The Roe Countdown

[TurkeysGhost]

And glib references to being at troll being the goal.

That's it, play all the hits.

The great conservative internal struggle. The pull between understanding it's best not to poke the bear, but it's hard to resist laughing at all the filthy whores who can't get reproductive care now.

A rich internal life I'm sure.

I suppose you can take some solace in knowing that no matter how successful their project is, conservatives are deeply unhappy and loathsome people.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Okay. You're a hypothetical woman that lives in.... Miami. Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina definitely are going to outlaw abortion. You have to go to goddamn North Carolina, across half the Eastern Seaboard to get medical care?

[Don Knotts] That’s what’s been keeping me awake! [/DK]

 

[Meadmaker]

The current SCOTUS is pretty obviously going to radically re-write electoral law that makes elections a largely pro-forma exercise.

Well, I seriously hope you never have a chance to say, "I told you so", but I think this smacks of paranoia.

I don't see this happening at all, and I don't think SCOTUS is pushing in that direction.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, I seriously hope you never have a chance to say, "I told you so", but I think this smacks of paranoia.

I don't see this happening at all, and I don't think SCOTUS is pushing in that direction.

Yeah we got told it wasn't going to overturn Roe Vs Wade and that Trump would graciously accept the results of the election too.

Why does the sane side have to give the insane side the benefit of the doubt over and over and over?

We're already a dozen "I told you so"'s deep here.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yeah we got told it wasn't going to overturn Roe Vs Wade and that Trump would graciously accept the results of the election too.

Not by me.

I think anyone who didn't see this decision coming was blind.

As for Donald Trump and the election, I didn't think he would graciously accept the results of the election, either. I was surprised how far he took it, and I am saddened that there are people who still don't see a problem with what he is doing.

However, the important point is that not one court anywhere went along with it, including Amy Coney Barrett. I am sure she was grateful to be appointed, but she didn't owe him anything, so she ruled on the law, instead of Donald Trump's wishes. That's why federal judges don't have to be reelected.

So, to repeat, I don't see SCOTUS going in the direction of making elections a pro forma exercise. They didn't in 2020. I don't see them doing it in the future.

 

[Susheel]

A certain comment by me was deemed unworthy and banished by the mods. Looking at some of the posts since, I am wondering if it was justified.

 

[Random]

Well, I seriously hope you never have a chance to say, "I told you so", but I think this smacks of paranoia.

I don't see this happening at all, and I don't think SCOTUS is pushing in that direction.

Sure they are. Look up the "Independent State Legislature Theory". It's an frankly insane theory that says that State Senators and Congresspersons have sole authority over state election rules, regardless of what the US Constitution, State Constitutions, US Supreme Court, State Supreme Courts, or voters may say.

Under this smoking-hot legal turd, gerrymandering, voter ID laws, voter caging, poll taxes, literacy tests, and whatever up the GOP can cook up in their laboratories of anti-democracy are all on the table. Alito, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas have all indicated in various rulings that they are aware of it and support it. Barrett is the only one who hasn't had an opinion on it yet.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure they are. Look up the "Independent State Legislature Theory". It's an frankly insane theory that says that State Senators and Congresspersons have sole authority over state election rules, regardless of what the US Constitution, State Constitutions, US Supreme Court, State Supreme Courts, or voters may say.

Under this smoking-hot legal turd, gerrymandering, voter ID laws, voter caging, poll taxes, literacy tests, and whatever up the GOP can cook up in their laboratories of anti-democracy are all on the table. Alito, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas have all indicated in various rulings that they are aware of it and support it. Barrett is the only one who hasn't had an opinion on it yet.

Ummm....yeah.....but only marginally vaguely close to the topic.

Elections are not a pro forma exercise in America today, and I don't see them becoming a pro forma exercise in the future, even if every single one of your statements were to come true, which they won't.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Republican U.S. Senator from North Dakota Kevin Cramer says the fetus is worth losing the mother's life, says there's no exceptions.

https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1522209940382928898?cxt=HHwWhMC-oYb4_J8qAAAA

 

[Meadmaker]

https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1522209940382928898?cxt=HHwWhMC-oYb4_J8qAAAA

I'm guessing he didn't really say that, but let's look it up.

ETA: So far, seeing nothing to back this up, just the twitter post linked above, which is trending. The twitter post did not give a quote, nor a video, nor an explanation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you picture that happening? I'm not being smart-ass.

