[RD] Abortion, once again

(Bolding mine) Unfortunately, this is the only "lesson" they seem willing to learn - the one they already believe.

The Democrats passed a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion. It was DOA in the Senate because Bob Casey and Joe Manchin wouldn't vote for it.

But please, tell me more about how the problem in the Democratic Party is not enough people like Manchin.
 
The leak was certainly political.
Did a Republican clerk leak it so States can prepare the appropriate trigger laws before its official?
Did a Dem clerk leak it to rile up voters for the primaries now and the general in Nov?
 
The Democrats passed a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion. It was DOA in the Senate because Bob Casey and Joe Manchin wouldn't vote for it.

But please, tell me more about how the problem in the Democratic Party is not enough people like Manchin.
But that's my point. Bring in the the [currently] marginalized. Don't actively push them to the R's. How has "100% purity or you are dead to me!" been working? How is it going to work in November? Do you think alienating the people "not 100% on board" will work better by telling them they fail the Purity Tests & don't belong? Or will it leave you with the Manchins of the world being the 45th or 46th vote in the Minority?

EDIT: just for reference, this was the post I was quoting & responded to:
Liberals gotta learn in America there's consequences for losing.

The rules are stupid but to change them you need power but ideological purity is better.
Except when it's not.
 
The Democrats passed a federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion. It was DOA in the Senate because Bob Casey and Joe Manchin wouldn't vote for it.

But please, tell me more about how the problem in the Democratic Party is not enough people like Manchin.

Go to West Virginia and primary him. Oops I don't think a liberal can win there.

That's reality.
 
The leak was certainly political.
Did a Republican clerk leak it so States can prepare the appropriate trigger laws before its official?
Is there really much to prepare that would warrant risking your entire career, destroying trust between the justices and clerks, and damaging the reputation of the Court over something you (ostensibly) support?
Did a Dem clerk leak it to rile up voters for the primaries now and the general in Nov?
I'd think a decision in June/July would have the same effect?

I think the motive has to be a push for a pressure campaign to "persuade" a judge to change their vote


Edit: some speculation via Twitter
Spoiler :
A person called Amit Jain clerks for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

As a Yale student, Jain blasted Yale for supporting Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

Jain was quoted in a 2017 Politico piece by Josh Gerstein.

Today, Gerstein published the draft SCOTUS opinion on Roe.
 
Last edited:
Whoever did it put their career at risk whatever the reason. The five conservatives who want this are unlikely to change their minds. Roberts is the only possible swing vote and his vote won't matter. 5-4 or 6-3 and it is done.
 
Whoever did it put their career at risk whatever the reason. The five conservatives who want this are unlikely to change their minds. Roberts is the only possible swing vote and his vote won't matter. 5-4 or 6-3 and it is done.

Gorsuch might be a long shot persuasion ironically.
 
But that's my point. Bring in the the [currently] marginalized. Don't actively push them to the R's. How has "100% purity or you are dead to me!" been working? How is it going to work in November? Do you think alienating the people "not 100% on board" will work better by telling them they fail the Purity Tests & don't belong? Or will it leave you with the Manchins of the world being the 45th or 46th vote in the Minority?

If you think the Democrats have been saying "100% purity or you are dead to me" in any sense, I don't know what to say to that. It is completely at odds with reality. The Democrats generally deny that they have any ideology at all rather than enforcing any kind of ideological purity.

The Republicans are the party that openly has an ideological mission and are very willing to exercise power in a public way to work toward their ideological ends. And as far as I can tell this approach has been very successful for the Republicans. Their candidate came quite close to winning reelection despite being a manifest buffoon and a despicable traitor.

Admittedly this is because they have many extraneous factors spreading right-wing ideology among the population at large, whereas the Democrats do not have a strong network for the dissemination of "progressive" or American liberal ideology. Indeed, as I noted at the beginning of this post, neoliberal Democrats exhibit a collective tendency to deny that they have any ideology at all.
 
Last edited:
Go to West Virginia and primary him. Oops I don't think a liberal can win there.

That's reality.
the correct left winger can win in W Virginia. Maybe a Fetterman type.
 
Women in the US have just been screwed badly by those who hate sex.

wow wow wow, they don't hate sex, they jsut hate women having enjoying sex.
 
I have my doubts. You can primary Manchin and test that theory out?

I wish I could wave a magic wand and produce another Fetterman and try it out but alas I am stuck with sycophantic neo-libs posing as SJWs to win neo-lib suburban votes that still want tax cuts as the solution to everything. So
 
I wish I could wave a magic wand and produce another Fetterman and try it out but alas I am stuck with sycophantic neo-libs posing as SJWs to win neo-lib suburban votes that still want tax cuts as the solution to everything. So

Social policy doesn't really cost money. Mostly it's a distraction.

Wealth inequality is the big cancer and drives people towards extremism left and right. IMHO of course.
 
They literally gave a blue print to strike down gay sex, gay marriage, interracial marriage, and probably civil rights in general
You think you deserve to live? heh.

fudge it, I'm saying it. America deserves to die.
 
They literally gave a blue print to strike down gay sex, gay marriage, interracial marriage, and probably civil rights in general

Yup.

Here is the whole 98-page first draft if anyone wants to read it.
Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

Here are the 10 highlights Politico picked out:
(... means some words and sentences got skipped)

“In the years prior to [Roe v. Wade], about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process.
It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....”

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.
Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.
And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.
On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”

“In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be more even more [sic] extensive than the right Casey and Roe recognized.
Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys an ‘unborn human being.’
... Our nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated.”

“We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is ‘not an inexorable command,’ and it ‘is at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution.’
It has been said that it is sometimes more important that an issue ‘be settled than that it be settled right.’
But when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution — the ‘great charter of our liberties,’ which was meant ‘to endure through a long lapse of ages,’ we place a high value on having the matter ‘settled right.’”

“On many other occasions, this Court has overruled important constitutional decisions. … Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would be unrecognizable, and this would be a different country.”

”Casey described itself as calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side.
… The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who dissented in any respect from Roe.
… Together, Roe and Casey represent an error that cannot be allowed to stand.”

“Roe certainly did not succeed in ending division on the issue of abortion.
On the contrary, Roe ‘inflamed’ a national issue that has remained bitterly divisive for the past half-century.
...This Court’s inability to end debate on the issue should not have been surprising.
This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.
Whatever influence the Court may have on public attitudes must stem from the strength of our opinions, not an attempt to exercise ‘raw judicial power.’”

“We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey.
And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.
We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.
We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.
Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
 
Last edited:
Social policy doesn't really cost money. Mostly it's a distraction.

Wealth inequality is the big cancer and drives people towards extremism left and right. IMHO of course.

Manchin makes inequality worse, you know this, how the people of W Virginia don't know this boggles my mind but clearly they'd rather burn the gays and women having sex out of wedlock then live a dignified life themselves.

Adtd.
 
it is impossible to state how bad this is going to be for minorities and women

edit:

Alito's draft opinion explicitly criticizes Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing sodomy) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing same-sex marriage). He says that, like abortion, these decisions protect phony rights that are not "deeply rooted in history."

They're coming directly after the lgbtq community once they've made abortion illegal and i'm not just talking about gay marriage, they've already laid down the framework....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom