The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[The Sisko]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

I'm not with a straight face going to say violence should be committed if Roe v Wade is overturned, but SCOTUS put barricades around their main building in DC with minutes of that leak. 

 

Which makes me wonder how well thought out they thought the response would be to something like this, what did they expect?  Did they expect violence?  Seems like now they do if they didn't. 

That's not the way to play this. Instead of any violence, blue state Governors should come together and refuse to enforce such laws. The garbage SCOTUS only has power to the extent that people obey the laws they rule on. Aside from doing the right thing, the point behind this is to show the fascists that we're willing to figuratively burn the whole thing down. Of course the response would be for Republiklan politicians to try to cut off funding from these states, so there would need to be a plan to counter that.

 

18 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Possible, and begs the question how often is anyone allowed to sit in front of congress and tell bold face lies without being subject to purgery charges? 

 

It's one thing to be spineless and not pursue them, but this seems like a loophole for SCOTUS confirmation hearings, they could tell us anything then be something completely different when they get on the job. 

 

I'm not allowed to do that for any of my job interviews. Why should they?

I understand the sentiment, but it's just not practical or even sensible. You're going to have a nominee testify that they'll hold X position and never change under the penalty of perjury? I don't remember Blackmun's hearings but I'd assume he gave some assurances about his conservative positions. What you're suggesting would mean that a conservative justice like Blackmun would also be subject to perjury charges for siding with the liberals on Roe and the death penalty, among other things. The answer is to somehow minimize politics in the workings of the court, not have justices that are hardwired to rule a certain way until they retire.

 

[DogofWar1]

If Susan Collins had even 1 shred of decency, she would declare her immediate support for a national bill to protect abortion rights (and every other inferred right), her support for ending the filibuster in order to pass such bills to protect such rights, and if those failed, announce she will resign immediately.

 

She will instead be slightly concerned.

[Cooked Crack]

10 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

You sure about that? What makes you say that?

Strictly talking about no one caring that the act of leaking harms the courts appearance. People will care about the opinion not the process we finding out about it.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Cooked Crack

[Llevron]

I’m disappointed y’all are still doing the ‘You didn’t vote for Hillary’ thing in 2022. Not sure what end that serves at this point. 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

That's not the way to play this. Instead of any violence, blue state Governors should come together and refuse to enforce such laws. The garbage SCOTUS only has power to the extent that people obey the laws they rule on. Aside from doing the right thing, the point behind this is to show the fascists that we're willing to figuratively burn the whole thing down. Of course the response would be for Republiklan politicians to try to cut off funding from these states, so there would need to be a plan to counter that.

 

I get what you are saying, but we should avoid a spiral of states ignoring the federal government if we can.  The whole thing could fly apart and be difficult to reel back in / put back together.

 

The right thing to do, imo and all things considered, is for dems in congress to put a bill on the floor this week that protects the same rights as Roe v Wade and relentlessly campaign on anyone that votes against it regardless of what SCOTUS does.

 

4 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

I understand the sentiment, but it's just not practical or even sensible. You're going to have a nominee testify that they'll hold X position and never change under the penalty of perjury? I don't remember Blackmun's hearings but I'd assume he gave some assurances about his conservative positions. What you're suggesting would mean that a conservative justice like Blackmun would also be subject to perjury charges for siding with the liberals on Roe and the death penalty, among other things. The answer is to somehow minimize politics in the workings of the court, not have justices that are hardwired to rule a certain way until they retire.

 

 

You may be right in "how do you prove it" and "what if I change my mind", but this isn't either of those,  and I don't know what to do. 

 

There's no doubt in my mind both of those justices lied to Collins with every intent of overturning Roe v Wade as soon as the opportunity presented itself. 

 

That is ugly for our democracy at minimum, and I don't agree with doing nothing about it as the the answer for how to address it.

4 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Strictly talking about no one caring that the act of leaking harms the courts appearance. People will care about the opinion not the process we finding out about it.

 

Fair, I can dig it, and agree.

[DogofWar1]

7 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

That's not the way to play this. Instead of any violence, blue state Governors should come together and refuse to enforce such laws. The garbage SCOTUS only has power to the extent that people obey the laws they rule on. Aside from doing the right thing, the point behind this is to show the fascists that we're willing to figuratively burn the whole thing down. Of course the response would be for Republiklan politicians to try to cut off funding from these states, so there would need to be a plan to counter that.

 

One of the problems with this decision though, is that it's subtractive, not additive.

 

It's comparatively "easier" for a state to ignore a ruling that requires them to do something.  IE if a ruling said you must recognize same sex marriages, it's easier for a governor to say "we are ignoring that and no marriage licenses will issue to same-sex couples, we won't change our state tax code, etc. etc.

 

But with SCOTUS rolling back federal protections against states infringing on rights, a governor can't really "ignore" the ruling bc they just wouldn't pass a new law restricting abortion.

 

So there's no way to really tell SCOTUS a Jacksonian statement of "Alito has his ruling, now he can come enforce it" bc you can't force states to not pass restrictive/discriminatory laws.

[The Evil Genius]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

I’m disappointed y’all are still doing the ‘You didn’t vote for Hillary’ thing in 2022. Not sure what end that serves at this point. 

 

1/3 of the current court was in Trump's 4 years. It means absolutely every ****ing thing to this decision. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

blue state Governors should come together and refuse to enforce such laws. 

 

What laws are you talking about?  This ruling wouldn't make abortion illegal across the country.  It just makes it a state decision. 

[The Sisko]

22 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

If Susan Collins had even 1 shred of decency, she would declare her immediate support for a national bill to protect abortion rights (and every other inferred right), her support for ending the filibuster in order to pass such bills to protect such rights, and if those failed, announce she will resign immediately.

 

She will instead be slightly concerned.

You forgot that she'll also write a sternly worded letter to the garbage SCOTUS.

 

13 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I’m disappointed y’all are still doing the ‘You didn’t vote for Hillary’ thing in 2022. Not sure what end that serves at this point. 

Helping people remember to not make the same mistake again.

5 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

What laws are you talking about?  This ruling wouldn't make abortion illegal across the country.  It just makes it a state decision. 

You think that's not next? Besides, there are other existing decisions like gun rights they could use to make the point.

Edited May 3, 2022 by The Sisko

[88Comrade2000]

7 hours ago, mammajamma said:

There are a few options Dems have, but they're too scared of "what republicans will do when they get back in power" to do anything while they're in power

 

The reasoning in the SCOTUS opinion that abortion rights aren't "in the constitution" is the dumbest **** I've heard from those idiots yet. Might as well throw out 90% of previous SCOTUS decisions then. 

That’s the plan.

 

The right’s holy grail is about to be reached. Abortion was a key issue , to them getting their judges.

 

Now, they will reverse everything they can; as they do turned the U. S. Into a Christian theocracy.

 

So, the rich will be able to take vacations to have abortions elsewhere. Not so fast.

I am sure if you get pregnant; you have to register with government. Doctors will have to inform the government of who’s pregnant.

 

Pregnant women will be banned from traveling. If you have an abortion; you will be arrested and some places will execute you.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by 88Comrade2000

[Spaceman Spiff]

11 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I’m disappointed y’all are still doing the ‘You didn’t vote for Hillary’ thing in 2022. Not sure what end that serves at this point. 

 

It does two things:  For some, the blame game never gets old.  And it also reminds others on what side of history they stood.  

 

Overall, I agree with you though.

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

You think that's not next?

 

No.  But I wouldn't bet against it either.  I was just making sure you understood what the SCOTUS effect would be.

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, The Sisko said:

 

 

Helping people remember to not make the same mistake again.

 

 

Seriously.

 

I remember a meme I saw on reddit about how the Mayor in Jaws was still the Mayor in Jaws 2, and how that's an example of why smaller and local elections matter, too.

 

End of the day, elections have consequences, so reminding people of that isn't disappointing, it's teaching history i hopes to avoid repeating it.

[redskins59]

23 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

If Susan Collins had even 1 shred of decency, she would declare her immediate support for a national bill to protect abortion rights (and every other inferred right), her support for ending the filibuster in order to pass such bills to protect such rights, and if those failed, announce she will resign immediately.

 

She will instead be slightly concerned.

Why should she do anything?  She won her last election by a big margin.  Whatever she is doing worked for her.

[Fergasun]

Are there really posters in here that backed Bernie and then voted Trump?  That seems like Russian disinfo.  

 

"I am so upset that the party on the left didn't vote for my guy who also has serious flaws so I will vote for the far right crazy guy."

 

It was obvious after months of campaigning that Trump was going to be bad... a s-show.  20+ SA allegations, audio of him talking about SA, mocking reporters, talking smack about immigrants.  

[Hersh]

17 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I’m disappointed y’all are still doing the ‘You didn’t vote for Hillary’ thing in 2022. Not sure what end that serves at this point. 

 

Because we hear the same crap from some people this year. "Well the Dems haven't done enough, why should I bother voting for them? They haven't canceled all my debt nor done the Green Deal yet." Not that you don't know that, but the response to that question is "cause this is wtf happens" and "cause we need more Dem Senators." A bunch of people have the misguided notion that a lot of stuff gets done if a party simply has 50 senators. That has never been the case for either party. 

[The Evil Genius]

Just now, Fergasun said:

Are there really posters in here that backed Bernie and then voted Trump?  That seems like Russian disinfo.  

