carolina).


Them : I believe in Democracy.

Me : So you believe Gerrymandering should be illegal?

Them : Democrats do it too!

Me : Yeah, but Republicans do it much more and much more extreme and I believe it should be illegal for either of them to do.

Them : *Hesitantly* I agree with that.

Me : So you should be pretty pissed when your party blocked the bill that would have made it illegal at a federal level or when they did it in this state and openly bragged about intentionally doing it to disenfranchise voters.

Them : No they didn't.

Me : Shows them videos of the guy who drew the districts bragging about how he only drew districts that allowed Democrats 3 seats because there was no way he could draw them where the democrats only got 2 or mention the HR1 bill.

Them : Spouts conspiracy theories about George Soros and pedophiles.

Me : If you have any evidence of any of that I would be glad to see it but none of that would still change the fact that the Republicans blocked banning it and cheered using it. Let alone the racism in the party.

Them : Republican's aren't racist!

Me : What about the voter ID laws they tried to push in North Carolina!

Them : That was about voter fraud!

Me : We have studies going back decades showing that any fraud they have is minor at best and it isn't used to combat voter fraud, its used to combat legal voters they don't like. The whole reason it was thrown out by the Supreme Court was because the Republicans were so brazen they actually did studies to find out which forms of ID minorities were most likely to lack just so they could require them and target them surgically to stop them from voting. You would quite literally be cutting out 100,000+ legal voters for every one illegal vote you would hope to catch.

Them : Queues the insults and threats calling me a some anti-christian trope and part of some conspiracy theory. Or tries to change the subject or go silent entirely if they can't and just walk away.

[tehdang]

Even when Democrats elect the candidates they think will represent them, they still get disenfranchised.

Holy fuck, I hate this godforsaken country. Should be grounds for an immediate special election...

“This has been something I have considered for a very long time. I have seen the Democratic party change tremendously. When I came here and when I campaigned to be here, I really believed I could make change in the Democratic party,” she said.

“I realized on day one I was not welcomed and that they did not want me here. And that was very hard and I still kept trying,” Cotham continued, saying she was cut off from her fellow Democratic caucus members.

“I am still who I am,” she said. “There are people who think you automatically make this switch – because in their mind and their perception and what they see on TV and the Facebook ads that run through them—now she is going to be this monster. That’s not true. I am still who I am.”

“It is about governing, it is about leading and I have strong support in my district despite what Twitter might show,” she continued.

Charlotte Observer quotes.

“It became very clear to me early on in January that you better vote in line with everything Gov. Cooper tells you to do,” Ms. Cotham said at a news conference. “I have always been a freethinker, a woman of faith, a person of independent judgment and of common sense.” Because she worked across the aisle, she added, “I was considered a traitor, I was told. A spy. ‘Please don’t come to caucus. You’ll tell everything we know.’ That is a terrible mentality.”

Wall Street Journal.

It sounds like Democrats went too far in trying to force party unity on votes, without allowing for dissent. She's no trojan horse; she's been a Democratic politician in NC from 2007-2016. But maybe today's NC State Democratic Party isn't the same as yesteryear's. The big question is if she changes on abortion legislation, or just issues like school choice. The left here will have my sympathies if she flips after running on codifying Roe vs Wade as law.

[Taifuu]

Charlotte Observer quotes.

Wall Street Journal.

It sounds like Democrats went too far in trying to force party unity on votes, without allowing for dissent. She's no trojan horse; she's been a Democratic politician in NC from 2007-2016. But maybe today's NC State Democratic Party isn't the same as yesteryear's. The big question is if she changes on abortion legislation, or just issues like school choice. The left here will have my sympathies if she flips after running on codifying Roe vs Wade as law.

Bullshit, if that's all it was she would have just changed to an Independent. She specifically switched to a party that stands for everything that her constituents voted against. She's only being "forced" to follow the Democractic party line if she's not following the party platform in the first place. Those platforms, just like Republicans, have been pretty consistent over the years.

Going back to the "Democrat's overreaching", how much shit does Joe Manchin get called out on a daily basis from his fellow Democrats? Is he a Republican? Nope, still a Democrat. Kirsten Sinema, who took Manchin's antics to a new level, did leave the Democractic Party...to become an Independent, despite bragging about working with Republicans and being bi-partisan. Not Republican, Independent. Cotham could have switched to an Independent AND DELIBERALY CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. That's a scam and the fact that it's allowed is just an example of how broken our system is.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the Republican party:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9dbca4fd&ei=55

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed a bill into law Wednesday that makes it illegal for an adult to help a minor get an abortion without parental consent.

The law is the first of its kind in the U.S. and creates a new crime of “ abortion trafficking,” barring adults from obtaining abortion pills for a minor or “recruiting, harboring or transporting the pregnant minor” without the consent of the minor's parent or guardian.

