USSC strikes down Roe v Wade

[Valcazar]

As it turned out. But the argument that Dems bled away their voting base doesn't work for you either,

You can make an argument that given the structural deformations in the archaic system the US uses, the "woke mind virus" (LOL) move bled away the voting base in strategic areas.
This is the argument people like Butler1000 have made in the past as well - cultural issues like preserving reproductive freedom and racial equality are distractions from the economic issues that really matter and if the dems just focused on economics and didn't talk about race and gender, they wouldn't have lost as many people in the key battleground states, even if they keep winning the overall population.

I don't think it is a particularly convincing argument, but it at least addresses the fact the Dems keep winning the popular vote.

I would suggest to the dems in the US that if they want to avoid a federal abortion law being implemented, they ditch the disgusting woke ideology and return to their base to keep enough dems in Congress.

Interesting.
Protecting women and reproductive freedom is woke.
So in order to prevent something anti-woke from happening, the Dems should abandon being woke.
If the Dems just rejected protecting women's rights, then the GOP wouldn't have to attack women's rights, because everyone would agree women's rights shouldn't be protected.

You are going to forgive me if I don't think "if you just surrendered and gave us what we want we wouldn't argue about what we want anymore since we would already have it" is a good compromise.

Even with that, it could be a long, long time before they have a chance to put a judge reflecting moderate Democrat principles on the bench. A lot is just due to timing of death/ the retirement whim of current judges.

Yes, the Supreme Court system in the US is terrible and has been for ages.
I fear we won't see a sane compromise until both sides have escalated further, but I would love to be wrong.
Going back to "one justice per circuit" would help, and putting in a mandatory retirement instead of appointment for life would be good as well. Since that isn't likely due to the way the ambiguous wording in the constitution has been interpreted, making it a "you no longer sit actively on Supreme Court cases" would work.

Of course, removing judicial review from the Supreme Court and making a Constitutional Court instead (with the SC still acting as final court of appeal) would be a step I'd love to put on the table but isn't likely to go anywhere.

There was warning that someone like Trump could lead to dem power for congressman, senate, and president. It did end up that way. I am warning liberals that your corrosive embrace of socialist woke in the US risks so much that you love for similar reasons.

There is a reason the GOP is investing so much in lying about "wokeness", yes.
They are hoping whipping up fake reasons for their culture war will work out for them.

Of course the frauds on the left will suddenly become the biggest supporters of the filibuster if they lose. Funny how that works.

They will use the tool available, yes.
But it won't matter.
McConnell has already made it very clear he will get rid of it if it interferes with his agenda.
He likes it because it lets him fail to pass some of the worst culture war stuff he thinks will backfire.
He won't let it get in his way for anything he thinks actually matters. (i.e. - money).

 

[Valcazar]

If PP wins leadership and then beats Justin in about 3.5 years then yes, there will be a good chance it will commence here too.

I sometimes wonder how they would go about trying it here in Canada.
You could do it province by province - I can't see a federal law going well even with a PP majority.
I think they would have to take the indirect route, just make the administrative hurdles as high as possible.
The Canadian Supreme Court isn't the focus of hardball tactics in the same way it is in the US, so aiming to overturn the earlier decisions doesn't seem like a feasible tactic.

 

[squeezer]

I sometimes wonder how they would go about trying it here in Canada.
You could do it province by province - I can't see a federal law going well even with a PP majority.
I think they would have to take the indirect route, just make the administrative hurdles as high as possible.
The Canadian Supreme Court isn't the focus of hardball tactics in the same way it is in the US, so aiming to overturn the earlier decisions doesn't seem like a feasible tactic.

It won't easy here but to appease his radical right base and religious zealots he may rattle the cage a bit. My money is on the Liberals riding this issue hard once it gets close to a Federal election.

 

[squeezer]

Political suicide for any Canadian politician.

I agree and PP would never run an election claiming he would ever do anything to ban abortions but once in, just like the 3 judges lied, are you sure he wouldn't want to at least show his base he is willing to at the very least have the debate?

