International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Captain_Swoop 26th June 2022 11:21 AM

Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Video in link

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/...02529483640832

shuttlt 26th June 2022 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
Unreasonable to a minority. And now that minority has finally got the reversal it wanted. Is that how a society progresses, by being held back by the minority? Is that democratic? Is a centuries old Constitution forever to be rigidly adhered to? Even when the framers explicitly recognized the necessity of its review and amendment at least every generation?

Sure, but it hasn't been amended to create these rights. What we are talking about is the judicial branch "discovering" new rights in the constitution, and "discovering" that rights they thought were in the Constitution are not in fact there. For the past 100 years that process has mostly favoured progressives, this is an unusual instance where it hasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
It seems to me that many folk think the SC is required to interpret the Constitution in the way Bible studies groups try to divine the meaning of the Biblical text. As though there is some as yet not fully divined understanding.

Isn't that how Roe vs Wade was decided? A new right was discovered that nobody had thought was there? Or Brown vs Board of Education. Interpretation of the Constitution is just like interpreting the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
Such thinking overlooks the real purpose of a Constitution; the provision of guidance as society evolves.

Who interprets what that guidance means in an ever changing world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
To keep true to basic tenets while accommodating the changing mores over generations. Otherwise a nation might as well remain frozen in time, like a Amish village.

Right, but if the Constitution itself is going to be reinterpreted for each generation, then each generation needs to have some common agreement on "the good". There clearly is no such agreement. The rule of law breaks down in a truly multicultural country because nobody will agree what the right accommodations are to changing times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
This revocation of a right borne of popular sentiment, and still popular, recognizing the primacy of a woman to make a decision for herself on a matter of the most personal nature, is a heinous step backward.

So you think. Other people disagree. The Constitution and the SC are intended, and functioning as, a restraint on the power of the popular will. If you want the popular will to be supreme, then you really don't want to live in a Constitutional Republic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Adams
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

You need a unifying cultural set of moral assumptions for the system to work. If you strip that out it was expected to fail from the start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
A revealing lurch toward religious control, where bodily autonomy is hijacked. Where the supposed disdain for government intrusion is revealed as an outright lie. Other rights hard won are soon to fall. The path to the Christian version of modern Iran under the Muslim Mullahs is becoming well paved. A State religion will soon enough be implemented. All hail our Christian overlords!

Your vision of progress isn't an intrinsic part of the direction of the system. If your vision of progress doesn't win, it doesn't mean that the system is broken.

newyorkguy 26th June 2022 11:29 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Comment from Barbara Streisand.
Quote:

Streisand...said on Friday following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade that the court used "religious dogma to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. This Court is the American Taliban." Fox. yes FOX, News link
Religious dogma is the reason some states have outlawed abortion for victims of rape or incest. Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt said the quiet part out loud recently in an interview with Fox News in defending no exceptions for victims of rape or incest..
Quote:

Stitt said, “We believe that God has a special plan for every single life and every single child...” Rolling Stone link

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13841845)
Isn't remarkable how duplicitous Republicans are, the party you support, the so-called "Party of Small Government" that wants the Government to stay out of people's lives, but is quite happy to have that same government...

- Control a woman's right to exercise her own health choices.
- Control a persons right to love/marry/ whom they choose.
- Control the education of young people to prevent them from learning the inconvenient truth about their history.
- Control businesses whose messaging conflicts with the government's messaging.
- Control schools' efforts to prevent transmission of disease by banning mask mandates
- Control business' efforts to keep workers safe by banning vaccine passes and vaccine mandates

This is what American Freedom really looks like, the ripping away of human rights to satisfy a political agenda...

America.. The land of the free (free to do and say anything you like so long as we agree with it)
America.. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but only if they're white and Christian!

While the rest of the civilized world progresses to greater and greater freedoms and liberties for its peoples, the USA takes a step back towards the dark ages. When the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, uses the opinions of jurists from centuries ago - opinions that were used to justify the prosecutions and execution of witches, you know they have lost the plot, and the end is near. It won't be long before y'all will be burning witches at the stake again.

It's really adding up, isn't it. :(:mad:

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2022 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13842011)
Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Video in link

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/...02529483640832

Arm every fetus with an AR-15?

ZiprHead 26th June 2022 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841881)
I simply cannot see any moral or humane justification for abortion after the baby has a heartbeat and brain activity, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. I think states should encourage rape and incest victims to have their babies and give them up for adoption, but I can understand why many victims would not want to do that.

