Week Posted May 3, 2022 Author Share Posted May 3, 2022 Yes, this. Take some action. NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: I mean, it's just the minimum wage being scrapped. It's not like their bringing back actual slavery. Just large corporations paying workers $2.00 an hour for their labor. Wage theft for everyone! Mandatory overtime, no more slacking! Work breaks? "We gave you a break when we hired you!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 35 minutes ago, DMC said: As has been suggested, they move on to other privacy rights and precedents. Sure. But none of those will ever be the lightning rod that Roe was when it comes to firing up the base...all of those other items are too fresh, the indignation against them isn't as ingrained. Oh sure they'll garner some cash, but nothing like they'd gotten with fighting Roe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 It's an outrage that the banner of breaking news at the top of the Washington Post isn't SCOTUS conspires to overthrow Roe v. Wade, but, that there will be a major investigation into how it was leaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 13 minutes ago, Fez said: Presumably they also wait to see if there's any significant backlash. Officeholders, probably, but the activists and their lawyers aren't gonna wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 8 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: Sure. But none of those will ever be the lightning rod that Roe was when it comes to firing up the base...all of those other items are too fresh, the indignation against them isn't as ingrained. Oh sure they'll garner some cash, but nothing like they'd gotten with fighting Roe... Banning gay marriage galvanized the base really damn well for Dubya in 2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 Who better embodies modern Conservative jurisprudence than a literal killer of women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 1 minute ago, DMC said: Banning gay marriage galvanized the base really damn well for Dubya in 2004. This is true but I don't think the right want to re-fight the battles of the 2000s and even a significant percentage of Republicans support gay marriage these days. It's just not the lightening rod issue it was and a lot of Republicans have conceded they lost this fight, the never conceded abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 Quote Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, believes there are more developments to come: This might not be the final ruling. The justices usually confer after arguments and suggest how they would resolve a case and then the senior justices in the majority and minority work on drafts and circulate them to all members of the court. Then the justices can attempt to persuade members who differ to change their votes. Usually justices do not change their initial positions. However, in some cases, especially high-profile and controversial ones, like those involving abortion, justices do change their positions, as chief justice [John] Roberts allegedly did in 2012 [in which the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, was upheld]. Still holding out hope this isnt the final ruling, but I think most justice's minds must be set at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 13 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Still holding out hope this isnt the final ruling, but I think most justice's minds must be set at this point. I think some of the rough edges will definitely be filed off but the final ruling will definitely overturn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 1 minute ago, Darzin said: I don't think the right want to re-fight the battles of the 2000s and even a significant percentage of Republicans support gay marriage these days. It's just not the lightening rod issue it was and a lot of Republicans have conceded they lost this fight Not true. You don't live here and you don't see it and hear it banged on 24/7 in the frakin' 'heartland. They aren't Republicans anymore either. They are the authoritarian white male xtian nationalist party. Their stated goal as is that of Putin, is to rid the world of democracy and every right democracy (supposedly) upholds and stands for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 9 minutes ago, Darzin said: This is true but I don't think the right want to re-fight the battles of the 2000s and even a significant percentage of Republicans support gay marriage these days. It's just not the lightening rod issue it was and a lot of Republicans have conceded they lost this fight, the never conceded abortion. Anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric has violently exploded the past few months, they are literally painting all non cis, straight people as groomers and pedos. Florida is the new model for Republicans. Gay marriage is without a shred of doubt the next to go, these people never give up old battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 2 minutes ago, Darzin said: This is true but I don't think the right want to re-fight the battles of the 2000s and even a significant percentage of Republicans support gay marriage these days. It's just not the lightening rod issue it was and a lot of Republicans have conceded they lost this fight, the never conceded abortion. Yes, I do think there will be an internal battle among the right on whether to directly target Obergefell. Of course, that's not gonna stop them from going after other gay and trans rights in the meantime. And from a legal standpoint what they're going after is the establishment of privacy rights in Griswold etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 25 minutes ago, Zorral said: A lawyer amigo observes: A commentator on NPR suggested, this morning, that this could be a leak from a Conservative Justice’s office seeking to stiffen the resolve of Republican appointed Justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionwe1987 Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 Whether this shifts voting patterns or not depends on how Democrats handle the messaging on this. They should promptly write up a bill that would guarantee the right to abortion nationally, give it a name that is easy to remember and hard to object to, and then have every single candidate vow to back the law. Have their GoP opponents publicly state they'd oppose the law, which they will, because there's talk of Republicans proposing a national ban to galvanize their base. Simultaneously, the Dems should use this to educate their voters on how critical the composition of the Supreme Court is, and thus why they need a strong enough Senate majority to end the filibuster, which should also be in the platform of all Dem senate candidates. Make the election about this, have clear messaging, sell it will to the majority that agrees, and it's conceivable the midterm tides could turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 21 minutes ago, DMC said: Banning gay marriage galvanized the base really damn well for Dubya in 2004. Yes. But I think your battle internally is going to be about those looking to cash in on the idea of overturning something and those for whom the idea is the return to the 1820s... Right now, the authoritarians are winning that fight and those who want to make the money off of the cause are powerless to stop them. Inmates are running the asylum now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 8 hours ago, karaddin said: One danger I haven't seen mentioned with this is that they're not even content to drive abortions underground making them unsafe, they're very gung ho about identifying and charging women that have abortions, including out of state etc, not to many women that simply miscarry while someone doesn't like them and decides to claim it was an abortion. The part I haven't seen mentioned is that we now have mass data harvesting from our online activity which can do things like claim to identify when someone is pregnant and can certainly identify someone looking for information on abortions, and the government can buy this information without any 4th amendment concerns. Jesus fucking Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 7 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said: Yes. But I think your battle internally is going to be about those looking to cash in on the idea of overturning something and those for whom the idea is the return to the 1820s... I don't really get the distinction. Obviously, when turning their attention to other privacy rights that will also entail the "idea" of overturning certain cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 12 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said: They should promptly write up a bill that would guarantee the right to abortion nationally, give it a name that is easy to remember and hard to object to, and then have every single candidate vow to back the law. Have their GoP opponents publicly state they'd oppose the law, which they will, because there's talk of Republicans proposing a national ban to galvanize their base. They did this a couple months ago: Quote The Senate on Monday took its first ever vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill aimed at codifying the right to an abortion. Democrats hoped to use the vote to show support for abortion rights as they come under attack in numerous states, and as they face a challenge in the Supreme Court. The vote, as expected, failed: Republicans broadly opposed the legislation and filibustered it, so the bill was unable to advance. The final vote count was 46-48, with all present Democrats except Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) voting in favor of opening debate on the legislation, and no Republicans doing so. Both Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who’ve been longtime supporters of abortion rights, made it clear they wouldn’t be signing onto the Women’s Health Protection Act because they felt it would supersede certain state laws they support. The two put out a joint statement ahead of the vote introducing their own bill, which centered on codifying the protections established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The bill passed the House last September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted May 3, 2022 Share Posted May 3, 2022 4 hours ago, Ghjhero said: Lots of hysterics out there, but this about sums it up best. If you really believe this, it shows how detached you are from reality. We are not overturning slavery laws lolll, give me a break. To be really clear I'm using your logic against you. Why not let the states decide about slavery? Why not let the states decide about gay marriage? Why not let the states decide about child labor, or child marriage, or marital rape, or contraception? What is different about this right being curtailed that makes it okay for states to enumerate it, and those rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.