The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Destino]

39 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

They're likely going to prosecute people going to other states to have abortions. 

 

Just watch.

They’re going to crow about states rights until they gain full control of congress… then pass a federal ban.  
 

[The Evil Genius]

1 minute ago, EmirOfShmo said:

Didn't TX already do this - collect a bounty for telling on anyone associated with someone getting an abortion? Or was that withheld? 

I'm losing track of all the legality of this...

 

They tried too but people slammed it with false reports. 😆

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Mitch gets my vote. It kept me up last night trying to figure out how there was NO way for Dems to stop him from stealing that seat from Obama and at the same time NO way to use the same rules he created to stop him from taking one from Biden. It’s terrifying what he got away with. Because he won’t be the last guy in his position with the capability and willingness to do this **** to us. 

 

Yeah, fair point. Mitch is more of an out-and-out horrible person who hides it behind an utterly bland and unremarkable persona. Collins is just a sniveling coward.

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I agree that rehashing 2016 to point fingers is pretty meaningless.  But rehashing 2016 so that people make different choices in 2022, 2024 and forward, is a different matter altogether.

Right and that’s fair. Also probably the only way to make progress. Honestly and realism can be painful but it is healing. The purity test thing though just seems alienating and depressing. Again I know this is a llevron problem so I’m not suggesting anyone really change anything here at extremecomms. I could be wrong as I often am. But I do wonder how much of a factor it is for us/Dems/the left

[TradeTheBeal!]

Rehashing 2016 is how we came together and got Biden in there.

 

Though we had to deal with a lot of Tara Reade and Liz the Snake/Pete the Rat foolishness to get there.

[Hersh]

21 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I guess I’m just the hit dog in this case. But it doesn’t really seem useful to point the finger at people who didn’t vote for Hillary specifically when that is obviously not the only thing that lead us to this current political environment.

 

Probably more of a me problem and not an us problem. It just reminds me of how some people react by defending themselves and going further into their corner when you could be more focused on defeating a shared enemy. Learned this from @tshileactually in a round about way. Seems like a missed opportunity to get more support. I personally am more than confident enough to admit I made a mistake in judgment in 2016. I also know my mistake didn’t have anything to do with the result, technically, thanks to the electoral college and me being a Maryland voter. But I can imagine someone being very turned off by the feeling that the Democrats still blame them for 2016 in 2022. Specifically people who would call themselves undecided who we would need to vote blue. It’s a little disappointing to me personally that we are still wasting time with that. 
 

But again, a hot dog will holla, I guess. 

 

 

No one is suggesting that it's all one groups fault or one situations fault. Again, it's pointing out the importance of voting and not just throwing in the towel cause one aspect or two aspects of a candidate aren't like. Having said that, influential people that claim to be liberals and were against Hill-dog can all **** all the way off. They knew there was at least one SC seat in play. AND it's not just abortion, it's the environment, it's voting rights. All getting ****ed over by the SC. 

 

[visionary]

Read this.

[skinsmarydu]

40 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

@PleaseBlitz is a lawyer who's never lied.  Ask him.

OMG,  I was just wondering "Where's PB?" 

[Spaceman Spiff]

2 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

OMG,  I was just wondering "Where's PB?" 

 

Probably reminding someone somewhere that he's a lawyer.  

[Dan T.]

 

[skinsmarydu]

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Probably reminding someone somewhere that he's a lawyer.  

He gives good advice. 

And he met Barry.  Gets all my "hails". 

[NoCalMike]

Biden was the consolation prize for not getting Hillary in there.  However the law of diminishing returns is definitely in effect because have already seen the major damage done just by a single Trump term.  Imagine if the guy gets back in there in 2024.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

A bunch of states apparently have anti-abortion laws that would kick in if Roe is overturned.

 

Right.  But the original post said something to the effect of "blue state Governors should ignore the ruling".  It won't affect blue states because presumably they aren't the ones that will ban abortion. 

[Llevron]

16 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

 

No one is suggesting that it's all one groups fault or one situations fault. Again, it's pointing out the importance of voting and not just throwing in the towel cause one aspect or two aspects of a candidate aren't like. Having said that, influential people that claim to be liberals and were against Hill-dog can all **** all the way off. They knew there was at least one SC seat in play. AND it's not just abortion, it's the environment, it's voting rights. All getting ****ed over by the SC. 