Poilievre said yesterday he won't touch current abortion laws if elected

Please refer to above post but I do hope my hunch is incorrect.

 

[Valcazar]

As the Dems have done sweet shit all since Clinton got in, and in fact continue to fight against progressive candidates in primaries. The present progressive block is too small to have a real effect. They also need to be independent to matter.

I call bullshit to the notion a third party can't work. In fact with the "Maverick" nature that already exists of some sitting politicians, and the wins of Bernie Sanders a concerted effort could imo bring in independent candidates in several districts.

Yes, but you are bad at politics, bad at history, and bad at political history.
You know that Sanders is an Independent because he and the Dems brokered an agreement that so long as he wins the Dem primary, he can then reject the nomination and the Dems won't run anyone against him.
Because both he and the Dems know that if he ran as a third party independent candidate the GOP would win. Because it happened before when he ran.

Why does the progressive bloc have to be "independent to matter"?
What is your logic there?
"The weaker they are, the better for us!"

Crowd funding could get them the money they need. They just need charismatic candidates.

Are you trying to get a third party or do you want random charismatic independents running everywhere?

But please enlighten us. How will electing a few more Senators change this ruling? Without killing the filibuster.

You need more senators to kill the filibuster.
If they are independent, caucus with the democrats, and will vote to kill the filibuster, more power to them.
Who are these people who you think are doing this?
A third party with any chance to break through is a generational project that is very likely to fail as it gets absorbed into one of the two main parties.
Winning primary challenges and changing from within is a much stronger route to go, IMO.
But a third party as leverage, built slowly and with strategic thought, aiming for regional power and then getting absorbed can also work.


The only truly stupid approach is "don't vote Democrat, vote for a third party that can't win to make sure the Republicans are in power - that'll teach 'em", so I can see why "Go for the stupidest thing possible" is your preferred method.

 

[Valcazar]

Thanks. Was just curious why a woman would choose to have an abortion. Was hoping to move beyond the rhetoric of "her body, her choice".

So to "move beyond that" you posted a bunch of reasons why someone would choose.
OK...

 

[squeezer]

The only truly stupid approach is "don't vote Democrat, vote for a third party that can't win to make sure the Republicans are in power - that'll teach 'em", so I can see why "Go for the stupidest thing possible" is your preferred method.

It is probably Butler's round about way of keeping the Repugs in power forever.

 

[Butler1000]

Yes, but you are bad at politics, bad at history, and bad at political history.
You know that Sanders is an Independent because he and the Dems brokered an agreement that so long as he wins the Dem primary, he can then reject the nomination and the Dems won't run anyone against him.
Because both he and the Dems know that if he ran as a third party independent candidate the GOP would win. Because it happened before when he ran.

Why does the progressive bloc have to be "independent to matter"?
What is your logic there?
"The weaker they are, the better for us!"



Are you trying to get a third party or do you want random charismatic independents running everywhere?



You need more senators to kill the filibuster.
If they are independent, caucus with the democrats, and will vote to kill the filibuster, more power to them.
Who are these people who you think are doing this?
A third party with any chance to break through is a generational project that is very likely to fail as it gets absorbed into one of the two main parties.
Winning primary challenges and changing from within is a much stronger route to go, IMO.
But a third party as leverage, built slowly and with strategic thought, aiming for regional power and then getting absorbed can also work.


The only truly stupid approach is "don't vote Democrat, vote for a third party that can't win to make sure the Republicans are in power - that'll teach 'em", so I can see why "Go for the stupidest thing possible" is your preferred method.

Valcazar, you are naive. The Democrats are not going to kill the filibuster. Its that simple. Elect 55 Senators and 6 will suddenly be right wing. Its exactly what happened when they had 60 votes for cripes sakes. They are more interested in using it to fundraise than actually fix it. Or they would have before, when they had 60 seats

See thats the thing you have conjecture, I have their history. And they never change under the present leadership. They are the final Product of the death of New Deal Democrat policy that Started under Reagan, and was solidified under Clinton.

And the only way is swings back is at the grassroots. Because they are all rich entitled fucks who don't care.

Your way it takes a generation to even get a decent court back, and thats only with luck.

 

[Butler1000]

It is probably Butler's round about way of keeping the Repugs in power forever.

No, it acknowledging the Democrats are failures. Who is in charge right now and can do nothing? Who could have fixed this over decade ago and chose not to?

Why don't you tell me then how they will fix this?

 

[Valcazar]

If she had of just retired when asked, the vote on Roe v Wade would have gone the other way last friday as John Roberts, though a conservative, is a logical and ethical man. And by all accounts a legal scholar and head and shoulders above his colleagues on the Supreme Court.

Well, no.
John Roberts is a vicious partisan who believes in suppressing democracy and will absolutely write nonsensical legal arguments to justify doing what he can to gut the Reconstruction amendments, reduce the power of the people, and increase corporate oligarchic control and favor the GOP.
He just thinks long-term strategy and has a belief in preserving the institutional deference the Supreme Court has.

If Garland was on the court and Roberts was able to get his "just make it 15 weeks" version passed Roe would be dead anyway - just without the fanfare.
The point was to destroy Casey's backstop of undue burden in such a way that each state could keep lowering the number and making the hurdles higher, while claiming it was still technically intact.

Is that better than pure lawlessness by the Court and open warfare on people's rights?
Yes, absolutely, because it allows a better framework to reconstruct those rights and the idea that the rule of law matters and stare decisis is valid.
That's all gone now.

1. Trump won.

Yes, this was a disaster. But unless you are going with "only the Democrats have agency" you can't just call this a Democratic fuck up.
Elections matter an elections happen. Lots of people voted for Trump.

2. Obama lost control of the US Senate in the midterm elections of 2014.

Strategically, I do think this - and the local elections issue - is a Democratic fuck up.
Given the big-tent coalition nature of the Democratic voting bloc, it is extremely hard to keep them motivated at the lower end elections and not just for the big national stuff.
That's a problem and Obama famously dismantled his organization instead of working harder to maintain it.
Absolutely a strategic fuck up.

The thing is, I don't blame Obama for the loss of congress.

I blame the entire direction the Democratic party was taking at the time, and indeed the direction it continues to take today, (and will result in the the Democrats being ANNIHILATED this November and again in November 2024. Count on it.) In a nutshell, much like the NDP and liberals in Ontario have lost the ability to relate to working people and now choose to focus their collective energy on racism, gender identity, pronouns and various other notions of identity politics, the Democrats have also lost their way and are focused only on the interests of a tiny minority of people. As a result, the small D Democrats, the working people - traditional Democratic voters are thinking, "this is just fucking nuts" and have turned to the Republican party.

So it's not just Ginsberg's self centeredness and selfishness that has lead to what we last saw last Friday, it's a whole pile of "what ifs"

Only that's not what's happening.
The Democrats aren't the one focused on identity politics - the GOP is.
The direct appeal to identity politics to white non-college educated voters has been the pitch and it has worked.
Remember, the Democrats haven't won the white vote since 1964 (I think. 68 was a weird year with the threeway vote so I'd have to go digging to find numbers).
Unless you want to say "the Civil Rights Act was too woke", your idea that it is all down to recent focus on identity politics has some flaws.
This has been the GOP strategy since the 1960s - say everything the Dems are doing is too anti-white and not helping "real Americans".
Maybe it is true that the US is so racist that the only way the Dems can compete is by abandoning the people voting for them, but since most of what they are accused of are lies, I don't see how not doing a thing they are already not doing is going to help.

 

[Valcazar]

On a separate matter, I will raise the issue of mandatory age for judges and politicians. Anyone who has older relatives and friends realizes that at a certain age judgment begins to suffer. It's possible Justice Ginsberg was selfish, but it's also very possible she could not comprehend how close she was to the end of her life and how risky that was for her liberal causes.

Canada has a mandatory retirement age for judges, if I recall.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I agree and PP would never run an election claiming he would ever do anything to ban abortions but once in, just like the 3 judges lied, are you sure he wouldn't want to at least show his base he is willing to at the very least have the debate?

