The Roe Countdown

[Meadmaker]

Why her life was not in any significant danger at that point, there was just a chance something bad would happen. You have to wait for those risks to become realities to justify the abortion in Texas.

It's not true, but do carry on.

The law will eventually be thrown out because of the enforcement mechanism. It will take a while.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not true, but do carry on.

The law will eventually be thrown out because of the enforcement mechanism. It will take a while.

"Eventually the insane evil side we arbitrarily stop being insane and evil."

No they will not. They WILL push this as far as they can get away with.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't know what to call it, but I'd say that the language of the constitution reveals principles of liberty and the restraints on government. I prefer to consider the principles binding, so that we task a court interpreting the constitution to decide how a context that wasn't explicitly defined before best suits those principles.

That came out wordier than I'd like, so I'll use an example instead, what I hope is an easy one. Freedom of speech and the press. It's a pretty easy and obvious interpretation to realize that doesn't just encompass spoken words or content made on a literal printing press. It refers to freedom of expression, in any media... spoken, written, painted, sculpted, sung, printed, electronically transmitted, or any other form of communication we may not yet have invented. The constitution gives us that principle. If there's an aspect of the "living" model for interpreting that I agree with, it's that the people we entrust as judges should be able to recognize and apply that kind of equivalence. The way they're set up seems to be pretty sound. Not just the main reason for the decision but concurring agreements for different reasons are logged, as well as reasons for dissent. Any of those can be appropriate tools to recognize mistakes in hindsight, even as decisions that stand for a long time should have the strongest influence. Some of the common "tests" the court has established by building up precedent over time seem to me to be the most well thought out principles we have.

At a certain point though you need the right kind of people doing the job. Even if there were somehow a "perfect" system, it would still have bad outcomes if we make bad choices in stewards. And we couldn't fix that with any kind of reform.

Agreed on all counts.

 

[Meadmaker]

"Eventually the insane evil side we arbitrarily stop being insane and evil."

No they will not. They WILL push this as far as they can get away with.

Well, yes.

But they won't be able to get away with very much. Keep calm, and vote.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, yes.

But they won't be able to get away with very much. Keep calm, and vote.

Is this a bit? Are you seriously going to sit here and make us have an entire hijack where we show you how the Republicans are cheating and stacking the deck?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not true, but do carry on.

The law will eventually be thrown out because of the enforcement mechanism. It will take a while.

Hmm there is what the doctors in Texas think or some guy on the internet think clearly no doctor would ever put any effort into understanding the laws that apply to them regarding abortion.

I will continue to trust that lying fact rather than some random guy on the internet.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At this point listening to Republicans (or their apologists, especially "I'm totally not a Republican Apologist, how dare you suggest a thing" Republican Apologist) pretend like we have to extend the benefit of the doubt yet again to what has quickly morphed into a death cult is laughable.

They weren't going to put kids in cages, they weren't going to overturn Roe V. Wade, they were going to graciously accept the outcome of the election, hyperbole, dramatic, paranoid, strawman, blah, blah, blah, blah.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Is this a bit? Are you seriously going to sit here and make us have an entire hijack where we show you how the Republicans are cheating and stacking the deck?

If I were to put myself into the shoes of an ageing American conservative, I could see how engaging in absurd denialism of the direness of the current situation would be preferable than confronting what role "mainstream" conservatism has played in the rise of authoritarian christo-fascist rule by the minority.

There's a long history of the mainstream right hand-waving away complaints about their dogwhistling to extremists as hysterical nonsense, but we're seeing today that all these alarms were absolutely correct, and, if anything, undersold the danger.

Or perhaps I'm being too generous and this is simply insincere denialism. I imagine more than a few right wingers are pretty happy, or at least ok, with the current state of affairs and simply lack the courage of their convictions. Being an overt fascist does require a bit of a thick skin and willingness to be hated by your non-fascist peers.

 

[Meadmaker]

Is this a bit? Are you seriously going to sit here and make us have an entire hijack where we show you how the Republicans are cheating and stacking the deck?

I'm not going to make you do anything.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not going to make you do anything.

Okay well then your "Just keep playing better poker against the guy who is not only cheating at poker but not even playing poker" opinion can be dismissed without cause then.

 

[Meadmaker]

They weren't going to put kids in cages, they weren't going to overturn Roe V. Wade, they were going to graciously accept the outcome of the election, hyperbole, dramatic, paranoid, strawman, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Well, the kids in cages thing is a complicated and for another thread. Suffice it to say I wasn't surprised and I never said it wouldn't happen. I fully expected them to overturn Roe v. Wade. In the poll that start this thread I voted for an earlier date. I also said that they would not graciously accept the outcome of the election. There was also a poll in a thread about election outcomes, based on whether, after Trump lost, he would pull shenanigans and stay in office. My vote on that one was that he will attempt to pull shenanigans, but they will fail, and he'll be thrown out of office. That's what
happened. He lost every court case and not even his handpicked important judge, Amy Coney Barrett, supported him.

So, if you're talking about me, you are indeed erecting a straw man. I never said any of the things you mentioned.

My current predictions include:

The Texas law will be thrown out in court. Texas will still ban abortions, but not using their current law.

Abortion will be legal in all 50 states within fifteen years, probably sooner, but it might take that long.

As to what other "rights" may be on the chopping block, I think that gay marriage might be in trouble. Other gay rights are completely safe. (i.e. Lawrence v. Texas will not be overturned.) Trans rights will find zero support at this Supreme Court.

