US Politics: Roe v Wade into the quiet part of the stream

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

They won't survive if this is where the party is heading. 

Well, presumably they'll survive until 2026 and 2028 when their terms would be up.  Collins is up in 2026, and she might be done after that anyway, sure.  Same thing with Murkowski for that matter.  Anyway, just wanted to point out there's no way either would vote for such a bill.  They put out this two months ago - Senators Collins and Murkowski Introduce Bill to Codify Supreme Court Decisions on Reproductive Rights: Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[Week]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Swap out abortion for same sex and interracial marriages. The Constitution as originally written never mentioned the subjects either. Do you hold the same legal theory that it should be left to the states who people can and cannot marry?

There is no intellectual honesty or consistency among these morons. Things they like should be legal; things they don't like should be illegal They fill in the words and faux-religious justifications to fit.

[Jaxom 1974]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, presumably they'll survive until 2026 and 2028 when their terms would be up.  Collins is up in 2026, and she might be done after that anyway, sure.  Same thing with Murkowski for that matter.  Anyway, just wanted to point out there's no way either would vote for such a bill.  They put out this two months ago - Senators Collins and Murkowski Introduce Bill to Codify Supreme Court Decisions on Reproductive Rights: Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

You don't think, should the country go full on authoritarian after 2024, that those two wouldn't be purged from the Senate through some sort of shenanigans if they stood in the way of the will of whichever tin pot fuhrer we end up with?  Because it doesn't seem like many norms or procedures are going to continue to stand if that future comes to pass.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

You don't think, should the country go full on authoritarian after 2024, that those two wouldn't be purged from the Senate through some sort of shenanigans if they stood in the way of the will of whichever tin pot fuhrer we end up with?  Because it doesn't seem like many norms or procedures are going to continue to stand if that future comes to pass.

Again, all I'm saying is they wouldn't vote for such a bill.  Could both be "purged" from a post-2024 Trumpian GOP enjoying unified government?  Of course.  But the point is even Trump has no interest in doing that as long as his Senate majority relies on the two of them caucusing as Republicans. 

[karaddin]

Yeah, at that point they've already overturned democracy anyway and those two senators are meaningless.

[Jaxom 1974]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, all I'm saying is they wouldn't vote for such a bill.  Could both be "purged" from a post-2024 Trumpian GOP enjoying unified government?  Of course.  But the point is even Trump has no interest in doing that as long as his Senate majority relies on the two of them caucusing as Republicans. 

Sure.  I know you're correct with that assessment.  I just don't share the optimism that something like a "Senate Majority" is really going to matter much at that point.  Guess I just expect the absolute worst in what could be coming. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, presumably they'll survive until 2026 and 2028 when their terms would be up.  Collins is up in 2026, and she might be done after that anyway, sure.  Same thing with Murkowski for that matter.  Anyway, just wanted to point out there's no way either would vote for such a bill.  They put out this two months ago - Senators Collins and Murkowski Introduce Bill to Codify Supreme Court Decisions on Reproductive Rights: Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

I understand, and it's important to remind people it's not all doom and gloom right away. That said, I expect the votes to be there in 2024 even if both of them are still in the Senate (and a quick though incomplete Google search suggest Lisa isn't a lock to win her primary).

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I just don't share the optimism that something like a "Senate Majority" is really going to matter much at that point.

Well yeah, obviously there's an underlying assumption there that the Senate still, ya know, votes and requires a majority to pass bills.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

and a quick though incomplete Google search suggest Lisa isn't a lock to win her primary

It's a blanket primary where the top four candidates advance to a general wherein ranked choice will be employed.  She'll obviously advance to the general, and and would have a good chance of beating Tshibaka even if it wasn't ranked choice.  Especially considering the Dems aren't even putting up a candidate.

[Kalbear]

Oh no the leaks

My decorum has been breached

 

[Jaxom 1974]

9 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Oh no the leaks

My decorum has been breached

 

So it probably was Alito or one of his people that actually leaked, and not some heroic staffer then, right?