 

"I am so upset that the party on the left didn't vote for my guy who also has serious flaws so I will vote for the far right crazy guy."

 

It was obvious after months of campaigning that Trump was going to be bad... a s-show.  20+ SA allegations, audio of him talking about SA, mocking reporters, talking smack about immigrants.  

 

I do recall several people here bragging about not voting or voting 3rd party instead...which was the same as voting Trump. 

[Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Are there really posters in here that backed Bernie and then voted Trump?  That seems like Russian disinfo.  

 

"I am so upset that the party on the left didn't vote for my guy who also has serious flaws so I will vote for the far right crazy guy."

 

It was obvious after months of campaigning that Trump was going to be bad... a s-show.  20+ SA allegations, audio of him talking about SA, mocking reporters, talking smack about immigrants.  

 

There was one guy here that went from Bernie bro to voting either for Trump or not voting. Can't remember the person's name but he was 100% that person. Also, give the slim margin of victory, it certainly could've played a role. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Hersh

[CousinsCowgirl84]

What happened to that plan about flooding the Supreme Court???

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

It does two things:  For some, the blame game never gets old.  And it also reminds others on what side of history they stood.  

 

Overall, I agree with you though.

 

Or because nothing gets changed unless enough people make this their top voting issue in the upcoming elections.  Abortion is about to be outlawed in majority of states despite majority of the country wanting it to remain in some form.  The difference is anti-abortion crowd hold their nose and vote in people like Trump while abortion rights crowd don't make it their single issue.  Which is fine.  That's a perfectly fine way to vote.  Just don't be surprised by the inevitable consequences of those elections playing out in the system.  

[Spaceman Spiff]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

 

Or because nothing gets changed unless enough people make this their top voting issue in the upcoming elections.  Abortion is about to be outlawed in majority of states despite majority of the country wanting it to remain in some form.  The difference is anti-abortion crowd hold their nose and vote in people like Trump while abortion rights crowd don't make it their single issue.  Which is fine.  That's a perfectly fine way to vote.  Just don't be surprised by the inevitable consequences of those elections playing out in the system.  

 

I see where you're coming from and I don't disagree with most of it.  But I don't believe the anti-abortion crowd were holding their nose when voting for Trump.

[PokerPacker]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I'm not with a straight face going to say violence should be committed if Roe v Wade is overturned, but SCOTUS put barricades around their main building in DC with minutes of that leak. 

 

Which makes me wonder how well thought out they thought the response would be to something like this, what did they expect?  Did they expect violence?  Seems like now they do if they didn't. 

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.  They seem to be acutely aware of that fact.

[bearrock]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What happened to that plan about flooding the Supreme Court???

 

Manchin and Sinema won't sign off on a spending bill.  There's no way Manchin or Sinema votes to pack the court and torpedo the filibuster in the process.  It's also only effective till GOP gains power when they would simply pack the courts to swing the other way.  It would be a ridiculous, terrible, and extremely short term solution to a problem created by a fundamental root cause of idiotic voters. 

[Fergasun]

I don't understand why Alito goes into the spiel on Roe vs. Wade being divisive.  Previous Courts basically said, "we respect stare decises".  This ruling kills any argument the Court is "non-political".  Courts shouldn't care if there is anger... and he's not settling the issue.  Just flipping it over.  

 

This is all about one group of people (Christians) who believe we own the "sin" of others, and the sins of the nation.  God gave free will to people.  Yes, I do think abortion is a grave sin.  But someone else's abortion is not my grave sin.  I know many Christians will think this is a horrible position to have, that we ban murder, that our national policy should be to preserve life.  And once they make that argument we are down the slippery slope of hypocrisy.  

[bearrock]

Just now, Fergasun said:

I don't understand why Alito goes into the spiel on Roe vs. Wade being divisive.  Previous Courts basically said, "we respect stare decises".  This ruling kills any argument the Court is "non-political".  Courts shouldn't care if there is anger... and he's not settling the issue.  Just flipping it over.  

 

This is all about one group of people (Christians) who believe we own the "sin" of others, and the sins of the nation.  God gave free will to people.  Yes, I do think abortion is a grave sin.  But someone else's abortion is not my grave sin.  I know many Christians will think this is a horrible position to have, that we ban murder, that our national policy should be to preserve life.  And once they make that argument we are down the slippery slope of hypocrisy.  

 

Is there a bigger sin than being an unbeliever?  Why not mandate Christian faith?  Speaking as a person who believe in Jesus, mixing faith and religion is absolute lunacy and a wholly untenable position.  Outlawing behavior because it's a sin but not outlawing non-Christian faith or agnostic would be the equivalent of outlawing littering while not outlawing genocide (and in the context of Christian faith, the gap would be magnitudes larger).