Those are my predictions. So far I've done pretty well at my guesses, but I can always be surprised.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If a Conservative doesn't say the word "Straw Man" every ten seconds do they like explode or something?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Suffice to say this vague, undefined force that just arbitrarily "will" stop the Republicans before things get too bad you keep alluding to even existing, to say nothing of being as obvious and inevitable as you are demanding we all treat it without evidence or the most basic level of pattern recognition, is nowhere near the argument you think it is.

 

[Meadmaker]

If I were to put myself into the shoes of an ageing American conservative, ...

What I think is hilarious is that I'm called a conservative.

Compared to you, I suppose I am. Regardless, I still have never voted for a Republican for President. I did vote in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, but only so that I could vote against Donald Trump. Alas, to no avail.

I also vote for a Republican state senator in the last few elections. I haven't liked our local, Democratic, reps. However, with abortion being a "front=burner" issue again, where the state legislature matters, that won't happen in the fall.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

When some state manages to enact an anti-sodomy law, I'll get nervous, but I don't see that happening.

Apparently some states still have such laws on the books…

“In 1961 - when Illinois became the first state to repeal its sodomy law - every other state in America had a sodomy law. Now, 15 states still have such laws. In the 1970s and the early 1980s, 21 states got rid of their sodomy laws. But as the 1980s progressed, anti-gay groups mobilized against the repeal of sodomy laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick significantly hampered legal efforts to strike down sodomy laws.”

ACLU article here: https://www.aclu.org/other/update-status-sodomy-laws

 

[JoeMorgue]

What I think is hilarious is that I'm called a conservative.

Because guess what your opinions are what you spend the most time actively arguing for, not whatever you claim they are.

If you spend the entire argument making excuses and loopholes and apologetics and "outs" for Left Handed Bavarian Farmers then guess what sport you're a Left Handed Bavarian Farmer supporter regardless of how much you clutch your pearls to your chest and go "How dare you suggest I support Left Handed Bavarian Farmers."

This whole idea that you can be "against" something by fiat but then spend you're entire argumentative energy arguing "for" it has become more and more common in arguments in the last few years and I'm done with it.

And no you can't get out of this by some vague, mush mouthed allusion to "keeping it fair" or acting as some counter balance to one side being too something or other.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Apparently some states still have such laws on the books…

Well obviously us thinking something that has already happened will happen means we're paranoid hyperbole dramatic strawmen.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Exploring more of Dem leadership's conflict aversion:

Democrats are terrified of any sign of grassroots protests by the right (“Oh no! School board protests! Eliminate all school masking in defiance of polls!”) and then, when their own side produces grassroots protest, are scared of THAT, too. The common thread is just being afraid.

During Trump, Dems were gifted:

-the largest protests in history the day after his inauguration
-spontaneous airport protests of tens of thousands to stop his Muslim ban
-Kavanaugh protests
-new largest protests in history shortly before the 2020 election

Ran from all of it

https://twitter.com/whstancil/status/1523668261195313153

Important to clarify that this criticism, especially about Dem's cowardice about defend-Roe protests, is very much only leveled at the party leadership and elite pundit class. As far as I can tell, normal liberals are quite pissed off and not hawking this "civility politics" crap. I very much doubt that progressives or any lefties make up a majority of these protests assembling outside Kavanaugh's house, for example.

There's tons of energy and passion out there about Roe being overturned and the party is just going to let it dissipate. Another political gift squandered by the party that is averse to any political project that isn't top-down oriented.

I expect this is going to be a very frustrating and potentially radicalizing event for many mainstream liberals who find their grassroots efforts around Roe totally ignored by the party that allegedly represents them.

 

[Meadmaker]

Apparently some states still have such laws on the books…

“In 1961 - when Illinois became the first state to repeal its sodomy law - every other state in America had a sodomy law. Now, 15 states still have such laws. In the 1970s and the early 1980s, 21 states got rid of their sodomy laws. But as the 1980s progressed, anti-gay groups mobilized against the repeal of sodomy laws, and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick significantly hampered legal efforts to strike down sodomy laws.”

ACLU article here: https://www.aclu.org/other/update-status-sodomy-laws

But that's one of those things that people bring up a lot, even though it's pretty meaningless. When the Supreme Court overturned all those laws with Lawrence v. Texas, there wasn't really any incentive to cleanse the books. There's no political benefit to going after a law that isn't being enforced.

The same is true of abortion. Here in Michigan, we still have a law on the books that bans abortion. For 49 years, it has been unused. However, assuming Roe v. Wade is struck down, that zombie law comes back to life.

So, our governor is suing to prevent enforcement. It is likely that lawsuit will be successful, because we have elected judges, and they're Democrats. The real test will be next fall. We currently have a Democratic governor and a slim majority Republican legislature. So, the Republicans might try to pass a brand new anti-abortion law, but if they succeed it will be vetoed. The future of abortion rights in Michigan will depend on who gets elected in the fall.

I think the recent Supreme Court decision will turn into a Democratic majority in the legislature, and abortion will remain legal, but I'm not confident about that. I'm much more confident in the long run than the short run.

 

[Meadmaker]

I expect this is going to be a very frustrating and potentially radicalizing event for many mainstream liberals who find their grassroots efforts around Roe totally ignored by the party that allegedly represents them.

I don't think molotov cocktails are really a mainstream grass roots effort.