[Morpheus]

Imagine complaining about procedural decorum on a night where millions want you to die in your sleep.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

13 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Oh no the leaks

My decorum has been breached

 

They must mean the earthquake caused by overturning Roe and turning the Supreme Court into an official branch of the Republican party, right? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's a blanket primary where the top four candidates advance to a general wherein ranked choice will be employed.  She'll obviously advance to the general, and and would have a good chance of beating Tshibaka even if it wasn't ranked choice.  Especially considering the Dems aren't even putting up a candidate.

Just saying it shouldn't be assumed she'll win, especially if this becomes a wedge issue between the two. It's not a stretch ti see Republicans completely abandoning her. 

2 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

They must mean the earthquake caused by overturning Roe and turning the Supreme Court into an official branch of the Republican party, right? 

It's been that way for a long time. Certainly ever since I started following politics as a preteen in the late 90's. 

[Mindwalker]

10 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

So it probably was Alito or one of his people that actually leaked, and not some heroic staffer then, right?

Not that it's the most important thing right now, but as the barriers barricades (at the Supreme Court building) were up minutes after the news broke,that's what I assume.

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, Ghjhero said:

Morally speaking, abortion has always been about terminating the life of the most defenseless. It is an abhorrent practice. I support some exceptions, but by and large it needs to go. 

Why? If abortion is indeed about terminating the life of the most defenseless, why do you support some exceptions? 

1 hour ago, Ghjhero said:

Practically speaking, not a whole lot will immediately change.

For you. Practically, a lot has already changed, with Texas's law. Right now, Oklahoma and Louisiana are overwhelmed with patients from Texas. This is nothing to what happens the day the judgment is delivered, and abortion becomes immediately illegal in these states, because of the auto-trigger laws they have in the books. Everything has changed. You'd have to be wilfully blind to miss that. 

1 hour ago, Ghjhero said:

It’s not as if abortion will now be illegal nationally. Abortion will be returned to the states for them to write their own laws as their residents see fit as should have been the case long ago. Don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to decide how to live in their own states. Federalizing contentious issues like abortion was always going to end in tears. The more say states have the better for us all. Blue states can keep Roe and red states can do away with it. 

Where does this end, though? Why shouldn't there be city/county level laws on abortion?  Why stop at the state, which, after all, is still a pretty gigantic entity?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just saying it shouldn't be assumed she'll win, especially if this becomes a wedge issue between the two. It's not a stretch ti see Republicans completely abandoning her. 

It's certainly not a given she wins but I'd say she has about a 75% chance, and this is extremely unlikely to change that.  Her support for Roe/Casey isn't anything new at all.  It's always good to remember that she won in 2010 as a write-in candidate.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Ghjhero said:

Legally speaking there never has been a right to abortion in the Constitution. Roe was horribly written law, even RBG admitted this, it was high time it was struck down. 
 

Morally speaking, abortion has always been about terminating the life of the most defenseless. It is an abhorrent practice. I support some exceptions, but by and large it needs to go. 
 

Practically speaking, not a whole lot will immediately change. It’s not as if abortion will now be illegal nationally. Abortion will be returned to the states for them to write their own laws as their residents see fit as should have been the case long ago. Don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to decide how to live in their own states. Federalizing contentious issues like abortion was always going to end in tears. The more say states have the better for us all. Blue states can keep Roe and red states can do away with it. 

Cool now do slavery, gay rights and child labor laws

[Durckad]

14 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Cool now do slavery, gay rights and child labor laws

Don't you worry. They're already working on those pesky gay rights.

[The Mance]

1 hour ago, Ghjhero said:

Don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to decide how to live in their own states.

How did Roe prevent anyone from deciding how to live in their state?  

[karaddin]

I saw someone discussing the (very likely attempt at least) upcoming overturn of Obergfell and confidently stating that they'd only block new marriages, not dissolve existing ones and I've got no idea where that confidence comes from. I could see that approach with anti miscegenation as there's a lot of gross complexity to deciding who is what race, but same sex marriage has a very clear, easily identifiable line and they are utterly convinced these are both illegitimate and an affront to their own marriages. They aren't going to just leave the existing ones.