The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Hersh]

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Remember...it's the leak that's the travesty.

 

 

 

There is definitely not enough talk on how bat**** crazy Alito is. 

[mistertim]

A 2022 judge relying on a 350 year old opinion of a guy who said that men raping their wives wasn't a crime seems...actually completely in line with the modern Republican party.

[tshile]

50 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

So the question is, who will vote because Roe v Wade is the number 1 issue to them?

The people that were already voting dem because of it or already voting Republican because of it. 
 

i can’t imagine any single issue voter on that topic was willing to vote the other way. 
 

im not saying it won’t change minds but if it’s your #1 issue then you’re probably single issue voting on it anyways. Maybe that’s unfair - maybe that’s like 90% of the time. 
 

i just can’t recall the last time someone told me abortion was their #1 item, and they weren’t essentially single-issue voting in it. 
 

kind of like the second amendment - I can’t recall the last time someone told me that was their most important one, yet they voted for democrats here and there. 

[LadySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

i just can’t recall the last time someone told me abortion was their #1 item, and they weren’t essentially single-issue voting in it. 
 

 

 

That's because it hasn't been on the doorstep the way it is right now. I've been talking about this since Reagan, and been ignored mainly by men whose bodily autonomy isn't affected by abortion. It's way different right now.

[The Sisko]

 

19 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I think what you see is that he drew more moderate males to him than other groups in the beginning.  Then when things went badly, they were more likely to leave.  His biggest voting block was also the block where he had the fewest hard core followers.

 

So when you look at African Americans and women, remember he's starting at a low percent.  He attracted a really lower number of African Americans and a relatively low percent of female voters.  But they were hard core (e.g. hard core pro-life people) people that weren't going to leave him pretty much no matter what.  And then that amount he changes is essentially insignificant.  For women, he goes up a 1 or 2% nationally.  That's really just noise I think.  There might have been some of, he's not really as bad as people made him out to be (I don't think the life of the avg. woman or minority changed much from 2016 to 2020 because Trump was President and Trump was right about economically many African Americans doing better with him as President so that might have helped him some).

 

Also remember, he still won white males.  The numbers were down, but more white males still voted for him than Biden.

 

I do think he did see real gains among Hispanics, I do think Democrats might have issues with Hispanics being a rock solid voting group in the future.  I think Hispanics that have been in the US longer are anti-illegal immigration and pretty religious.  Also they are become wealthier faster than African Americans and wealthy people are more likely to vote GOP.

This is pretty spot on. Going back to @tshile's question about how increased support for Tя☭mp among blacks could happen, I don't have any proof, but I'm pretty sure I have an explanation. I think it was a combination of a couple of things. First, the Grand Old Pedophiles financially backed the ADOS coons in an effort to try to pull away a bit of the black vote by stoking anti-immigrant sentiment among the "native" black population. Divide and conquer is an age old tactic that in this case, didn't have to really work well, all it had to do was work just enough to shave away a percent or two.

Second, there's in my experience a lot of support for conspiracy theories in the black community. Given the history of COINTELPRO, the Tuskegee experiments, use of black GIs as guinea pigs for chemical weapons, etc. some of that is warranted but most of it is overblown and exaggerated. That can obviously be used to the advantage of the unscrupulous. Again, all they needed was a few votes here and there. Since they were starting from a very low base, it didn't take much in absolute numbers to achieve a few percentage point increase. So, it was sad and regrettable, but it wasn't the big shift that Tя☭mp and the Grand Oligarch’s Party are selling it as.

Now the issue with LatinX voters is much more concerning. I think the Dems understand well certain subsets, like the South Florida Cubans, but the rest, not so much. Part of it is the difficulty in understanding a group of people that speak the same language but come from very different cultures and backgrounds. The other part is IMO, many of them tend to be more tolerant of racist treatment. I've seen cases where LatinX people were called certain slurs and they just tended to laugh it off as a joke, whereas if the equivalent thing had happened with a black person, something's going down. Then, there's the tendency toward colorism and eurocentrism in their community, as is also true among black people, though perhaps to a bit lesser degree nowadays for us. It's going to be a tough problem to solve for Dems and quite honestly, I don't know that it is solvable which is part of the reason I'm so pessimistic about this country's future. If LatinX voters end up evenly split between Dems and the Grand Old Pedophiles party, the country is well and truly schtupped.

 

10 hours ago, Destino said:

Making abortion murder would require every miscarriage to be investigated.  Just imagine how awful that would be.  Also what do you do in cases of accidents?  Do we charge pregnant women that fall down the stairs with manslaughter?  This is going to be a disaster.