Anyone convicted of breaking the law will face two to five years in prison and could also be sued by the minor's parent or guardian. Parents who raped their child will not be able to sue, though the criminal penalties for anyone who helped the minor obtain an abortion will remain in effect.

To sidestep violating a constitutional right to travel between states, Idaho’s law makes illegal only the in-state segment of a trip to an out-of-state abortion provider.

No exceptions for rape or incest; just that the parents themselves can't sue someone if their child is pregnant and gets an abortion.

[tehdang]

Bullshit, if that's all it was she would have just changed to an Independent. She specifically switched to a party that stands for everything that her constituents voted against. She's only being "forced" to follow the Democractic party line if she's not following the party platform in the first place. Those platforms, just like Republicans, have been pretty consistent over the years.

Going back to the "Democrat's overreaching", how much shit does Joe Manchin get called out on a daily basis from his fellow Democrats? Is he a Republican? Nope, still a Democrat. Kirsten Sinema, who took Manchin's antics to a new level, did leave the Democractic Party...to become an Independent, despite bragging about working with Republicans and being bi-partisan. Not Republican, Independent. Cotham could have switched to an Independent AND DELIBERALY CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. That's a scam and the fact that it's allowed is just an example of how broken our system is.

That's a pretty incredible theory, being an elected democrat for fucking 9 years, and then waking up a few years later and deciding to be a scam. I'm going to call bullshit on this being at all likely. Something happened, and it aint sudden turncoat syndrome.

Manchin and Sinema prove that going independent instead of Republican is no safety from the accusations of traitor and fake Democrats.

This is the Republican party:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9dbca4fd&ei=55



No exceptions for rape or incest; just that the parents themselves can't sue someone if their child is pregnant and gets an abortion.

As I said in my previous post, the big question is if she changes on abortion legislation. Idaho is not the same state as North Carolina.

[Taifuu]

That's a pretty incredible theory, being an elected democrat for fucking 9 years, and then waking up a few years later and deciding to be a scam. I'm going to call bullshit on this being at all likely.

Manchin and Sinema prove that going independent instead of Republican is no safety from the accusations of traitor and fake Democrats.

As I said in my previous post, the big question is if she changes on abortion legislation. Idaho is not the same state as North Carolina.

The accusations levied against them haven't changed and both continue to go about their daily lives.

Regarding her previous history, she could have been a Democrat previously because her parents were, she could have been radicalized by QANON, she could be getting a payout that yet's to come to light, she could be having a crisis of faith; none of that matters. What matters is that, AFTER she was elected, she decided to not just swerve from the platforms she ran on, but actively join those on the other side. That is not an action taken by someone operating in good faith or out of concerns for their constituents. As a reminder, the current Republican party came from a split with the Democrats over racist policies; so there is precedent for this type of behavior.

Idaho is just the first state, they won't be the last. I assume you'll have a different non-answer when more states follow their lead.

[tehdang]

The accusations levied against them haven't changed and both continue to go about their daily lives.

Regarding her previous history, she could have been a Democrat previously because her parents were, she could have been radicalized by QANON, she could be getting a payout that yet's to come to light, she could be having a crisis of faith; none of that matters.

It matters to me, and I'd like to know. I could accept the scam/fake if she were new to politics or had no history in the Democratic party.

She could have been bullied for not swallowing whole everything the Democrats wanted to push in the state.
She could have been pissed off that none of her policy ideas were even getting a hearing in the caucus.
She could've been threatened with getting primaried next election if she didn't support a particular bill or position that she opposed. Maybe she believed even speaking up was enough to have already doomed her political career.

What matters is that, AFTER she was elected, she decided to not just swerve from the platforms she ran on, but actively join those on the other side.

It remains to be seen how many of the platforms she's swerving into. You just showed you knew about Manchin and Sinema, what makes her mentally incapable of being someone the Republicans view in the same way?

That is not an action taken by someone operating in good faith or out of concerns for their constituents. As a reminder, the current Republican party came from a split with the Democrats over racist policies; so there is precedent for this type of behavior.

As a reminder, I already said I was sympathetic to Democrats complaining, provided she switches positions on core policies like abortion legislation. Also as a reminder, the split from Democrats "over racist policies," then and now can also be because she couldn't in good faith carry on representing her constituents with the demands placed on her by her party apparatus. I assume you'd admit to good faith objections if a Republican left the party and declared them too racist to carry on with that affiliation.

Idaho is just the first state, they won't be the last. I assume you'll have a different non-answer when more states follow their lead.

I don't think Idaho will ever be North Carolina, and I don't think North Carolina's 20week ban will go that strict. Trump by 30.7% and Trump by 1.3% shows different people, different priorities, different states. You're just catastrophizing.