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a uterus or vagina.

ZiprHead 26th June 2022 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 13841945)
I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

Technically no pregnancy ever occurred without a male ejaculating.

cosmicaug 26th June 2022 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841760)
If the SCOTUS goes on a tear to hand back control of more and more rights to the States, the already dis-United States of America will only become further Balkanized. I just cannot see how such a hodgepodge could remain as a homogenous nation working toward a common future.

Why would they do that? They have not done it with firearms. They'll rule for "state's rights" if it serves their ideology and if it serves their ideology they'll also rule for expansive federal powers and against "state's rights" even if it conflicts with some precedent that they may have set the day before.

Seriously, do you really think that if we ever get a federal abortion ban & it gets challenged the SCOTUS will call it a state matter & strike it down?

Cain 26th June 2022 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 13841945)
I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

I saw a bumper-sticker: "Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood."

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 02:23 PM

Possible actions by Congress:
NC scholar: With Roe gone, Congress should suspend the Supreme Court
Quote:

I had hoped, intensely, this wouldn’t actually come. But the Dobbs case has been handed down. Unvarnished. Lawless. Dishonest. Heedless of the damage that will now immediately ensue. Hideously ideological, unelected hacks have moved to inflict their politics and their religion on a non-consenting nation. Now we all reap the whirlwind. ...

So, in Washington, Democrats must act. First, the party must clearly state the mission. It must demand, therefore, the enactment of legislation codifying Roe v. Wade. Now. The bill should be as clean and sparse as possible to build the broadest coalition. It’s not time for a Christmas tree. ...

The elected branches of government must fight back. So next, as has occurred before in our history, the Congress should pass legislation postponing the next term of the Supreme Court. A quick and bold shot across the bow; declaring this will not stand. ...

Next, after Roe is codified, the Congress should remove the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear abortion cases. The constitution grants such power. And the Court that handed down Dobbs will not be hesitant to invalidate a new statute codifying Roe – though it has no conceivable authority to do so. ...

And, it is obvious to state, if these steps fail, the Supreme Court should be packed. Happily. These faux-judges can’t be allowed to do what the Confederacy couldn’t. And if we can’t get Democratic politicians to do all this, we have to get some new ones who will. Immediately.

I concede this sounds extreme. But the fact is, this is the trauma we face. Pretending otherwise won’t help. The clock is ticking. Democracy calls.
Reading the whole article is worthwhile. There's a lot more I didn't quote.

Also, the comments are full of right-wing trolls. They could use a few more intelligent replies.

Stacyhs 26th June 2022 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13841933)
Er - wasn't there a constitutional amendment that specifically outlawed slavery? I don't recall any SC ruling that emancipated slaves (at least not prior to the 14th amendment).

The 13th Amendment outlawing slavery was passed by Congress on Jan. 31, 1865. No Confederate state voted as they had no representatives in Congress. It was only ratified in Dec. 1865 after the war ended the preceding April because its ratification was a requirement for the ex-Confederate states to get representation in Congress again. Otherwise, it never would have passed ratification.

Quote:

Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?
Yes. As in desegregation; Brown vs. Board of Education.

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 02:56 PM

Possible actions by Congress continued, a link within the link in my above post:
538

Quote:

Who Can Stop The Supreme Court?
Congress and the president have historically reined in the justices when they’ve gone against public opinion.

... In the past, Congress, the president and state governments have openly defied controversial Supreme Court rulings. Congress can also regulate the types of cases the court is allowed to hear or dilute a recalcitrant majority by “packing” the court with ideologically sympathetic justices.

... But when they have, the court avoided formal retaliation — like being remade into a 15-member chamber — because the justices ultimately backed down. ...

Perhaps the most famous example of a Supreme Court brought to task by the other branches of government was in the 1930s, which also happened to be the last time the court was controlled by a strong conservative majority. The country was in the depths of the Great Depression, and the Supreme Court was aggressively striking down President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s progressive economic legislation, which was widely popular at the time. Finally, Roosevelt announced a plan to increase the size of the court by as many as six justices. The scheme ultimately collapsed in Congress — and may have done some damage to Roosevelt’s popularity in the process — but not before one of the right-leaning justices suddenly began voting to uphold New Deal laws that were identical to ones he had voted to gut only a year earlier.

