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

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

See my follow on…

I think you're missing the point.

The people who decide whether something are legal are entirely acting with no actual care about the laws, only about the results. If they think it is a good idea to stop companies from doing this sort of thing, they'll find a reason to stop it. Heck, you may not even need a law passed; you may simply get SCOTUS to say that it is illegal for a company to directly facilitate the lawbreaking of states that company is in. Any number of bullshit reasons can be given. The reasons don't fucking matter any more.

It's all just power and whether or not they want to do it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

I think you're missing the point.

The people who decide whether something are legal are entirely acting with no actual care about the laws, only about the results. If they think it is a good idea to stop companies from doing this sort of thing, they'll find a reason to stop it. Heck, you may not even need a law passed; you may simply get SCOTUS to say that it is illegal for a company to directly facilitate the lawbreaking of states that company is in. Any number of bullshit reasons can be given. The reasons don't fucking matter any more.

It's all just power and whether or not they want to do it.

^And that’s why Trump is President not Biden?^  

I do not deny that there are outcome based holding coming out of the SCOTUS.  But they aren’t tossing out their holdings willy nilly and we do not know, with certianty, that Roe is going to be overturned… it would not surprise me at this point.  And being concerned is certainly warrented… but… we don’t know where this is going, yet.

@sologdin

Am I out in left field here?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s interference in the independent right to contract… and I suspect Rubio knows that.  This is for show.

No, it use to be for show. Now it's for real.

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

The GOP is no longer a normal political party, and I no longer assume its members will respond to normal political incentives.

They haven't been a normal, rational party for years. Current events just made things so stark.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

Rubio introducing bill to block companies from providing employees with benefits to go out of state and get abortions 

 

Ready made campaign issue for the D's. Starting to wonder - is Rubio up for reelection? Something like this might make him vulnerable.

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, it use to be for show. Now it's for real.

It’s the logical follow up to all their previous actions. 
 

[Zorral]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

being concerned is certainly warrented… but… we don’t know where this is going, yet.

Good frackin' grief, Scot.  Just stop thinking that things aren't THIS BAD when all the proof for years and years have proved things are THIS BAD and things are going to be worse.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

^And that’s why Trump is President not Biden?^  

I do not deny that there are outcome based holding coming out of the SCOTUS.  But they aren’t tossing out their holdings willy nilly and we do not know, with certianty, that Roe is going to be overturned… it would not surprise me at this point.  And being concerned is certainly warrented… but… we don’t know where this is going, yet.

@sologdin

You're being incredibly naive if you think the events between the 2020 election and Jan 6 would play out the same or better, and that was already a complete shit show and it's only been just over a year. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

29 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You're being incredibly naive if you think the events between the 2020 election and Jan 6 would play out the same or better, and that was already a complete shit show and it's only been just over a year. 

Yeah the only way Roe and a whole heap of other rights are saved if Gorsuc, Thomas, kavanuagh, or Barrett dies—or just kill them.

The later possibility makes it odd that SCJ don’t have their own secret service. 
 

[The Anti-Targ]

I would have thought the only way to get anything federal through on abortion would be to control both chambers and the White House and either be able to use reconciliation or killing the filibuster. Controlling both chambers might happen this year, controlling the White House not until an 2025 at least. So, whatever Rubio and others are doing is all for show right now. I guess the big question is, whether one or other side is mis-reading the popular mood in terms of pro-choice / pro-life and whether it is a major factor in the voting decision of swing voters in swing states/districts.

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

@DMC

If it is a revenue raising bill… isn’t it arising in the wrong House?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4131/all-info?r=3&s=1

I mean technically yeah but Rubio isn't even close to worrying about that considering the bill isn't even gonna reach the floor.  As you said, it's a messaging bill for Rubio's reelection.  Indeed, the "No Tax Breaks for Radical Corporate Activism Act" sounds a lot like DeSantis taking on Disney, doesn't it?

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'm not saying McConnell would want to do that, but he didn't really want "skinny repeal" of the ACA, either. But he voted for that, and never whipped the votes against it.

The GOP is no longer a normal political party, and I no longer assume its members will respond to normal political incentives.

Not sure why you're singling out the "skinny repeal" part, but McConnell had to try to repeal the ACA - the entire party had just ran on doing so for six straight years.  Anyway, the GOP hasn't been a normal political party for a very long time, but McConnell's behavior and actions can be reasonably predictable after all these years.  Of course, the big caveat there is "if he's still leader."