 

I’m still worried that the Justice department will decide to do something to Trump over Jan6 and somehow the SC will get involved. If that happens it’s basically the end of the country. 
 

I hope people learned from 2016. Past that I’ll get over myself. I just wanted to share my super serious emotional damage. 

 

[The Evil Genius]

10 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Right.  But the original post said something to the effect of "blue state Governors should ignore the ruling".  It won't affect blue states because presumably they aren't the ones that will ban abortion. 

 

Even worse, imagine if a more effective younger and more Florida version of him gets in. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[NoCalMike]

With federal law vs state law is doesn't it create some kind of legal gray area for the feds to step in and enforce federal law depending on who the President & AG are?  I know legal shops out here in CA are still raided sometimes despite everything being legal in the state.  Not being legal federally yet is a major hurdle with the commerce and a big reason most places require you to pay with cash instead of a card.  The local shop here you can use cards at now, but the way it's done is so convoluted and not just a direct pull from your bank the way it would be anywhere else.

 

Once Roe is overturned, and the GOP gain power over every branch, who is to say the President doesn't direct their AG to enforce a proposed federal ban, across all 50 states?  There would probably be a lack of resources to go after every single clinic in every state where it is legal, but you will probably have a lot of clinics in fear to even test the waters.  I think a lot of places are going to cease operations out of intimidation despite being legal in the state they operate. 

 

This has the potential to get messy, even in blue states.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, mammajamma said:

You're probably right, but that opinion also destroys any credibility SCOTUS had left. Laws passed by Dems that we're overturned by Scotus (that aren't brought up explicitly in the constitution) should all be passed again immediately. This new opinion would set a damning precedent if anyone tries to take them back to SCOTUS

I agree, out side of this case there are bigger concerns as to whether or not the Supreme Court is a respectable institution. We already lost respect for congress and the presidency. 

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I agree, out side of this case there are bigger concerns as to whether or not the Supreme Court is a respectable institution. We already lost respect for congress and the presidency. 

I dunno. It seems pretty obvious to me they hold political bias and have lost the respect of most of the country. I would even argue that the people expecting them to side with them because of politics don’t really respect them. They just use the court as a political cudgel. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Llevron

[PleaseBlitz]

38 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

OMG,  I was just wondering "Where's PB?" 

 

I'm here.  This specific issue doesn't really impact me, but it's a sad day that will likely be remembered as the day SCOTUS became an entirely political branch of government.  I also never like it when the US becomes any more of a theocracy, and this is a big step in that direction.  It doesn't happen often, but I agree completely with @CousinsCowgirl84's post above.  

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I agree, out side of this case there are bigger concerns as to whether or not the Supreme Court is a respectable institution. We already lost respect for congress and the presidency. 

 

I think this is a good point. SCOTUS has always been seen as that pillar of democracy that will still faithfully execute its duties regardless of political winds, even when everyone is fed up with the Presidency and Congress. but I think that has changed quite a bit over time. It's clearly far from that now, and I think it's been following the right wing playbook: start out slow, build up horrible people, and then suddenly unleash them.

 

SCOTUS became more right wing and activist over decades but it was little by little so people didn't necessarily notice as much. Now with the Trump phenomenon and how insane the right has gone, it seems right wing SCOTUS justices are more and more willing to just flip everyone the bird and finally show themselves.

[Dan T.]

I am tired. After all the turmoil of the past 6 to 8 years, now we have the prospect of the all-out culture war brought on by this decision.  As if this country isn't split in two by warring factions already. 

 

Roe v Wade was a compromise that set a foundation between the two extremes of the abortion issue, and it held for decades. Now that foundation is being dynamited, and the fight will rage. Again.

[EmirOfShmo]

52 minutes ago, visionary said:

Read this.

 

Great thread. Saw this reply...

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I think that the idea of stare decisis is a very important pillar of American and western law.  Overturning a landmark ruling like roe v wade is throwing it in the trash. 
 

whether you agree with the decision or not, it’s still bad for our country in that respect 

[bcl05]

 

[TheDoyler23]

 

This is such a frightening timeline.

 

They will go after marriage equality. 

They will go after all manner of birth control. 

They will go after the ADA and the right to Disability supports in school.