SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[NoCalMike]

1) The wealthy spend tons of money to corrupt and manipulate the system to get their desired results

 

2) If turnout routinely ends up in record amounts, it can overcome the millions being spent in favor of legislation that goes against their own interests

 

Those statements aren't mutually exclusive.  I don't think people are making the case that "there is nothing we can do" but just acknowledging that the deck is often stacked against policies that will benefit the majority of the population if it also isn't benefitting the special interest groups. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

So if you get an abortion, you've violated the 14th Amendment but the government doesn't have any power to prosecute you.  It is pretty meaningless.  It is a nothing burger for show that they won't let come to an actual vote.  If they want to do something seriously, it will include punishments.

 

(which is also why the press isn't reporting on it.)

I don’t know about that. Weed is decriminalized in many states but you can’t buy it online because it is a federal crime. Which, I know can be punished, so it’s sort of different situation, however I think my point still stands.

 

If abortion is a federal crime it essentially means insurers won’t be able to cover it and banks and credit card issuers won’t be able to process transactions relate to it. A federal ban on abortion would essentially turn it into a cash only operation because while the women can’t be punished, the banks certainly can, and even if they wouldn’t be practically, they have a duty to stakeholders to not take those kind of risks.

 

As to your first point, sure they do it every year, but it’s different this year because the Supreme Court has thrown out decades of stare decisis for ideological fundamentalism.

Edited June 28, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I don't think people are making the case that "there is nothing we can do"

i agree with both your statements but the conversation was really started over the use of the word oligarchy, in which the main contention is the idea “there is nothing we can do” vs “actually you absolutely can do something, everyone  can”

 

 

[Fergasun]

Politics is locked out to really good candidates with good ideas.  You need blue money or red money or your own money to come to the table.  Or you have to be willing to put it all on the line... I am thinking of AOC.  She jumped straight to the House. 

 

Trump jumped straight to the Presidency. 

 

There will be a liberal Trump type at some point in 15 to 20 years who wreck the Democrats with radical progressive policy.  Not someone who "pays their dues" ie. spends their life living off of team blue money.  If you want to know what that looks like, see Kamala Harris.  I respect her for what she has done, but she is an insanely horrible politician to be at the level she is (anointed by the team blue money people). 

 

If we tripled the size of the Senate and House, it would do wonders for our politics.

[88Comrade2000]

To stop the Christian Theocratic Facist GoP state; the Dems have to win at the state level. Dems have to win state legislatures and governorships.

 

Yes, you need to win at the national level but everything is coming from the state level. 
 

I still hold the believe that now that roe is gone; it won’t effect enough people to impact an election 4 months away. People are going to have to live under the harsh conditions the gop is setting up and the other rights have to be taken away. By 2024; that should have a huge impact.

[88Comrade2000]

If states pass laws where you can’t go to other states to get an abortion, get the pills in the mail; wonder how they enforce it.

 

You can’t do it without becoming a facist police state.

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, The Sisko said:

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, you don't know what you're talking about on this. I thought maybe I misremembered it, but I looked it up and sure enough, it's state legislatures, not the people that vote on amendments. So, other than a constitutional convention which has never happened, to get an amendment, you need a 2/3ds vote in both houses of Congress followed by 75% of state legislatures approving it within a seven year window. It's a grey area as to whether states can rescind it so you couldn't have a turnover in state legislature or they'd rescind followed by litigation up to the level of the garbage SCOTUS. So no, your vote doesn't matter other than the ability to get a 2/3rds majority in both houses AND take over the heavily gerrymandered state legislatures AND do it before any of those state legislatures turn over. See, like I said, it's a cinch.

 

And people vote for their state legislatures.  So the answer is to vote for state legislators that will vote for the amendment.

Which is why I discussed contacting your state representatives on my first post on the topic.

 

The key is people still can vote.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

If states pass laws where you can’t go to other states to get an abortion, get the pills in the mail; wonder how they enforce it.

 

You can’t do it without becoming a facist police state.

I wonder if that would be unconstitutional or at least illegal because I believe there is a law preventing states from blocking interstate commerce. 
 

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/752

[The Sisko]

9 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

1) The wealthy spend tons of money to corrupt and manipulate the system to get their desired results

 

2) If turnout routinely ends up in record amounts, it can overcome the millions being spent in favor of legislation that goes against their own interests

 

Those statements aren't mutually exclusive.  I don't think people are making the case that "there is nothing we can do" but just acknowledging that the deck is often stacked against policies that will benefit the majority of the population if it also isn't benefiting the special interest groups. 

This is precisely my point. However, some folks have a need to see things only in black and white.

[tshile]

No. The problem is not about seeing it in black and white. 
 

the problem is you call it an oligarchy. 
 

which it’s not. 
 

the power ultimately rests in the hands of the people, by voting. That’s not what an oligarchy is. 
 