Not every Conservative is against abortion.
I'm not either. I'm pro-choice up until the 4th month.

Like Kirk said it would be political suicide for a Canadian politician to start messing with abortion laws.
They are good as it is. Laissez faire

 

[Czar]

Interesting.
Protecting women and reproductive freedom is woke.
So in order to prevent something anti-woke from happening, the Dems should abandon being woke.
If the Dems just rejected protecting women's rights, then the GOP wouldn't have to attack women's rights, because everyone would agree women's rights shouldn't be protected.

You are going to forgive me if I don't think "if you just surrendered and gave us what we want we wouldn't argue about what we want anymore since we would already have it" is a good compromise.

Seeing as we both support abortion rights, I will assume that you simply misunderstood what I said. I never said "Protecting women and reproductive freedom is woke"(whatever the definition of protecting women is -Could be different interpretations). What I am saying is that woke policies could very well interfere with your desire to have abortion rights. I suggest dropping the woke mind virus policies that are likely creating a large number of people changing their vote(or deciding not to vote) and hope to be able to hold onto the ability to filibuster any future republican attempt to create a national law making abortion illegal. Because the supreme court will not strike it down.

There is a reason the GOP is investing so much in lying about "wokeness", yes.
They are hoping whipping up fake reasons for their culture war will work out for them.

Believe what you like. If you think people will embrace defund the police ideas permeating areas of the Democrats, continuing changes that are getting easier on repeat and violent offenders, attempting to introduce the sexual education of children in school the way it has been happening, and a multitude of other policies, you risk losing a lot of cherished things. Abortion in some states is the first.

You have been warned, and not just by some no name on a Terb forum, but by Hillary Clinton herself......

Clinton warns Democrats' focus on trans issues could cost them 2024

Hillary Clinton warned that Democrats' insistence on focusing on transgender issues and spending their time condemning JK Rowling could cost them the 2024 election.

www.dailymail.co.uk

You may be losing hispanics, Asians, and women not interested in having transgender people in their washrooms and on their sports teams. The Democrats are abandoning moderate liberals.

Too bad I only support some conservative policies and not all. If that were the case, I would be suggesting you continue the woke mind virus policies.

 

[Czar]

You're 100% correct, Czar. And that's why Canada will never decriminalize abortion or legislate other commie ideas like universal health care or state-subsidized higher education - because the oppressed people of Canada would rise up and overthrow the Tie-runts.

Abortion and universal health care are not crimes in Canada. There is no need to decriminalize them.

 

[Czar]

Not every Conservative is against abortion.
I'm not either. I'm pro-choice up until the 4th month.

Like Kirk said it would be political suicide for a Canadian politician to start messing with abortion laws.
They are good as it is. Laissez faire

I am 100% pro-abortion. That being said, it is not a make or break policy for me. It is the social conservative bible-thumpers that are anti-abortion(among other religious groups as well).

 

[Czar]

87 years is too old to be fully in command of all one's faculties. Even if one remains intellectually acute, commonsense and day-to-day judgment suffer.

Well, the left was telling her to stay on as long as possible once trump was in power. So I guess they have set the precedent for people of that age being supreme court justices.

They haven't changed their mind now that perhaps the oldest judge is a so-called conservative judge, have they. That would make them frauds.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

I am 100% pro-abortion. That being said, it is not a make or break policy for me. It is the social conservative bible-thumpers that are anti-abortion(among other religious groups as well)

Some of them won't even make exceptions for incest and rape.

ASSinine

 

[wonkyknee]

Sure as fuck confused the USSC back in the 1970's then. I guess your smarter and more knowledgeable about the US Constitution than that entire panel.

Just Google RBG. She agreed

 

[Valcazar]

Just Google RBG. She agreed

What do you think she agreed with?
Be specific.

 

[Insidious Von]

It's not abortion as is that's the troubling aspect, it's the revoking of a human right.

That can only grease the slippery slope to authoritarianism, the USA will become a society ruled by repression and violence. The MAGAs are not holding back in brandishing their Neo-Nazi credentials.