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I would have thought the only way to get anything federal through on abortion would be to control both chambers and the White House and either be able to use reconciliation or killing the filibuster. Controlling both chambers might happen this year, controlling the White House not until an 2025 at least. So, whatever Rubio and others are doing is all for show right now. I guess the big question is, whether one or other side is mis-reading the popular mood in terms of pro-choice / pro-life and whether it is a major factor in the voting decision of swing voters in swing states/districts.

If states want to sue based on Amazon flaunting the laws of that state, it can happen sooner. The bill Rubio proposes won't go anywhere until 2025, but the threat is clearly articulated and is likely to either get pushed by courts or be chilling enough that the companies quietly stop offering it.

As to popular voting issues - as we have seen, people don't tend to vote on issues. They vote by party, then by emotion, and then by economy, and not a ton else. But more importantly Republicans have spent the last 2 years, largely unimpeded, putting in rules and regulations and personnel that allow them to largely bypass the popular will. The nice thing about selecting who can vote for you is that it makes it much easier to discount people who won't, and the nice thing about ensuring the counters of votes are in your pocket is that you can simply not count those illegitimate votes - where an illegitimate vote is rightly defined as going to a non republican candidate. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

Ready made campaign issue for the D's. Starting to wonder - is Rubio up for reelection? Something like this might make him vulnerable.

He is from Florida.

[TrackerNeil]

7 hours ago, DMC said:

Not sure why you're singling out the "skinny repeal" part, but McConnell had to try to repeal the ACA - the entire party had just ran on doing so for six straight years.  

And the party has run on stopping abortion for more than thirty years. I don't see why McConnell would feel obligated to take down the ACA but free to ignore pro-lifers' demands to illegalize abortion at the national level--particularly when he is currently saying that is a possibility.

[DMC]

59 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

And the party has run on stopping abortion for more than thirty years. I don't see why McConnell would feel obligated to take down the ACA but free to ignore pro-lifers' demands to illegalize abortion at the national level--particularly when he is currently saying that is a possibility.

Except McConnell refused to abolish the filibuster - despite Trump urging him to - in order to get the ACA repealed and instead let John McCain kill the bill.  The failed ACA repeal only supports the notion McConnell won't abolish the filibuster to pass an abortion ban.

[TrackerNeil]

37 minutes ago, DMC said:

Except McConnell refused to abolish the filibuster - despite Trump urging him to - in order to get the ACA repealed and instead let John McCain kill the bill.  The failed ACA repeal only supports the notion McConnell won't abolish the filibuster to pass an abortion ban.

We'll see, I suppose. For myself, I assume that Republicans politicians will do anything, particularly the things they have said they'd do. The GOP is no longer a normal political party, and does not respond to normal political incentives.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

We'll see, I suppose. For myself, I assume that Republicans politicians will do anything, particularly the things they have said they'd do. The GOP is no longer a normal political party, and does not respond to normal political incentives.

Yeah, past behavior, even the recent past, isn't going to be a great predictor of GOP behavior going forward. It's easy to see McConnell et al. flipping on the issue in 2024 if President DeSantis tells him to.

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

He is from Florida.

Out of curiosity, what's the Florida of Germany?

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

We'll see, I suppose. For myself, I assume that Republicans politicians will do anything, particularly the things they have said they'd do.

McConnell didn't say he'd abolish the filibuster to pass an abortion ban, he just said such a ban was possible.  Which really isn't an indication of anything -- what the hell else was he supposed to say?  If he said it wasn't possible and/or he was against such a ban that would have pissed off a whole hell of a lot more of potential GOP voters than saying it is possible.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, past behavior, even the recent past, isn't going to be a great predictor of GOP behavior going forward.

Yeah I remember people on here saying this about McConnell during the debt ceiling fight last fall.  Sure enough, past behavior was a good predictor of exactly what McConnell did. 

Anyway, this has always been a really dumb and desperate way to try to shut down an argument.  If we can't use relevant evidence, then why bother even having a discussion?

[Jaxom 1974]

McConnell saying that there is a possibility of enacting a national ban feels like him trying to play chicken with the idea, a shift in how Republicans can raise more money off of the campaign to outlaw abortion on a national level...and that feels "normal", but that used to be the plan with Roe...then the crazies got too much power and Roe is about to be gone...

McConnell can say there is a path, and maybe not really mean to work towards it, but he's only got so long left to go and those poised to replace him and his generation are the same crazies that got us to where we are now.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

McConnell can say there is a path, and maybe not really mean to work towards it, but he's only got so long left to go and those poised to replace him and his generation are the same crazies that got us to where we are now.

Yeah it will be interesting to see who succeeds McConnell.  If he really wanted to ensure his successor is someone like him, he should step down after the midterms to try and install his deputy - John Thune - before the 2024 cycle.  Of course, McConnell is almost certainly more interested in continuing as leader as long as possible.