Edited June 28, 2022 by tshile

[PeterMP]

10 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

The bill linked by China bans abortion at conception.  The bill referenced in the 2017 article bans abortion after 20 weeks.  Pretty significant difference.

 

And while the pregnant women avoids prosecution, doctors don't have that same protection.  So the law, if ever passed, would be far from meaningless.

 

I'm not sure what you are looking at.  Neither one of them even mentions abortion and certainly the 2017 one doesn't mention 20 weeks.  It is Life Starts at Conception.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/681/text

 

They define a human as starting with fertilization:

 

"(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The terms “human person” and “human being” include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."

 

They are almost exactly the same text.  And it never comes to a vote.  It's just something they do every year.

 

(Ah, I see the problem.  The story I posted also talks about a ban of abortion at 20 weeks.  So there were two different bills with respect to Murphy.  There is the Life Begins at Conception that doesn't include any punishments in it and never goes anywhere.  And then there was also a ban abortion at 20 months bill which they've called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  

 

Which includes punishments:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61/text

 

"“(c) Criminal Penalty.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."

 

And comes to a vote (it has passed House in the past).

 

When they are serious about doing something, you'll hear about that bill.  The Life Begins at Conception is noise.  They sponsor it, but I don't think they've even ever brought it to a vote.  It just dies in committee every year to my knowledge.  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is the law/bill that needs to be watched.  When they are serious about doing something on the federal level with abortion, that's what they'll advance.)

 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by PeterMP

[Heisenberg]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

No. The problem is not about seeing it in black and white. 
 

the problem is you call it an oligarchy. 
 

which it’s not. 
 

the power ultimately rests in the hands of the people, by voting. That’s not what an oligarchy is. 
 

Hard to even say it rests in the hands of the people at this point.  Between gerrymandering and the relative ease a POTUS gained power despite receiving 3 million+ less votes than his opponent is making the entire thing look like a facade at this point. The Supreme Court fast tracking us towards whatever the hell this country is becoming is just the latest reason for me to doubt the system can even be fixed at this point.

[PeterMP]

11 hours ago, tshile said:

they can act faster because they fall in line. 
 

it still just blows my mind that this type of law has ANY real support. Much less be popular. 
 

 

 

They didn't move faster.  It was already done.  They do it every year.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, Heisenberg said:

Hard to even say it rests in the hands of the people at this point.  Between gerrymandering and the relative ease a POTUS gained power despite receiving 3 million+ less votes than his opponent is making the entire thing look like a facade at this point. The Supreme Court fast tracking us towards whatever the hell this country is becoming is just the latest reason for me to doubt the system can even be fixed at this point.

Oh I have zero faith it will be fixed. 
 

if people put half the effort into their government, that they do all the other nonsense (betting, social media, crypto, sports, etc) then sure, it could be fixed. 
 

but the bottom like is the framework to fix it is there. Vote for the people that will fix it, and it will be fixed. 
 

but yeah I don’t expect people to change, so I don’t really expect us to use that framework to actually force change. 
 

 

Edited June 28, 2022 by tshile

[PeterMP]

12 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

I don't think people are making the case that "there is nothing we can do" but just acknowledging that the deck is often stacked against policies that will benefit the majority of the population if it also isn't benefitting the special interest groups. 

 

The conversation started with somebody call the US an oligarchy similar to Russia and China but with the structure only being different.

 

That's not true. 

 

There's a difference between things being stacked against you and hard to do.  And doing much of anything is almost certainly going to end up with you in jail and even likely dead.

 

Fixing things isn't going to be easy.  It is going to take a lot people doing a lot of work and it is going to take doing things that people don't generally like to do. 

 

But I don't think we are to the point that fixing it is going to take going to jail (for long periods of time) or being executed (yet).

 

@The Sisko

There's a difference between asking people to put in some hard work and doing things they aren't comfortable doing to get change to happen and asking people to risk their lives to make changes.  In calling us an oligarchy with a different structure than China and Russia you are inferring one and not the other.  That difference isn't shades.

Edited June 28, 2022 by PeterMP

[The Sisko]

39 minutes ago, tshile said:

No. The problem is not about seeing it in black and white. 
 

the problem is you call it an oligarchy. 
 

which it’s not. 
 

the power ultimately rests in the hands of the people, by voting. That’s not what an oligarchy is. 
 

The power of the people through the vote. You mean just like in Russia and China which you seem to agree are oligarchies and where the citizens also have the right to vote? "But, but, they don't have true power though!" So please explain the difference for me.