[Taifuu]

It matters to me, and I'd like to know. I could accept the scam/fake if she were new to politics or had no history in the Democratic party.

She could have been bullied for not swallowing whole everything the Democrats wanted to push in the state.
She could have been pissed off that none of her policy ideas were even getting a hearing in the caucus.
She could've been threatened with getting primaried next election if she didn't support a particular bill or position that she opposed. Maybe she believed even speaking up was enough to have already doomed her political career.

It remains to be seen how many of the platforms she's swerving into. You just showed you knew about Manchin and Sinema, what makes her mentally incapable of being someone the Republicans view in the same way?

As a reminder, I already said I was sympathetic to Democrats complaining, provided she switches positions on core policies like abortion legislation. Also as a reminder, the split from Democrats "over racist policies," then and now can also be because she couldn't in good faith carry on representing her constituents with the demands placed on her by her party apparatus. I assume you'd admit to good faith objections if a Republican left the party and declared them too racist to carry on with that affiliation.

I don't think Idaho will ever be North Carolina, and I don't think North Carolina's 20week ban will go that strict. Trump by 30.7% and Trump by 1.3% shows different people, different priorities, different states. You're just catastrophizing.

There is no reason to switch opposing ideologies if you do not plan upon voting along those ideologies. Otherwise, it is just a pointless publicity stunt, which is also not good.

Your arguments about Idaho are the exact same arguments that were made about the Texas law that made its way to the Supreme Court and was left in place. Pro-choice has been the popular opinion regarding abortion rights for decades, it doesn't change the fact that the Republican party has been trying to repeal Roe v. Wade all this time. It also doesn't change the fact that, regardless of whether or not it goes through, Republicans WANT it to go through.

And yes, I would point out that if a Republican performed the same stunt I would have the same opinion. Deceiving your voters is wrong regardless of who is doing it.

Thank you acknowledging that this is a problem (pending upon her choices in your opinion at least, we can disagree there).

[PosPosPos]

That's a pretty incredible theory, being an elected democrat for fucking 9 years, and then waking up a few years later and deciding to be a scam. I'm going to call bullshit on this being at all likely. Something happened, and it aint sudden turncoat syndrome.

Manchin and Sinema prove that going independent instead of Republican is no safety from the accusations of traitor and fake Democrats.

As I said in my previous post, the big question is if she changes on abortion legislation. Idaho is not the same state as North Carolina.

Not surprised a conservative like you supports the act of defrauding voters for the sake of consolidating power though.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...Clarence Thomas Has Been Illegally Accepting Luxury Gifts and Private Jet Travel for Decades Per Bombshell ProPublica Report

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

-------

I'm sure we're all wearing our "surprised face."

[some guy]

And people wonder why trust in the SCOTUS is eroding.

[Taifuu]

Looking forward to some half-assed condemnation from Roberts as his legacy continues to swirl down the drain.

[Edge-]

Looking forward to some half-assed condemnation from Roberts as his legacy continues to swirl down the drain.

I still hope Roberts wakes up in the dead of night sometimes in a cold sweat, the sound of a toilet flushing through a landline haunting him

[Rasulis]

As far as Democrats are concerned, those extreme anti-abortion politicians are A-ok. All you have to do is look at the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election. It's an 11-pts win for a liberal judge in a swing state where elections were usually decided by 1 to 2 pts margins. Suburban counties that used to be GOP strongholds and voted for Trump in 2020 swung left pretty hard. What changed? Roe vs. Wade overturned in 2022 and GOP politicians went bat shit crazy trying to control women's reproductive right. For whatever reasons, they seem to think that's a winning strategy.

[Edge-]

As far as Democrats are concerned, those extreme anti-abortion politicians are A-ok. All you have to do is look at the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election. It's an 11-pts win for a liberal judge in a swing state where elections were usually decided by 1 to 2 pts margins. Suburban counties that used to be GOP strongholds and voted for Trump in 2020 swung left pretty hard. What changed? Roe vs. Wade overturned in 2022 and GOP politicians went bat shit crazy trying to control women's reproductive right. For whatever reasons, they seem to think that's a winning strategy.

Because their donors do, and so do the parts of their base that they're physically afraid of. Also many of them are simply extremists that view public disapproval of their extremist positions as an obstacle to be overcome and circumvented rather than a hint that they're wildly out of step with even their own voters.

[Rasulis]

Because their donors do, and so do the parts of their base that they're physically afraid of. Also many of them are simply extremists that view public disapproval of their extremist positions as an obstacle to be overcome and circumvented rather than a hint that they're wildly out of step with even their own voters.

The crazier and nuttier the better for 2024 election. After Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Michigan actually expanded abortion access. Whitmer axed a 1931 anti-abortion law. It can't be resurrected in the future.