Roe vs Wade overturned

[astrallite]

So, does SCOTUS have any self-respect left, given that it's not even pretending to be impartial arbiters of the law?

Because he knows he's just a useful tool for the far right and knows they will at least respect him enough to wait until he's dead before going after his sacred cow. It's the "pull up the ladder behind you" survival strategy he's employing. He couldn't care less what happens to future generations, as long as he got to live his life the way he wanted to.

 

[Berzerker]

Alan Dershowitz said the decision was judicial activism because the court went beyond the Mississippi law restricting abortion after 15 weeks

 

[AmazonQueen]

With Biden's underwhelming stance on the issue, is it likely that there will be riots (also) against him?
It doesn't make much sense to riot against the supreme court, since they are installed and there for life (?), but an administration has to at least cater to its voters (not just pay lip service).

Not sure what you think Biden can do that he hasn't.
Obama is more responsible for the current situation since he decided protecting the right to choice was not a legislative priority in 2009.

 

[Samson]

Not sure what you think Biden can do that he hasn't.

I do not actually know, but could not Biden set up a mifepristone and misoprostol mail order service and protect it with the interstate commerce clause? With a flavourant, so people cannot spike others with them.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I do not actually know, but could not Biden set up a mifepristone and misoprostol mail order service and protect it with the interstate commerce clause?

Hes promised to protect access to drugs and travel

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-vows-protect-access-abortion-173209829.html

If Americans want more done they'll have to vote Democrat in the mid terms.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Democrats are an absolute waste of oxygen and im not even allowed to say what i truly think of the Republican party except that they are a party of desperate fascists

 

[EnglishEdward]

So which of those two are you going to vote for OR are you standing yourself as an independent ?

 

[Kyriakos]

So which of those two are you going to vote for OR are you standing yourself as an independent ?

Sic semper tyrannis

 

[Cloud_Strife]

So which of those two are you going to vote for OR are you standing yourself as an independent ?

What business is it of yours?

 

[Kyriakos]

EnglishEdward isn't familiar with the notion of a web forum and bizarrely seems to think it is meant for discussion ^_^

 

[EnglishEdward]

So, is she a don't know or a don't tell?

 

[Lexicus]

I believe Buck v. Bell is still the law of the land so why not?

About that:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/right-become-parent-now-risk-too/661268/

That's a shoddy excuse for not facing reality. The problem is not the political system itself, it's the politics. What you suffer from is massive political corruption, being led by the nose by two parties of oligarchs.
If a small minority of the population could block political changes, how did Carter and Reagan unmade the New Deal arrangements? Why didn't a small minority succeed in blocking those changes?
Because even back in the late 70s you had already had oligarchs capturing both parties. That's a failure of politics, and it happened before outright political corruption was "legalized". After 50 years of "good cop bad cop" acts, you are still falling for it - you probably still wish to believe that somehow Biden is better that Trump!

This is all just kind of ignorant. The votes in Congress have never been there, and are still not there today and now, to create a federal law to guarantee the right to an abortion. The votes were there to undo much of the New Deal.

What you are also missing is that this Supreme Court would have simply invalidated such a law. The Court can invalidate acts of the legislature as unconstitutional. The idea that a federal law to codify Roe would not have just been struck down by this Supreme Court is laughable.

Oligarchy has little to do with the abortion issue except insofar as many oligarchs who could not care less about abortion personally (even if it is illegal in the US they can fly their daughter to a civilized country to have an abortion if necessary) pretend to be against it to get votes. It is a wedge issue that gets the Republicans popular support, as there is basically little to no popular support for their real pro-oligarch agenda.

I agree the Democrats suck but of course Biden isn't as bad as Trump, to think they are equally bad is silly. On the other hand, Biden being better than Trump doesn't actually matter all that much for a variety of reasons.

Anyway you make a mistake when you assume that it is as easy to pass laws in the US as it is in many parliamentary systems. We do not have majority rule here. We do not have a system that is designed to allow voting majorities to make policy.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Not sure what you think Biden can do that he hasn't.
Obama is more responsible for the current situation since he decided protecting the right to choice was not a legislative priority in 2009.

Obama did say that, but even if it was made a top priority the super majority only formed in the Senate for a brief handful of weeks in 2009.

http://mauidemocrats.org/wp/the-myth-of-the-democratic-super-majority/

Maybe if it was a one-page (or one sentence) bill it could have gotten done in time, but then both sides would have lost a tremendous source of funding from their voters for decades to come.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

So, is she a don't know or a don't tell?

Haha get it, because I'm trans and gay

 

[sophie]

If Americans want more done they'll have to vote Democrat in the mid terms.

What purpose does this message even achieve? We were told that we needed to vote Democrat in 2020 to stop the fascists, and it seems that the fascists still get to do as they please and there's nothing Biden, Schumer, Pelosi, or anybody else ostensibly in power can do about it.

AOC had a tweet this morning to the effect of "vaguely telling people to 'vote' is a meaningless gesture that will only demoralize your base when you don't appear to live up to what you've implied you will do, and that it's more helpful [for dem leadership] to actually communicate what is needed: which races need to be won, what thresholds needs to be hit, what policies will be enacted at those thresholds."

We were told that hitting 50 (by getting Warnock and Ossoff) would be a game-changer, and we'd be able to get so much done. And when nothing gets done, we're told "what do you expect, we have under 60 and 2 of our senators are basically Republicans." So was the goal not actually to get to 50? And nothing could be expected unless we hit 60? Or 52, but only if those extra 2 are reliable progressives? But if either of those are the goal, then how is that to be achieved? What states are on offer in 2022 for us to get to 52? I suppose Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, assuming Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Georgia are also successfully defended. But what actually changes at 52? As many libs are so quick to point out, nothing can be done with less than 60 because of the filibuster. So will Schumer move to eliminate the filibuster to pass federal abortion protection? It doesn't seem likely.

So then: vote for what, and why?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You know what to do, unfortunately we are not allowed to openly call for a revolt against our oppressors

 

[Kaitzilla]

I was surprised to see that John Roberts dissented, not because I believe he wanted to see Roe overturned but rather as Chief Justice seat I believe he could have written the opinion himself and used that power to try to make it as undamaging as possible.

Chief Justice Roberts tried to do a 3rd way to preserve Roe yet allow the Mississippi 15 week ban, but there were no buyers.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/25/chief-john-roberts-court-00039237

I almost revived the neutral thread with that story, but Aiken has a good point about thread diversity lately.

 

[Birdjaguar]

So then: vote for what, and why?

So things don't get any worse? To minimize the reach of republicans in congress? To put more democrats in your state legislature?

 

[Arakhor]

So, instead of removing the filibuster, why are Congress still running with "I will filibuster this" as an actual filibuster? If you want to permanently derail Congress, you should be forced to get out on the floor and manually filibuster.

 

[EvaDK]

Every Democracy has the laws it deserves. No more, no less.

So, if this ruling makes a lot of Americans unhappy with US institutions and politics, then they should do something about it next time they vote. Because no one else will.