... When the Supreme Court seemed likely to halt Reconstruction’s progress, Congress repeatedly changed the size of the court for political ends and revoked the court’s ability to review a case that could have threatened military rule in the South — a decision the court itself upheld. ...

Even in moments when the court has taken steps to shore up a controversial decision, a backlash has first delayed the enforcement of the ruling and eventually set the stage for the court to back down.
Again the article is much longer and includes the historical details where these actions actually were taken by Congress to rein in the SCOTUS.

tyr_13 26th June 2022 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 13841945)
I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

'Fun' fact; Facebook has marked that picture as threatening violence and not in line with their community standards. People are being suspended and banned for posting it.

Actual threats by right wingers don't count, but pro-Roe signs get marked down in a day.

Brainster 26th June 2022 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13842089)
Possible actions by Congress:
NC scholar: With Roe gone, Congress should suspend the Supreme CourtReading the whole article is worthwhile. There's a lot more I didn't quote.

Also, the comments are full of right-wing trolls. They could use a few more intelligent replies.

Seriously that was written by a law-school prof who claims that Congress can suspend the Supreme Court. Sounds more like Dick the Butcher.

newyorkguy 26th June 2022 05:54 PM

Can Congress strip a co-equal branch of government of its powers? Isn't that contradictory. But the argument that Congress can is based on Article III of the Constitution which states: “The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Below is a quote from a blog published in 2020 by legal firm Rasmussen Dickey Moore, published as Amy Comey Barrett was being sworn in.

Quote:

This “exception” clause has been accepted as giving Congress the power to remove appellate review from the Supreme Court. But Congress can never remove the Court’s original jurisdiction over disputes between states, actions involving various public officials, disputes between the United States and a state, and proceedings by a state against the citizens or aliens of another state. The sanctity of original jurisdiction was enshrined in the famous Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803. Jurisdiction stripping is not a new idea. Congress stripped the Supreme Court of the power to hear specific cases as early as 1869 in Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 and continues to do so. RDM link

I guess there were lawyers who saw this coming. :(

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyr_13 (Post 13842118)
'Fun' fact; Facebook has marked that picture as threatening violence and not in line with their community standards. People are being suspended and banned for posting it.

Actual threats by right wingers don't count, but pro-Roe signs get marked down in a day.

It's because the right-wingers report posts en masse. They have flooded the internet with their trolling POV.

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13842141)
Seriously that was written by a law-school prof who claims that Congress can suspend the Supreme Court. Sounds more like Dick the Butcher.

And another link commented on by someone who clearly didn't read it.

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13842151)
Can Congress strip a co-equal branch of government of its powers? Isn't that contradictory. But the argument that Congress can is based on Article III of the Constitution which states: “The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

Below is a quote from a blog published in 2020 by legal firm Rasmussen Dickey Moore, published as Amy Comey Barrett was being sworn in.

I guess there were lawyers who saw this coming. :(

There are examples of these actions that were actually put in place by Congress in my links.

The thing is, who is going to enforce the SCOTUS decisions if the Congress passed legislation overriding them? And that needs to start right now with federal legislation codifying the right to choose.

In the past some Southern states tried to ignore civil rights legislation to desegregate schools and the federal government sent in troops to enforce the legislation. If the Democrats retain control of the Congress and the Presidency, who is going to stop them protecting abortion rights in states that want to ban abortions?

It means we need to show overwhelming strength this Nov. If we keep letting the minority rule, even after this, then we are in big trouble because this Christian theocracy is not going to stop at banning abortions.

psionl0 26th June 2022 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13842096)
Quote:

Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?
Yes. As in desegregation; Brown vs. Board of Education.

After the recent ruling you still trust the SC more than the states? :jaw-dropp

Stacyhs 26th June 2022 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Quote:

Quote:
Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?
Quote:

Yes. As in desegregation; Brown vs. Board of Education.
Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13842209)
After the recent ruling you still trust the SC more than the states? :jaw-dropp

That does not change history nor the fact that yes, some states are that untrustworthy.
Several SC cases have dealt with states and redistricting around race. Guess which states were the most egregious? Hint: they weren't on the West Coast or in New England.

Shaw v. Reno, (1993) North Carolina
Miller v. Johnson, (1995) Georgia
Cooper v. Harris, (2017) North Carolina

psionl0 26th June 2022 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13842261)
That does not change history nor the fact that yes, some states are that untrustworthy.
Several SC cases have dealt with states and redistricting around race. Guess which states were the most egregious? Hint: they weren't on the West Coast or in New England.

