The All Things Political Topic - Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one

[Gorth]

12 minutes ago, Malcador said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000180-874f-dd36-a38c-c74f98520000

Going to be a hunt for whoever leaked this

I don't have a stake in this... so just curious. How did the original ruling (Roe/Wade) justify this being covered by the constitution rather than elected governments?

 

[alanschu]

On 4/28/2022 at 12:34 AM, Chairchucker said:

Also we've got preferential voting, so even if (when) they 'both' suck you can vote for someone else and still contribute to keeping the less good candidate out of power.

One of the biggest things that pisses me off about Trudeau is his wishy washy, released in the wee hours of the morning with little attention, survey regarding election reform that quickly concluded "doesn't seem to be much interest in election reform. Welp, I guess we just have to keep the current system that greatly rewards my part in place." I intensely abhor first past the post voting and how it benefits established, incumbent parties even in a multi-party parliamentary system.

It seems trivial on the surface to recognize that a system that often encourages "voting for a lesser evil" to defeat some other, greater evil, innately downplays what large swaths of the electorate would actually like their government to do.

On 4/28/2022 at 5:55 AM, Amentep said:

I'm not sure how anyone can disagree but...they apparently do?   I can only hope she gets defeated.

I do think there's, unfortunately, a very real sentiment of "yeah she pisses off the libs." But that said, the manifestation of QAnon type stuff is equal parts surreal and scary to me and here we are.

4 hours ago, Malcador said:

Going to be a hunt for whoever leaked this

I do enjoy how the leak itself is seemingly a contender for all time worst things to happen in US history according to some. (The leak, not what the leak contains. Just that something was leaked).
I do love that apparently something that isn't "deeply rooted in history" is something not worthy of consideration too.

Edited May 3, 2022 by alanschu

[Gromnir]

7 hours ago, Gorth said:

I don't have a stake in this... so just curious. How did the original ruling (Roe/Wade) justify this being covered by the constitution rather than elected governments?

 

good luck with that. roe were decided 7:2, but there were three concurrences, which meant there were effective four different justifications for roe.

...

some ineffable alchemy o' the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments, in addition to griswold v. connecticut privacy notions plus a possible nod to substantive due process results in abortions being granted the status o' a fundamental right, but a fundamental right which nevertheless must be considered in light o' a state's desire to protect the lives o' unborn children. at conception, 'ccording to roe, a mother's privacy rights 'tween her and her doctor as she seeks medical treatment is paramount, but with each passing day, the state's interest in protecting unborn children grows. is why otherwise arbitrary trimesters is so important when discussing abortion law in the US.

if any o' that clarified the situation, then you are likely taking high grade drugs and we applaud you and your doctor... or whomever might be the recreational chemist responsible for your altered and enlightened state.

roe is a mess. 

the problem with the J. alito opinion overturning roe is it indulges the same kinda fuzzy reasoning as did roe while pretending to be a textualist interpretation. is a pandora's box scenario as the aforementioned griswold's right to privacy, as well as a whole bunch o' other substantive rights didn't have the weight o' tradition and history to support their recognition as fundamental when SCOTUS created.  another J. alito opinion, american legion v. american humanist association (2019),  held that giant cross were okie dokie on public land in part if it had managed to endure long enough. same tradition and history which supports giant crosses woulda' no doubt failed with an enormous star o' david or a colossal basalt statue o' baphomet, eh? the current abortion case might as well be a cf cite to the maryland cross case. tradition and history. history and tradition. is too many instances o' Justices getting history horrible wrong btw. 

the original right to abortion came about 'cause The Court saw some kinda fundamental right as having evolved from the ether. sure, the founders wouldn't have recognized a mother's right to abortion during the first trimester, but at some unspecified point, american society changed such that abortion became as fundamental and integral as any enumerated right. maybe such ill defined rights bother you. maybe they don't. however, J. alito takes a position which makes conservative approved values which is failing to be enumerated in The Constitution more likely to gain recognition as a right, 'cause by definition those conservative values is gonna have the weight o' tradition and history, yes? could be a history o' corruption, bigotry and ignominy, but most history is, right? so where does the present case leave a right to privacy or the recent created right to same-sex marriage? 