 

A relatively small group of people have true power in this country and in general, the more money you have, the more power you have to control things and the more above the law you are. Yes, it is indirect control, because they still technically need the voters. However, they suppress hostile voters and easily manipulate their voters to do what they want most of the time. Again, just a more subtle way of using the voters to get what they want, just like Russia and China. Are they able to pull strings like we're marionettes? No, I'm not saying it's some Illuminati conspiracy theory BS. What I am saying is that they use the culture war stuff, dark money, direct political donations along with a host of other tools available to the wealthy to install the politicians they want whereas in Russia and China, they just use force or limit who you can vote for. Even when our oligarchs lose, they know the other side will do little because they donate to both sides. Either way, they win not all the time, but the vast majority of the time and so far, it has been enough over the longer term that they've been able to bend the arc back towards the original oligarchy.

 

However, with the garbage SCOTUS, they've essentially locked in de facto control over 2/3ds of government for the longer term because any laws the legislative branch passes, can simply be invalidated through litigation while having the laws they pass upheld. "Roe v. Wade? Eff you." "Separation of church and state? Nah, that's not a thing." It's a backstop to the backstop for them because now the constitution says whatever they want it to say.

 

Either way, what it points toward IMO is that something drastic will be required to set things right. I don't know what that is. It could be a Dem version of Tя☭mp, a severe economic crisis, violence, a combination of these, or something else entirely. However, simply voting isn't going to change it. Yes, I still do vote but it just feels more and more like kabuki theater all the time.

[The Evil Genius]

NM see that it was asked already. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

The power of the people through the vote. You mean just like in Russia and China which you seem to agree are oligarchies and where the citizens also have the right to vote? "But, but, they don't have true power though!" So please explain the difference for me.

If you need the difference between voting in Russia and the USA explained, then that’s everything everyone needs to know about the conversation. 
 

i get that declaring us an oligarchy like Russia just fits oh so swell into your general narrative of the United States, and the relentless arguments you make about just how awful ****ty it is to be a USA citizen. 
 

that doesn’t make it true. It’s unfortunate you don’t get it. But you are pretty far gone down that hole, and have been for a while. 
 

i don’t mean any disrespect. It just is what it is. You’ve shared enough of what you think about it all, that’s it clear I’m not even exaggerating here. 

[mcsluggo]

i have been heading down with my wife and teen daughters to the Supreme Court several times over the last several days.... it doesn't "accomplish" anything, per se.... but it soothes the soul a little bit..... 

[bearrock]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm not sure what you are looking at.  Neither one of them even mentions abortion and certainly the 2017 one doesn't mention 20 weeks.  It is Life Starts at Conception.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/681/text

 

They define a human as starting with fertilization:

 

"(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The terms “human person” and “human being” include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."

 

They are almost exactly the same text.  And it never comes to a vote.  It's just something they do every year.

 

(Ah, I see the problem.  The story I posted also talks about a ban of abortion at 20 weeks.  So there were two different bills with respect to Murphy.  There is the Life Begins at Conception that doesn't include any punishments in it and never goes anywhere.  And then there was also a ban abortion at 20 months bill which they've called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.  

 

Which includes punishments:

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/61/text

 

"“(c) Criminal Penalty.—Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both."

 

And comes to a vote (it has passed House in the past).

 

When they are serious about doing something, you'll hear about that bill.  The Life Begins at Conception is noise.  They sponsor it, but I don't think they've even ever brought it to a vote.  It just dies in committee every year to my knowledge.  The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is the law/bill that needs to be watched.  When they are serious about doing something on the federal level with abortion, that's what they'll advance.)

 

 

 

No doubt that the bill with criminalization goes a lot further with more teeth.  But a Federal law defining a fetus to be a human being with 14th amendment rights would be more than sufficient (especially under this SCOTUS) to come pretty close to if not actually end legal abortion in all states.  Exposure to civil liabilities from putative fathers alone would be enough to dissuade a swath of doctors from stop performing abortion.  I would not dismiss the potential effect of non-criminal sanctions as significant and meaningful barrier to abortion.  You're right that it's not new.  But it's potential impact is not meaningless.

Edited June 28, 2022 by bearrock

[LadySkinsFan]

Here's some suggestions for supporting said group of cells from fertilization.

 

 

[SkinsFTW]

^^^Kind of sounds like the mens argument that they shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't get to decide whether to keep it abort it.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

^^^Kind of sounds like the mens argument that they shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't get to decide whether to keep it abort it.

One thing I would like to come out of this is some discussion about what the man’s rights are in that situation. 
 

im not trying to get carried away with it, and I don’t even really have any ideas, but the closest one would be like you said - if the man wants an abortion and the woman refuses, the man shouldn’t be on the hook for child support. 
 

I realize it’s odd to even try to square the man deciding whether an abortion is done or not is weird cause it’s literally another persons body… but the idea he’d have to pay child support while having no say in any of it is dumb. 

[TheDoyler23]

With the legitimacy of this court pretty much over, when does a state just simply decline to abide by their ruling? 
 

Like, what would stop Maine in that public money for religious schools case?  They just be like, “nah, we’re still not doing that.” 

[tshile]

That would be a constitutional crisis.