Shaw v. Reno, (1993) North Carolina
Miller v. Johnson, (1995) Georgia
Cooper v. Harris, (2017) North Carolina

Shhh! Considering the current make up of the SC, they might decide to revisit those cases again.

wareyin 27th June 2022 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841012)
And that still should have been a reason for the dems to have made it law... they have had numerous opportunities to do so and never bothered... and of course this is because they did not want to since most of them are staunchly religious themselves.

I'm curious. Had the Dems moved to make it a law rather than relying on it being Constitutional, what makes you think that the Reps wouldn't have overturned such a law the minute they gained power? At least with abortion being a settled, constitutional right (wink wink, right Kavenaugh?) it wasn't going to just become illegal every 2-4 years when Congress changed hands.

kookbreaker 27th June 2022 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13842454)
I'm curious. Had the Dems moved to make it a law rather than relying on it being Constitutional, what makes you think that the Reps wouldn't have overturned such a law the minute they gained power? At least with abortion being a settled, constitutional right (wink wink, right Kavenaugh?) it wasn't going to just become illegal every 2-4 years when Congress changed hands.

Yeah, I’d rather not depend on Republican incompetence and stray dissenting votes to keep that in place. Look at how the ACA barely survived 2016-2018.

bruto 27th June 2022 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kookbreaker (Post 13842466)
Yeah, I’d rather not depend on Republican incompetence and stray dissenting votes to keep that in place. Look at how the ACA barely survived 2016-2018.

True enough, but remember "barely survived" is a form of survival. I do believe it's not unreasonable for the D. party to have presumed that Roe V Wade had made a law unnecessary, and for them to have decided not to open the legislative can of worms, but it seems to be harder to eliminate a law than to pass it, so I kind of wish they had tried.

Delphic Oracle 27th June 2022 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13842475)
True enough, but remember "barely survived" is a form of survival. I do believe it's not unreasonable for the D. party to have presumed that Roe V Wade had made a law unnecessary, and for them to have decided not to open the legislative can of worms, but it seems to be harder to eliminate a law than to pass it, so I kind of wish they had tried.

Well, maybe that used to be true.

bruto 27th June 2022 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle (Post 13842480)
Well, maybe that used to be true.

True, it's not always so, and there are no guarantees, but I think that the longer a law exists, and is found livable, the harder it is to persuade people to get rid of it, so I would have been happier if the principle of Roe V. Wade had been legislated and been around for a while.

Skeptic Ginger 27th June 2022 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13842475)
True enough, but remember "barely survived" is a form of survival. I do believe it's not unreasonable for the D. party to have presumed that Roe V Wade had made a law unnecessary, and for them to have decided not to open the legislative can of worms, but it seems to be harder to eliminate a law than to pass it, so I kind of wish they had tried.

Hindsight.

catsmate 27th June 2022 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13841347)
What the **** do you even mean?

Desperate efforts not to deal with recent events.

Segnosaur 27th June 2022 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13842454)
I'm curious. Had the Dems moved to make it a law rather than relying on it being Constitutional, what makes you think that the Reps wouldn't have overturned such a law the minute they gained power? At least with abortion being a settled, constitutional right (wink wink, right Kavenaugh?) it wasn't going to just become illegal every 2-4 years when Congress changed hands.

Ore importantly, even if the Democrats had codified abortion protection at the federal level, why would anyone expect that to he supreme Court would have allowed the law to stand? The same justices that relied on an expert who believed in witchcraft would likely find some way to strike down federal protections for abortion.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

Bob001 27th June 2022 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segnosaur (Post 13842674)
Ore importantly, even if the Democrats had codified abortion protection at the federal level, why would anyone expect that to he supreme Court would have allowed the law to stand? The same justices that relied on an expert who believed in witchcraft would likely find some way to strike down federal protections for abortion.
....

That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.

Delphic Oracle 27th June 2022 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13842688)
That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.

Several decisions over the last few weeks make it clear they have no intention of following any kind of Constitutionally based consistency in their rulings.

shuttlt 27th June 2022 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13842688)
That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.

Isn't it at least notionally the other way around? The law would need to have some basis in the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Now, there has been at least 60 years where the court has allowed the powers of Congress to expand into territories previously thought reserved to the States, but there is nothing absolutely preventing that trend being reversed.

bruto 27th June 2022 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13842661)
Hindsight.

