The Roe Countdown

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

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

It's one ******* legislator. I believe you are overplaying this card.

 

[lomiller]

Sometimes states are wrong and the Federal government gets to tell them so and make them comply.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This part is usually omitted by the States rights crowd. In short just because a right doesn't belong to the federal government does not mean it belongs to the States. In most cases these rights properly belong to the people, not the States.

This decision is a rare example where the SC has stripped the people of rights and awarded them to the States. It's part of the Right Wing agenda of stripping people of individual rights in order to award them to State governments in order to force their own standards on the whole population.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes we know the Democrats have let down the people who's entire political identity is "Democrats aren't good enough for us." We know, we can move on.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hey here's an idea.

Pull their funding. Outside Texas I don't think any Red state reliably runs in the Red and need the evil federal government who they hate so much to keep their lights on.

No abortions? No federal money.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

I think even that's an exaggeration, but it saddens me that it's just an exaggeration, and not false.

However, it won't get very far. It will get farther than it should, but I think if it gets egregious, the current SCOTUS will, in fact, stop them. For example, the previous poster mentioned poll taxes. Those are, explicitly, unconstitutional. I think if they tried a poll tax, SCOTUS, including this one, would stop them.

It's unfortunate that the vast majority of citizens see Supreme Court rulings solely in terms of their effects, and not on the legal issues behind them, but that's life. It's even more unfortunate that some of the justices themselves seem to do the same. (I'm looking at you, Clarence.) However, neither Kavanaugh, nor Gorsuch, nor even Barrett have proven to be rubber stamps for the GOP. I don't see that changing, and I don't see any of them going for blatantly unconstitutional rulings.

And, that's right. If you inferred that I don't see overturning Roe v. Wade as blatantly unconstitutional, you have inferred correctly. I think there's a legitimate argument that Roe v. Wade went beyond constituional bounds, and for the first time in 50 years, a majority of the court agreed with that argument. I don't see that as a constitutional crisis.

I do see that as a crisis for individual rights, which is why I think people need to pay attention when they vote.

 

[Warp12]

Hey here's an idea.

Pull their funding. Outside Texas I don't think any Red state reliably runs in the Red and need the evil federal government who they hate so much to keep their lights on.

No abortions? No federal money.

"You advocate for executing the unborn, or else!".

I love this mindset on display.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Yes we know the Democrats have let down the people who's entire political identity is "Democrats aren't good enough for us." We know, we can move on.

I mean, if the Democrats can win without these people, that's fine.

The problem is they keep whining when their narrow coalition of centrists and center right voters isn't enough to actually win.

It's not even like the progressives are demanding dominance. Throw them a bone now and then and there would be a lot more good will.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mean, if the Democrats can win without these people, that's fine.

They can and they do.

You and your "Democrats suck and why aren't they letting us in their club the meanies" squad have nowhere near the influence you think you do.

 

[cosmicaug]

I think even that's an exaggeration, but it saddens me that it's just an exaggeration, and not false.

However, it won't get very far. It will get farther than it should, but I think if it gets egregious, the current SCOTUS will, in fact, stop them. For example, the previous poster mentioned poll taxes. Those are, explicitly, unconstitutional. I think if they tried a poll tax, SCOTUS, including this one, would stop them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/us/florida-felon-voting-rights.html

 

[Random]

I think even that's an exaggeration, but it saddens me that it's just an exaggeration, and not false.

However, it won't get very far. It will get farther than it should, but I think if it gets egregious, the current SCOTUS will, in fact, stop them. For example, the previous poster mentioned poll taxes. Those are, explicitly, unconstitutional. I think if they tried a poll tax, SCOTUS, including this one, would stop them.

Yeah, we probably wouldn't see anything that blatant (not right away at least). We are far more likely to see state legislatures implementing point-shaving rules and strategies in steadily increasing amounts. Not enough for North Korea style unanimous votes for dear leader, just tilting the playing field enough each election cycle to keep their hand on the rudder forever.

 

[Random]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/us/florida-felon-voting-rights.html

Oh, yeah. Forgot about that one. Yeah, poll taxes. They're already doing that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think even that's an exaggeration, but it saddens me that it's just an exaggeration, and not false.

However, it won't get very far. It will get farther than it should, but I think if it gets egregious, the current SCOTUS will, in fact, stop them. For example, the previous poster mentioned poll taxes. Those are, explicitly, unconstitutional. I think if they tried a poll tax, SCOTUS, including this one, would stop them.

It's unfortunate that the vast majority of citizens see Supreme Court rulings solely in terms of their effects, and not on the legal issues behind them, but that's life. It's even more unfortunate that some of the justices themselves seem to do the same. (I'm looking at you, Clarence.) However, neither Kavanaugh, nor Gorsuch, nor even Barrett have proven to be rubber stamps for the GOP. I don't see that changing, and I don't see any of them going for blatantly unconstitutional rulings.

And, that's right. If you inferred that I don't see overturning Roe v. Wade as blatantly unconstitutional, you have inferred correctly. I think there's a legitimate argument that Roe v. Wade went beyond constituional bounds, and for the first time in 50 years, a majority of the court agreed with that argument. I don't see that as a constitutional crisis.

I do see that as a crisis for individual rights, which is why I think people need to pay attention when they vote.

And they make a killer argument that Loving v Virginia did as well. Of course this is addressed in the judgement, then called entirely moot because of dead babies. So all that working out of traditional rights and limits there in clearly does not matter one way or the other because it all is moot compared to a dead baby.

People are not willing to come out against Loving often enough, I thank you for that.

 

[Meadmaker]

And they make a killer argument that Loving v Virginia did as well.

Well, no. They didn't try to, and nothing they did could be used to imply that they will. To my way of thinking, it's best to address the specific case or the specific issue that's under discussion, but when it comes to Roe v. Wade, people seem compelled to bring in other things that are either completely unrelated, or connected only by the flimsiest thread.

I think on the subject of law, people should address the Supreme Court rulings, specifically. On the subject of social effects, I think people should address abortion, specifically.

If the best you've got is "They might attack interractial marriage", then you've got nothing. It's not very difficult to see that they won't attack Loving v. Virginia at all, so it's not relevant.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They can and they do.

You and your "Democrats suck and why aren't they letting us in their club the meanies" squad have nowhere near the influence you think you do.

Yes, I suppose it is worth pointing out that this once in a lifetime rollback of civil rights is occurring while Democrats have nominal control of the government.

Things are going well. No notes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Stepping back the sadtragic thing is if you put a gun to my head and made me swear how much I think the Right actually cares about abortion in the abstract I don't know what my answer would be. Do they really hate it or do they just hate it because the liberals like it. Strip away the hate and the trolling and the nihilism and is there any actual opinion, even a wrong one, at the core? I dunno. I honestly don't anymore.

Do they hate women for getting abortions or hate abortions because women get them? Which is the tail and which is the dog? I dunno. One. The other. Both. Neither. Both in some weird mobius strip of each one feeding the other maybe. I honestly don't know.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, I suppose it is worth pointing out that this once in a lifetime rollback of civil rights is occurring while Democrats have nominal control of the government.

Things are going well. No notes.

That's not my point and you damn well know it.

My point is you could replace with a small script program that just randomly posts two things.

1. Democrats suck.
2. Why aren't the Democrats letting us Progressives use their power and influence the big meanies?

You are capable of two things. Calling the Democrats useless up and demanding a greater percentage of their uselessness for Progressives to use.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And they make a killer argument that Loving v Virginia did as well. Of course this is addressed in the judgement, then called entirely moot because of dead babies. So all that working out of traditional rights and limits there in clearly does not matter one way or the other because it all is moot compared to a dead baby.

People are not willing to come out against Loving often enough, I thank you for that.

The best argument that they won't go after Loving is that they have a ton of law to rewrite that is probably going to take priority first.

Roe is just the beginning, they also need to completely dismantle the administrative state, completely gut voter's rights and election law, roll back consumer protection and corporate regulation, dismantle the ACA, deliver a death blow to the rump of unions still in this country, privatize education and other public goods, eliminate gay and queer rights, etc. A lot of things have happened since the conservatives lost control of the courts decades ago that they absolutely hate, and some issues are more pressing than others.

It's not that the current SCOTUS wouldn't gut Loving if they heard a case, but they probably won't grant cert to such a case for years yet seeing as they have more important rollbacks to see to first. There's only so many hours in the day and SCOTUS only hears a small fraction of submitted cases each term.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Stepping back the sadtragic thing is if you put a gun to my head and made me swear how much I think the Right actually cares about abortion in the abstract I don't know what my answer would be. Do they really hate it or do they just hate it because the liberals like it. Strip away the hate and the trolling and the nihilism and is there any actual opinion, even a wrong one, at the core? I dunno. I honestly don't anymore.

Do they hate women for getting abortions or hate abortions because women get them? Which is the tail and which is the dog? I dunno. One. The other. Both. Neither. Both in some weird mobius strip of each one feeding the other maybe. I honestly don't know.

Are you a Christian? As an atheist, I feel like I would be evangelical if I was a Christian. Maybe that conclusion is flawed.

But most Christians do not live like eternal damnation is possibility. So while I would be an anti-abortion christian crusader, I would probably have a lot of doubts regarding the sincerity of allies

 

[JoeMorgue]

If they think going after Loving will tweak the libs it will move up the list.

Remember this is as much legislative symbolism as it doing anything. You key your exe's nice sportscar because it will piss them off the most, not because it's going actually do the most damage to them.

They aren't going to just rationally go down some checklist, they are going to whatever is most annoying in the moment.

 

[Suddenly]

They can and they do.

You and your "Democrats suck and why aren't they letting us in their club the meanies" squad have nowhere near the influence you think you do.

Maybe if we did the Democrats wouldn't have spent the last six years being owned by a second rate game show host.