The most extreme laws are the ones that have the biggest flaws that make them probably the easiest to get rid of. All that has to happen is for masses of women to be reported for murder for every little thing that results in a lost pregnancy. Unknown miscarriage --> murder charge. Miscarriage due to accidental injury --> murder. You can probably get two for one on the accidents. OTOH, the way the so-called justice system works, prosecutors will selectively prosecute POC and poor people first so in the end, it may not matter as much in terms of stoking anger because if it doesn't happen to Karen or Connor, nobody seems to care much. There are some possibilities around IVF treatment though. It might be possible to charge donors, prospective parents and clinic staff with endangerment of a fetus if any of the embryos don't survive. In short, there are tons of ways to make this particular type of law untenable.

 

[Llevron]

58 minutes ago, tshile said:

The people that were already voting dem because of it or already voting Republican because of it. 
 

i can’t imagine any single issue voter on that topic was willing to vote the other way. 
 

im not saying it won’t change minds but if it’s your #1 issue then you’re probably single issue voting on it anyways. Maybe that’s unfair - maybe that’s like 90% of the time. 
 

i just can’t recall the last time someone told me abortion was their #1 item, and they weren’t essentially single-issue voting in it. 
 

kind of like the second amendment - I can’t recall the last time someone told me that was their most important one, yet they voted for democrats here and there. 

I agree with you here, which is why Dems bother me so much. The same ‘slippery slope’ argument that Repubs run with literally applies here and I know they arnt aggressive enough to use it. But it’s true and it’s so easy to run on. 
 

You may not care about abortions. Or Gary rights. Or interracial marriage. Or public schooling. But what about when they come for YOUR rights? It’s not a hard argument. It works for the bad guys, and they are the ones doing it. Use it. 

[JCB]

Full agreement, Llevron. And they are coming for whatever they can. As an academic, I know I'm already in the crosshairs.

 

And in terms of voters, what I'm hoping for is that a lot of young people who haven't gotten involved yet may come out in droves.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I agree with you here, which is why Dems bother me so much. The same ‘slippery slope’ argument that Repubs run with literally applies here and I know they arnt aggressive enough to use it. But it’s true and it’s so easy to run on. 
 

You may not care about abortions. Or Gary rights. Or interracial marriage. Or public schooling. But what about when they come for YOUR rights? It’s not a hard argument. It works for the bad guys, and they are the ones doing it. Use it. 

right. But also I was addressing the idea of people who have RvW as their #1 issue.  We’ve all seen the polls over the years of where issue rank for elections. RvW is never on there. Because for most people RvW isn’t a top issue they vote on. 
 

That doesn’t mean rights in general. And abortion isn’t outlawed by this it’s just kicked back to the states. We see the more extreme view on everything but ultimately it hardly ever represents most people. 
 

the Dems should absolutely use this to turn the midterms. And if they do it right they will.  
 

but it won’t be because of people who have RvW as their #1 issue. You know the type of people that points to, and none of them are changing their votes. They are where they always have been. 

[The Sisko]

13 minutes ago, Llevron said:

You may not care about abortions. Or Gary rights. Or interracial marriage. Or public schooling. But what about when they come for YOUR rights? It’s not a hard argument. It works for the bad guys, and they are the ones doing it. Use it. 

I care about public schooling, interracial marriage and a host of other things. But **** Gary's rights. He doesn't deserve rights. If he wanted rights, he should have told his parents to not name him Gary.😛

[youngestson]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

kind of like the second amendment - I can’t recall the last time someone told me that was their most important one, yet they voted for democrats here and there. 

Really? I hear that all the time.

 

Maybe because I live in a semi rural/rural area that's very pro-GOP, but 2nd Amendment would be the most common "policy" issue people seem to share. 

[Destino]

44 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I agree with you here, which is why Dems bother me so much. The same ‘slippery slope’ argument that Repubs run with literally applies here and I know they arnt aggressive enough to use it. But it’s true and it’s so easy to run on. 
 

You may not care about abortions. Or Gary rights. Or interracial marriage. Or public schooling. But what about when they come for YOUR rights? It’s not a hard argument. It works for the bad guys, and they are the ones doing it. Use it. 

I’ve never met a baby named Gary.  If we don’t act now, there will be no Gary left.
 