Yes, it's hindsight. Like the people now criticized by some for inaction, I did not think it necessary before. And yes, it should never have become an issue.

lomiller 27th June 2022 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13842265)
Shhh! Considering the current make up of the SC, they might decide to revisit those cases again.

Probably. Eight wingers will do everything in their power to undermine basic human rights and freedom, and of course the right wing peanut gallery will cheer the whole way.

Segnosaur 27th June 2022 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13842688)
Quote:

Ore importantly, even if the Democrats had codified abortion protection at the federal level, why would anyone expect that to he supreme Court would have allowed the law to stand? The same justices that relied on an expert who believed in witchcraft would likely find some way to strike down federal protections for abortion.
That's possible, but they would have to find some Constitutional basis to do so. And since they've already determined that the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, that might be hard.

You are talking about hardcore idealogues on the supreme court. They can come up with an excuse that is paper thin and totally defies rational thinking, and there is nothing that can be done to reverse their decision. They can do pretty much anything they want. When you have hundreds of years of supreme court rulings, not to mention centuries of civil law, dozens of documents written by founding fathers, etc. you can find SOMETHING to support your ruling, even if 99% of other sources say the complete opposite.

As I pointed out before... Alito actually referred to Matthew Hale (who prosecuted people for WITCHRAFT) when he wrote the abortion decision. If that's not a sign that "all sense of logic is gone" then I don't know what is.

mikegriffith1 27th June 2022 02:55 PM

The seven judges who gave us Roe v. Wade read miles between the lines of the Constitution to find a non-existent federal abortion right. Justice Marshall admitted years later that Roe was made up of "whole cloth." They ignored all precedent, and also ignored the fact that when the Constitution was ratified, several states had laws against abortion and not a single founding father expressed any concern about those laws.

Thanks to a sane Supreme Court, the issue of abortion is now back where it was intended to be handled, and where it should have been left in 1973: with the states.

kookbreaker 27th June 2022 03:49 PM

Just trolling at this point.

d4m10n 27th June 2022 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13842892)
Thanks to a sane Supreme Court, the issue of abortion is now back where it was intended to be handled, and where it should have been left in 1973: with the states.

[emoji208] GOP doesn't seem to agree.

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/gop...rictions-dobbs

Skeptic Ginger 27th June 2022 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13842835)
Yes, it's hindsight. Like the people now criticized by some for inaction, I did not think it necessary before. And yes, it should never have become an issue.

:confused:

Do you think I'm criticizing people for inaction?

Nope. I'm pointing out that there are things people can do who claim there is nothing they can do (presumably because they are in blue states or districts).

And it doesn't require more than they are doing right now, amplifying their sentiments on social media.

My point is to counter the pessimism and it's not magical thinking.

bruto 27th June 2022 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13842975)
:confused:

Do you think I'm criticizing people for inaction?

Nope. I'm pointing out that there are things people can do who claim there is nothing they can do (presumably because they are in blue states or districts).

And it doesn't require more than they are doing right now, amplifying their sentiments on social media.

My point is to counter the pessimism and it's not magical thinking.

REgarding criticism I was not referring to you. Others have indeed criticized the Democrats for not following up on Roe V. Wade with legislation. I think many thought (and it should have been true) that the right was affirmed, especially after 50 years. To note that we might have acted differently if we'd only known what reactionary insanity would come to power is not to misidentify the villains.

I have been hearing a good bit about how this recent judgment, an overall minority position, is motivating people to vote and take action. I am resolved to stay at least slightly optimistic in the hope that this is true, and that this whole thing ends up biting the reactionary trend in the ass. I am not convinced that it will, but we can hope.

Skeptic Ginger 27th June 2022 05:50 PM

Re the impact of this Christian fundy decision on Nov election: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll: The Overturning of Roe v. Wade, June 2022
Majority Opposes Overturning Roe v. Wade... More than Six in Ten Say Decision Will Push Them to the Polls in November
Quote:

In a majority decision, the United States Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade which, for nearly fifty years, guaranteed access to abortion in the United States. However, majorities of Americans oppose the Court’s ruling and have concerns that the decision will have broader constitutional implications. Following the decision, President Joe Biden asserted that Roe will be on the ballot in November. 61% of Americans agree, saying the Court’s decision will make them more likely to vote in this year’s midterm elections, and, by a double-digit margin (15 points), they think the decision will motivate them to vote for a congressional candidate who will support federal legislation that will restore the protections of Roe v. Wade.
CBS News poll: Americans react to overturning of Roe v. Wade
Quote:

Across demographic groups, younger people are especially likely to disapprove; most moderates disapprove along with nine in 10 liberals; two-thirds of Hispanic Americans disapprove, three-fourths of Black Americans and just over half of White Americans disapprove. ...