am not shocked this Court killed roe, 'cause roe were always suspect law. the thing is, Congress has known there were a problem for many decades and they were too cowardly to do anything 'bout the problem. republicans wanted to keep the abortion talking point w/o needing to actual fight the battle. democrats didn't wanna lose catholics, who btw in spite o' abortion issue split almost 50/50 on biden/trump.

brown v. board of education also had legal shortcomings, but Congress, in their torpid way, managed to address those problems after a decade of strife. 

near fifty years has elapsed since roe and most washington politicians has been aware the decision were a corroded landmine which were eventual gonna need to be disposed. unfortunately, The Court has always been the least adept branch for disposing o' such dangers. is no SCOTUS authority to explore public policy issues or implement street level changes. The Court is only capable o' making extreme broad pronouncements and they all too frequent ignore practicalities. individual state and local governments is gonna need figure out how to navigate the new post roe landscape. innocents will suffer. we likely won't see apocalyptic scenarios play out, but there will be an unnecessary figurative and literal body count from this decision. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps the ray walston (boothby) addition is 'cause we wanted to work in a star trek angle. after all, is our position every obsidian post is trek related whether you realize it or not.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

8 hours ago, Gorth said:

I don't have a stake in this... so just curious. How did the original ruling (Roe/Wade) justify this being covered by the constitution rather than elected governments?

 

I support pro-choice and always will but if Roe vs Wade is overturned it just means the states will decide which is what is basically happening now if  you think of Texas?

And if the majority of citizens in each state dont like that they must vote for the Democrats and not support the GOP 

I see this as an unfortunate but honest reflection of what the majority of people in each state want. And any women living in a pro-life state can just travel to a  pro-choice state if they want an abortion. Its not  like its been made illegal across the whole of the US

[Guard Dog]

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

Make is simple, clean, don't hide a bunch of nebulous s--t in it so it turns into a 2k page rubber fire that frightened congress critters would feel justified in opposing. Keep all on one page and make it a simple yea or nay vote on permitting abortion or any other medical service offered by a licensed medical professional. Out of the 435 reps in the House I guarantee you 3/4 would be scared s-----ss to oppose it. 

[Bartimaeus]

If Congress had 60 Democratic senators that could all agree to do that, I suppose they could. Or they could get about 52 and eliminate or at least reform the filibuster and do it, but I'm not sure how many people want that. The chances of Democrats ever having the senators required to do that, particularly at the same time they hold the presidency and House of Representatives...is not great.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[Deadly_Nightshade]

23 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

But that would require congress both be useful and competent... So the likelihood of that actually passing seems essentially nonexistent even if the votes were there. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Pidesco]

25 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

Make is simple, clean, don't hide a bunch of nebulous s--t in it so it turns into a 2k page rubber fire that frightened congress critters would feel justified in opposing. Keep all on one page and make it a simple yea or nay vote on permitting abortion or any other medical service offered by a licensed medical professional. Out of the 435 reps in the House I guarantee you 3/4 would be scared s-----ss to oppose it. 

The Senate.

[Guard Dog]

3 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

The Senate.

Right now it would pass 52-48 by my guessing. Maybe even 54-46 depending on Romney. Mike Lee is the other wildcard but will likely vote "no" as long as the vote doesn't matter. It's unlikely the balance of power will change greatly in November but the House is almost certainly going to flip. So if they want to do it and the SCOTUS leak is correct the window to do it is rapidly closing.  

[BruceVC]

34 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

Make is simple, clean, don't hide a bunch of nebulous s--t in it so it turns into a 2k page rubber fire that frightened congress critters would feel justified in opposing. Keep all on one page and make it a simple yea or nay vote on permitting abortion or any other medical service offered by a licensed medical professional. Out of the 435 reps in the House I guarantee you 3/4 would be scared s-----ss to oppose it. 

GD can the Federal government outlaw abortion throughout the US or will it always be a choice individual states can decide ?

[Guard Dog]

16 minutes ago, Deadly_Nightshade said:

But that would require congress both be useful and competent... So the likelihood of that actually passing seems essentially nonexistent even if the votes were there. 

Hey even blind squirrels find nuts occasionally. But a potential upside here is to get voters to take a long overdue interest in who is in their state legislatures.  

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

GD can the Federal government outlaw abortion throughout the US or will it always be a choice individual states can decide ?