Fear of another McConnell Senate. Anger at the SCOTUS imbalance.

It will require the Democrats get a better idea of what good campaign messages are. That is the Achilles' heel.

 

[Bob001]

Ummm....yeah.....but only marginally vaguely close to the topic.


Elections are not a pro forma exercise in America today, and I don't see them becoming a pro forma exercise in the future, even if every single one of your statements were to come true, which they won't.

If Repub Trumpers are elected secretary of state across the country, they will get to decide what votes count and what election results are valid.

Former president Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election are evolving into a movement that may be a more potent threat to democracy: one that places his supporters in elected roles with oversight of elections at the local and state levels. That would give him and his allies more say over who wins elections.

The ultimate win for them would be to put in place secretaries of state, who oversee how elections are conducted in most states and sign off on the results. More than any other category of elected official, secretaries of state could be instrumental in overturning the popular vote in their state — an unprecedented move in American history — or take other actions that throw results into question.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...nge-elections-in-the-united-states/ar-AARkMI4

If some of Trump’s candidates do prevail in November, it might make him more confident about running in 2024. He’ll know that in the event of another close race, his acolytes will put their thumbs on the scales and make victory that much more likely.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...state-could-flip-the-2024-election/ar-AAU0uSS

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... but there's no possible political system were being intentionally unpopular to court to support of a minority can be long term sustainable.

I think we're reaching that point in the US. The failure to overturn the ACA was evidence of this.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Fear of another McConnell Senate. Anger at the SCOTUS imbalance.

It will require the Democrats get a better idea of what good campaign messages are. That is the Achilles' heel.

Well, so far they're stumping for an anti-abortion candidate in order to protect him from a progressive primary challenge.

Campaigning for Henry Cuellar, a Democratic U.S. House leader says party shouldn’t shun abortion opponents
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn visited Texas to stump for Cuellar this week ahead of his runoff race. The trip fell two days after Politico published a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court that favors overturning Roe v. Wade.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/04/jim-clyburn-henry-cuellar-democrats-abortion-election/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Then again, the Dems have done bait-and-switch promises about protecting Roe so many times the party may have simply exhausted all credibility on the issue. There's definitely a cost to talking a big game during campaigns and repeatedly choosing not to deliver.

I don't recall any of this. Could you post an example?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm guessing he didn't really say that, but let's look it up.

ETA: So far, seeing nothing to back this up, just the twitter post linked above, which is trending. The twitter post did not give a quote, nor a video, nor an explanation.

What are you doing and who do you think is falling for it?

Why the whole faux-skeptic routine like "A Republican said something cartoonishly over the top about abortion" is somehow an unreasonable claim that doesn't happen all the time.

Do you intend to ride the "Oh I'm totally not on the side of politicians who want women to be brood mares but I'm going to defend them at every turn" routine into full on trolling or just come clean now?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't recall any of this. Could you post an example?

During his tenure in the United States Senate, Barack Obama co-sponsored the 2007 Senate version of the Freedom of Choice Act (S. 1173). Responding to a question regarding how he would preserve reproductive rights in a speech given to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama declared, "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."[4]

In a press conference on April 29, 2009, President Obama said that although he supports a woman's right to choose, passage of the Freedom of Choice Act was "not highest legislative priority."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act

Seems protecting abortion rights is only something the Dems felt strongly about when they needed votes and campaign donations, but not a particularly high priority when actually in power.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"We didn't (or might not) get our way, so we need to stack the court".

I imagine this will come up every time there is a conservative-favoring ruling.

No, the court doesn't need to be stacked. We need to restore the balance that existed before the Zealot-5 got appointed.

Garland was fairly middle of the road. Obama nominated him in hopes the GOP wouldn't object. There are possible nominations of honest justices. Republican appointed justices on the federal bench with a history of a ruing or 2 that demonstrated they were not GOP puppets would be my choice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
I don't see this happening at all, and I don't think SCOTUS is pushing in that direction.

The GOP is and the current SCOTUS is not likely to stop them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I don't recall any of this. Could you post an example?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act

The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."[4]

In a press conference on April 29, 2009, President Obama said that although he supports a woman's right to choose, passage of the Freedom of Choice Act was "not highest legislative priority."[5]