While the overturning of Roe has elicited strong feelings, it's not an issue most Americans say has made them any more or less likely to vote in the midterms this year. But for those who report a change in motivation right now, Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to say the Supreme Court's decision will make them more likely to vote.

Stacyhs 27th June 2022 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13842892)
The seven judges who gave us Roe v. Wade read miles between the lines of the Constitution to find a non-existent federal abortion right. Justice Marshall admitted years later that Roe was made up of "whole cloth." They ignored all precedent, and also ignored the fact that when the Constitution was ratified, several states had laws against abortion and not a single founding father expressed any concern about those laws.

Thanks to a sane Supreme Court, the issue of abortion is now back where it was intended to be handled, and where it should have been left in 1973: with the states.

Not a single Founding Father expressed any concern about the laws in the states denying women the right to vote or the fact that married women lost their legal identify, could not control their own money, own property, or sign legal documents. But, what the hell, right?

shemp 27th June 2022 07:46 PM

If there's one thing that I've learned in my life, it's that political polls are ********. I'll believe it if it comes true when the votes are counted.

psionl0 27th June 2022 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13843028)
Not a single Founding Father expressed any concern about the laws in the states denying women the right to vote or the fact that married women lost their legal identify, could not control their own money, own property, or sign legal documents. But, what the hell, right?

I can't find who said it now but it has been pointed out that taking an "originalist" view of the constitution means taking into account only the views of white male slave owners and disenfranchising the rest.

Bob001 27th June 2022 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13843080)
If there's one thing that I've learned in my life, it's that political polls are ********. I'll believe it if it comes true when the votes are counted.

What votes? Election polls are snapshots in time. Candidates can gain or lose support in days. But polls about political and social beliefs tend to be reliable and consistent. Someone who supported Roe v. Wade last week or last month or 30 years ago is not likely to change his mind overnight. And numerous polls over years and decades indicate that a substantial majority of Americans want abortion to be legal and available on the terms, more or less, than Roe provides. If the issue was presented in a national referendum, legal abortion would win.

Skeptic Ginger 27th June 2022 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13843080)
If there's one thing that I've learned in my life, it's that political polls are ********. I'll believe it if it comes true when the votes are counted.

Seems to be quite the theme here, this is no different than anything else we libruls said would matter.

:popcorn1

TheGoldcountry 28th June 2022 12:52 AM

The Republicans have plenty of time to make the hot topic something else by November. They'll get their base fired up about drag queens, or CRT, or some other ******** issue. They're one-issue voters, but that doesn't mean the one issue can't change. They're serial monogamists, in love with the latest "threat to America" of the moment.

smartcooky 28th June 2022 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13843085)
I can't find who said it now but it has been pointed out that taking an "originalist" view of the constitution means taking into account only the views of white male slave owners and disenfranchising the rest.

This sounded familiar, so I did some checking

I think was Jeffrey Toobin, an American lawyer, author, political commentator and legal analyst for CNN

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...oking-backward

Toobin was talking about SC Justice Antonin Scalia a short time after his death - he said "But it was in his jurisprudence that Scalia most self-consciously looked to the past. He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century."

You can tell Toobin had little, if any respect for Scalia..... "Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy."

Difficult to argue with his point of view, and difficult to argue that this current SCOTUS seems hell-bent on continuing Scalia's work!

Warp12 28th June 2022 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13843174)
This sounded familiar, so I did some checking

I think was Jeffrey Toobin, an American lawyer, author, political commentator and legal analyst for CNN

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...oking-backward

Toobin was talking about SC Justice Antonin Scalia a short time after his death - he said "But it was in his jurisprudence that Scalia most self-consciously looked to the past. He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century."

You can tell Toobin had little, if any respect for Scalia..... "Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy."

Difficult to argue with his point of view, and difficult to argue that this current SCOTUS seems hell-bent on continuing Scalia's work!


To be fair, it is hard to take Toobin seriously, and especially the matter of whether he has respect for others. I disregard his opinion on Scalia.

The Great Zaganza 28th June 2022 02:17 AM

for the current SC, Scalia was a left-wing extremist who hated Christianity.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.