Article 6 in the Constitution contains the "Supremacy Clause". To make a long complicated explanation in to a short and equally true one: Federal Law > State Law. So long as that federal law does not violate previous law without replacing it, or violate the Constitution in some other way, and the Congress actually has the power to do whatever it was they did. 

[Pidesco]

9 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Right now it would pass 52-48 by my guessing. Maybe even 54-46 depending on Romney. Mike Lee is the other wildcard but will likely vote "no" as long as the vote doesn't matter. It's unlikely the balance of power will change greatly in November but the House is almost certainly going to flip. So if they want to do it and the SCOTUS leak is correct the window to do it is rapidly closing.  

Not a single Republican would vote to pass such a bill. A couple would maybe "voice concerns." I would be immensely surprised if Sinema and Manchin voted to pass too.

[Bartimaeus]

And it doesn't matter so long as they hold that the filibuster shouldn't be eliminated/reformed - it'll never come to a vote in the first place until that happens, and there's no reason to expect that it will at this point.

[Amentep]

51 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

I think that wording would make euthanasia legal, which might hurt such a bill's chances by tying to highly divisive concepts into one (possibly there are other things this wording would make legal; that's why the language in bills is so over-crafted).

Edit....Ah yes, it'd make it legal for doctors to theoretically approve medical marijuana for patients in states where marijuana is illegal (assuming that pharmacists are covered in the etc).

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, Pidesco said:

Not a single Republican would vote to pass such a bill. A couple would maybe "voice concerns." I would be immensely surprised if Sinema and Manchin voted to pass too.

Sinema would. No doubt. Manchin maybe, maybe not. But I know at least two Republicans will be a yes and maybe as many as four. Collins is a yes and Murkowski is a yes. Romney, Lee, Toomey, & Ernst could go either way. You only need one IF Sinema & Manchin are a "no".

[Guard Dog]

6 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

And it doesn't matter so long as they hold that the filibuster shouldn't be eliminated/reformed -

Trust me, you do NOT want that to happen 

[Elerond]

Just now, Guard Dog said:

Sinema would. No doubt. Manchin maybe, maybe not. But I know at least two Republicans will be a yes and maybe as many as four. Collins is a yes and Murkowski is a yes. Romney, Lee, Toomey, & Ernst could go either way. You only need one IF Sinema & Manchin are a "no".

Don't you need 60 to prevent filibuster

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, Elerond said:

Don't you need 60 to prevent filibuster

Yep. It's called cloture. If they decide to filibuster then the only thing you can do is actually MAKE them do it. And then make use of that in the midterms.  Nothing else you can do. 

[Bartimaeus]

40 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Trust me, you do NOT want that to happen 

I do absolutely want to see the filibuster reformed - it's only in pretty recent history that this silly "I declare filibuster" system has been around, and I think it's high time we at least go back to when you actually had to filibuster. The country didn't burn down back then, and it won't now...probably. I also do not in any way share your apparently ironclad optimism regarding who would or wouldn't vote for it - abortion is a very powerful wedge issue that I can't see any Republicans besides maybe Susan Collins doing anything but possibly abstaining about.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

Make is simple, clean, don't hide a bunch of nebulous s--t in it so it turns into a 2k page rubber fire that frightened congress critters would feel justified in opposing. Keep all on one page and make it a simple yea or nay vote on permitting abortion or any other medical service offered by a licensed medical professional. Out of the 435 reps in the House I guarantee you 3/4 would be scared s-----ss to oppose it. 

your proposed legislation is so opposite o' clean. if you cannot enumerate all the situations to which your new legislation would apply, then is gonna be deemed overbroad and unconstitutional. this never makes it outta committee... anywhere. gd no doubt also wants us to ignore how much unethical but not strict illegal dr. and patient interaction which would sudden be beyond the reach o' any governing body. 

keep in mind, there has been over one THOUSAND proposed bills to address abortion since 1973, ranging from limited to expansive. pretend as if nobody has ever suggested legislation is wrong. too "scared s-----ss to oppose it"? you funny. for a legislator is typical safer to do nothing than do the wrong thing. virtual every Congressional effort to deal with abortion has been a grandstanding effort. actual do something is hard, but historical it has been far safer to do not. again, the number o' legislative corpses where there were a majority o' members o' Congress finding a reason to be opposed to a solution is over a thousand.

as a solution, a Constitutional amendment makes the most sense. if the Constitution is a bar to abortion as a right, then the obvious fix is to change the Constitution. number o' proposed amendments to date regarding abortion? not sure. is over 100. if gd 3/4 numbers were anything other than fantasy, this would be ez. no dice. am thinking many do not realize just how opposed is evangelicals and many other christians is to abortion. if you genuine believe abortion is murder, then is understandable impossible to support any legislation or Constitutional amendment which would legitimize mass murder, even if it means you got more privacy rights 'tween you and your doctor.

as an aside, the southern gop and no compromise libertarians better hope we are genuine outta the pandemic stage for covid, 'cause The Court just knocked the stuffing outta the medical privacy argument for forgoing vaccines and other medical care.

HA! Good Fun!

ps am personal opposed to changing filibuster, particular given how recent changes has led to increased polarization o' american politics. HOWEVER, am also not ignorant o' the fact the filibuster has a tainted history. one reason we no longer have a talky filibuster is 'cause southern Congressmen used the procedural gambit to delay passage o' the Civil Rights Acts. in 1964, the senate were functional paralyzed for 60 working days while a group o' southerners plotted to kill the landmark legislation. the majority final managed to gather 70ish votes to invoke cloture, but that bit o' bigots bass agery is one o' the reasons why the talky filibuster were ended. yeah, looking at how harry reid and then mitch mcconnel used changes to the filibuster rules is the window through which Gromnir views the situation, but am also aware history goes back a bit further than most o' us easily recollect. 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Gromnir

[Pidesco]

45 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Sinema would. No doubt. Manchin maybe, maybe not. But I know at least two Republicans will be a yes and maybe as many as four. Collins is a yes and Murkowski is a yes. Romney, Lee, Toomey, & Ernst could go either way. You only need one IF Sinema & Manchin are a "no".

Every republican is afraid of getting primaried by someone trumpier than them. Voting for abortion would make that very, very easy, and every senator is very aware of that. Same is true of Manchin. Sinema I still don't really get, but she seems to be trying to become the new Manchin.

[Bartimaeus]

Just now, Pidesco said:

Every republican is afraid of getting primaried by someone trumpier than them. Voting for abortion would make that very, very easy, and every senator is very aware of that. Same is true of Manchin. Sinema I still don't really get, but she seems to be trying to become the new Manchin.

The wonderful difference is that Sinema can be replaced, while Manchin absolutely cannot be. No other Democrat in West Virginia has a chance of winning a senatorial seat, so Democrats should thank their stars that they have him so they could at least be able to appoint federal judges. Sinema, on the other hand...we'll see what happens - not sure whether she's on track to getting successfully primaried in 2024 or not.

[alanschu]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

Make is simple, clean, don't hide a bunch of nebulous s--t in it so it turns into a 2k page rubber fire that frightened congress critters would feel justified in opposing. Keep all on one page and make it a simple yea or nay vote on permitting abortion or any other medical service offered by a licensed medical professional. Out of the 435 reps in the House I guarantee you 3/4 would be scared s-----ss to oppose it. 

Whaaaat, I agree with you?

But yes, there's valid critique towards Democratic politicians from what I understand who have had opportunities to do something about this in other ways. IIRC it was a "day one" promise by Obama to do this.

EDIT: Yeah, even seeing Biden talk about codifying it in 2020.

Edited May 3, 2022 by alanschu

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Just throwing this out there but Congress could fix the abortion thing once and for all by passing a very simple bill that says something to he effect of "neither congress nor the states nor municipalities shall intercede nor infringe on lawful and consenting transactions between citizens/residents/guests etc and doctors/nurses/etc".

Congress could have fixed it back in 2009 when Democrats had a filibuster proof majority. They didn't then and they won't now. Without irony we can say "Thanks Obama".

The truth is that the Democrats have mistakenly assumed the Supreme Court is an apolitical institution and that Republicans weren't truly dedicated to outlawing abortion. As a result, we're about to see a war launched against bodily autonomy and privacy from the conservative legal machine while the dems yell at everyone to vote, ignoring they control congress snf the white house right now. If you're religious it's time to pray, because the government sure as **** ain't coming to help.