Back to the subject, you don’t even need a slippery slope argument because each of the things you listed are battles in the same overall war.  Republicans are fighting against the entire concept of a secular government.  They want bibles in schools, women to know their place is either as obedient wives or worthless whores, gays to be punished for existing, and a government that acknowledges Christianity as the one true faith.  All operating under a patriarchy, of course.  Preferably a white one, though I suspect they’re growing happier to embrace at least some minorities so long as they fall in line.  
 

It’s becoming increasingly clear that they value this more than democracy.  
 

That’s the sales speech anyway.  The truth is the leaders behind this are about as Christian as a witches cat.  This is a fascist movement that’s wrapped itself in religion (like so many others).  

[mistertim]

42 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

But **** Gary's rights. He doesn't deserve rights. If he wanted rights, he should have told his parents to not name him Gary.😛

 

[Renegade7]

*Bamma ass Gary Oak has entered the chat

 

 

[Llevron]

y’all are funny lol

[tshile]

56 minutes ago, youngestson said:

Really? I hear that all the time.

 

Maybe because I live in a semi rural/rural area that's very pro-GOP, but 2nd Amendment would be the most common "policy" issue people seem to share. 

Worded poorly I guess. 
 

i don’t see people who believe 2nd amendment and being pro-gun-rights is their most important issue, and they vote for democrats 

 

or people who believe 2nd amendment and pro-gun-control as their number 1 issue and vote republicans. 
 

In my experience if, either side, or thst issue rises to their #1 priority, who they’re voting for is pretty much locked in… and never changing. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

So I see the Left calling for a federal law to protect abortion rights.  If Roe is overturned, would such a law be "constitutional"?  I would think not.  I would think we need an amendment to the constitution which obviously isn't happening. 

[mistertim]

19 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

So I see the Left calling for a federal law to protect abortion rights.  If Roe is overturned, would such a law be "constitutional"?  I would think not.  I would think we need an amendment to the constitution which obviously isn't happening. 

 

I'd think that new federal law itself would then have to be challenged as unconstitutional and would have to go through the court process separately.

[PeterMP]

27 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

So I see the Left calling for a federal law to protect abortion rights.  If Roe is overturned, would such a law be "constitutional"?  I would think not.  I would think we need an amendment to the constitution which obviously isn't happening. 

 

Historically, the Supreme Court has given pretty wide deference to  law passed by Congress and approved by the President if the issue is Constitutionally questionable.

 

If you say it isn't clear whether there is a right to privacy in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion but Congress has further passed a law saying that abortions are legal, historically the Supreme Court has taken that into account and let the law stand.

 

I'm guessing it wouldn't matter to this Court.

[gbear]

I know people haven't placed abortion rights high up on their priorities, but how much of that is people assumed it was settled law?  I mean I don't see many people saying the right to go to public schools is the top of their voting priorities.  I suspect the feeling the right is being removed, and often in an arbitrary or even mean way, will make more people care.  When people are charged with murder for not doing everything to save a fetus destined to die or worse for a miscarriage, it will shoot up people's radar.  

 

Think of the effect BLM had after George Floyd's death.  Yes, many White people were tangentially aware Black people are treated worse, but when it was in our faces, it became harder to ignore, and we cared more.  Loss of privacy rights will hit people harder, especially if it might apply to them.  Let's not forget sodomy laws covered things many people enjoy...

[mistertim]

56 minutes ago, gbear said:

I know people haven't placed abortion rights high up on their priorities, but how much of that is people assumed it was settled law?  I mean I don't see many people saying the right to go to public schools is the top of their voting priorities.  I suspect the feeling the right is being removed, and often in an arbitrary or even mean way, will make more people care.  When people are charged with murder for not doing everything to save a fetus destined to die or worse for a miscarriage, it will shoot up people's radar.  

 

Think of the effect BLM had after George Floyd's death.  Yes, many White people were tangentially aware Black people are treated worse, but when it was in our faces, it became harder to ignore, and we cared more.  Loss of privacy rights will hit people harder, especially if it might apply to them.  Let's not forget sodomy laws covered things many people enjoy...

 

I think you're right and with many of these things it's a situation where you don't necessarily think all that much about it unless someone starts threatening to take it away. Though IMO abortion is sort of its own beast since it's been a huge hot-button culture war issue for almost 50 years now.

 

But something like public schools? I don't think most people really have it on their mind because it's just something that's taken for granted and which is necessary. After all...who the **** would take away schooling?

 

Then the Trump Republican party comes along and says "Hold my beer"

[Dan T.]

So can a pregnant woman legally drive in an HOV-2 lane?

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

🤔

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

olw

[Die Hard]

50 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said: