Roe vs Wade overturned

[sophie]

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

And as I explained in the rest of the post that you omitted, that sort of argument is extraordinarily unhelpful, both because we just watched as an unaccountable body of ghouls sitting on lifetime appointments stripped away a fundamental right over and above popular will despite Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, and because, as I literally just got done saying, blanket commands to "vote" are meaningless. Little better than "thoughts and prayers." You need to give specific goals (races, achievable majority thresholds, and a clear policy agenda that can be achieved with that threshold) otherwise your words are just vacuous air, convincing nobody.

 

[AmazonQueen]

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?

I wouldn't have chosen Biden as presidential candidate but hes better than Trump.
I wouldn't want Joe Manchin as my senator but rather him than a Trump supporting republican.
Want better democrats, work for them.
Can't do it for you and Marxist revolution or an independent US socialist party don't look likely alternatives and certainly won't deliver for people in the near future.

 

[El_Machinae]

And as I explained in the rest of the post that you omitted, that sort of argument is extraordinarily unhelpful, both because we just watched as an unaccountable body of ghouls sitting on lifetime appointments stripped away a fundamental right over and above popular will despite Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, and because, as I literally just got done saying, blanket commands to "vote" are meaningless. Little better than "thoughts and prayers." You need to give specific goals (races, achievable majority thresholds, and a clear policy agenda that can be achieved with that threshold) otherwise your words are just vacuous air, convincing nobody.

In some ways, getting out the vote is just the easy part. Especially as you say, if it's an unfocused suggestion. Like, I voted, okay? It took me 15 minutes to watch the summary of the debates, and another hour to actually vote.

So many more instruments of power need to be accumulated and exercised. The problem with the voting is that local intensity only matters until it crosses the threshold. And then any extra effort is nice, but doesn't actually change anything. Something conservatives tend to be good at is arranging to transfer power to where it's needed. Local intensity gets translated into power being applied elsewhere.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And as I explained in the rest of the post that you omitted, that sort of argument is extraordinarily unhelpful, both because we just watched as an unaccountable body of ghouls sitting on lifetime appointments stripped away a fundamental right over and above popular will despite Democrats controlling Congress and the White House, and because, as I literally just got done saying, blanket commands to "vote" are meaningless. Little better than "thoughts and prayers." You need to give specific goals (races, achievable majority thresholds, and a clear policy agenda that can be achieved with that threshold) otherwise your words are just vacuous air, convincing nobody.

A ballot with 20 check boxes gives you 20 reasons to vote even if you choose to leave some unchecked. Voting is an act of "faith" that keeps the system more meaningful than not voting. Not voting is a lazy response. If you live in firm blue state, then sure maybe your vote is less necessary for the best outcomes, but it is important as a demonstration of support for voting.

 

[Rg339]

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

I’m beginning to have a sense that the Dem formula is busted. Primary voters and party chiefs seem to me to misjudge what candidates are palatable in the general. As a result, we keep ending up with Biden’s and Clinton’s who fail to inspire with either policy or charisma, securing at best undermining margins of victory and failing to carry senate/house races to victory.

If nothing else, Trump demonstrated to the Republicans that their formula was busted. What they thought their voters wanted was incorrect. I don’t see similar adjustments made on the dem side. They keep taking the slow 6’6 QB with the first pick, and the results are mediocre.

I’m beginning to wonder if, long-term, a winless season might be the best thing. Too many years of 7-9, 8-8, wondering if the QB had the talent to ever make the playoffs, so to speak.

 

[Lexicus]

I’m beginning to have a sense that the Dem formula is busted. Primary voters and party chiefs seem to me to misjudge what candidates are palatable in the general. As a result, we keep ending up with Biden’s and Clinton’s who fail to inspire with either policy or charisma, securing at best undermining margins of victory and failing to carry senate/house races to victory.

If nothing else, Trump demonstrated to the Republicans that their formula was busted. What they thought their voters wanted was incorrect. I don’t see similar adjustments made on the dem side. They keep taking the slow 6’6 QB with the first pick, and the results are mediocre.

I’m beginning to wonder if, long-term, a winless season might be the best thing. Too many years of 7-9, 8-8, wondering if the QB had the talent to ever make the playoffs, so to speak.

The problem is moderate voters, basically. What mobilizes the left-wing of the Democratic base either turns off the moderates or actually drives them to vote Republican. And without the moderates the progressives don't have the numbers to carry anything at the federal level.

The Republicans have this problem much less because their coalition in practice is less ideologically diverse than the Democrats'. You have lunatics who are single-issue anti-abortion voters, lunatics who are single-issue pro-gun voters, etc. These people are never on the fence and will never be driven to vote for the other party as long as the Republicans side with them on their single issue. Plus as we've discussed in the spinoff thread from this thread the minority-rule aspects of the Constitutional system translate into deep structural advantages for the Republicans.

These factors combine to make it virtually impossible to imagine substantive change coming from inside the Constitutional system.

@Birdjaguar and @AmazonQueen, are the Democratic Senators willing to abolish the filibuster to pack the court? Because that's what we're going to need for voting to make a difference. A filibuster-proof majority is pointless when the Supreme Court can strike down any law (and has a right-wing legal apparatus which includes both civil society groups to bring suits and the far-right judges appointed by Trump to the federal bench for the purpose of creating splits among the appelate and circuit courts that the Supreme Court can then rule on).

Unless and until 51 Democratic Senators commit to abolishing the filibuster for the purpose of packing the court, telling us to vote Democratic if we want to fix this is frankly insulting to our intelligence.

Edit: I should add that by all appearances the actual Democrats are happy to have this issue as a fundraising ask; I've received about a dozen texts in the last 48 hours asking for money

 

[AmazonQueen]

The problem is moderate voters, basically. What mobilizes the left-wing of the Democratic base either turns off the moderates or actually drives them to vote Republican. And without the moderates the progressives don't have the numbers to carry anything at the federal level.

The Republicans have this problem much less because their coalition in practice is less ideologically diverse than the Democrats'. You have lunatics who are single-issue anti-abortion voters, lunatics who are single-issue pro-gun voters, etc. These people are never on the fence and will never be driven to vote for the other party as long as the Republicans side with them on their single issue. Plus as we've discussed in the spinoff thread from this thread the minority-rule aspects of the Constitutional system translate into deep structural advantages for the Republicans.

These factors combine to make it virtually impossible to imagine substantive change coming from inside the Constitutional system.

@Birdjaguar and @AmazonQueen, are the Democratic Senators willing to abolish the filibuster to pack the court? Because that's what we're going to need for voting to make a difference. A filibuster-proof majority is pointless when the Supreme Court can strike down any law (and has a right-wing legal apparatus which includes both civil society groups to bring suits and the far-right judges appointed by Trump to the federal bench for the purpose of creating splits among the appelate and circuit courts that the Supreme Court can then rule on).

Unless and until 51 Democratic Senators commit to abolishing the filibuster for the purpose of packing the court, telling us to vote Democratic if we want to fix this is frankly insulting to our intelligence.

Edit: I should add that by all appearances the actual Democrats are happy to have this issue as a fundraising ask; I've received about a dozen texts in the last 48 hours asking for money

Abolishing the filibuster works both ways. There are no permanent victories in politics. You have to keep defending the rights you have won and winning votes.
As for the moderate voters being the problem I'm reminded of the joke about the Marxist regime that decided rather than adopt a new policy it would adopt a new people.

 

[Rg339]

The problem is moderate voters, basically. What mobilizes the left-wing of the Democratic base either turns off the moderates or actually drives them to vote Republican. And without the moderates the progressives don't have the numbers to carry anything at the federal level.

I dunno if I agree with this. It’s the conventional wisdom, but I’d need to see it put to the test to a much greater extent than it has been. Both dem party chiefs and primary voters THINK it is the case, and vote strategically for arguably untalented stiffs, but I dunno if it’s still the case.

They’re haunted by Reagan. I don’t think it’s similar, today, culturally. Most dem voters are, to my mind, single issue voters: they find the norms republicans support so repellent that I don’t think they have anywhere else to go. The dems could trot out a left wing candidates, and the moderates would still vote for them. Where are they gonna go? To the Republicans? The guys that are culturally anathema within their bougie social circles?

What’s more, an actual charismatic candidate proposing left wing policies previously unseen would likely pull working-class votes back, and turn moderates left-wing.

 

[Zardnaar]

I dunno if I agree with this. It’s the conventional wisdom, but I’d need to see it put to the test to a much greater extent than it has been. Both dem party chiefs and primary voters THINK it is the case, and vote strategically for arguably untalented stiffs, but I dunno if it’s still the case.

They’re haunted by Reagan. I don’t think it’s similar, today, culturally. Most dem voters are, to my mind, single issue voters: they find the norms republicans support so repellent that I don’t think they have anywhere else to go. The dems could trot out a left wing candidates, and the moderates would still vote for them. Where are they gonna go? To the Republicans? The guys that are culturally anathema within their bougie social circles?

What’s more, an actual charismatic candidate proposing left wing policies previously unseen would likely pull working-class votes back, and turn moderates left-wing.

Those aren't the voters you're worried about they're more or less locked in.

Alot of Americans are naive like fundamental rights.

The only fundamental rights in America are the constitution and abortion isn't in it. If it's not in the constitution nothing is actually fundamental.

The left wing liberal messages also are not popular outside of urban strongholds. Doesn't matter if the polls say the majority of Americans support XYZ.

It's who turns up on election day and where. Mostly in 8 states it seems.

There's not enough liberals in the right places basically. I suspect there's a shortage of actual liberals as well as America is very right wing comparatively.

Catch 22 what appeals to those urban liberals is gonna lose you votes in places that matter.

 

[Rg339]

The left wing liberal messages also are not popular outside of urban strongholds. Doesn't matter if the polls say the majority of Americans support XYZ.

I’m not basing my prediction based on what polls say. I live outside a major metropolitan area. Nobody here had the sort of negative emotional reaction to Bernie that they did with Biden and certainly not Clinton.

The feeling that I got was that people may have disagreed with Bernie, but they thought he was sincere in his efforts to make policies to help them. That sense isn’t there with Biden.

edit: there’s always shifts going on in politics. People are always changing positions. Conventional wisdom isn’t really so applicable today, because to my mind, people are more open to shifting long-held positions than they usually are. It’s a change era. All you have to be able to do is to sell it to them; one charismatic candidate and whole hosts of long held assumptions about the way politics work are basically tossed out the window.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Those aren't the voters you're worried about they're more or less locked in.

Alot of Americans are naive like fundamental rights.

The only fundamental rights in America are the constitution and abortion isn't in it. If it's not in the constitution nothing is actually fundamental.

The left wing liberal messages also are not popular outside of urban strongholds. Doesn't matter if the polls say the majority of Americans support XYZ.

It's who turns up on election day and where. Mostly in 8 states it seems.

There's not enough liberals in the right places basically. I suspect there's a shortage of actual liberals as well as America is very right wing comparatively.

Catch 22 what appeals to those urban liberals is gonna lose you votes in places that matter.

Gun control and support for abortion aren't far left ultra-liberal positions. They are supported by a majority of the American people including many Republicans. Its the Republicans who have been captured by extremist idealogues, not the Democrats.

 

[Evie]

A constitution (the rights part) that's interpreted as a strict list of specific rights rather than a set of general principles to be interpreted according to the evolving perceptions of society and possibilities of technology is a pointless waste of ink and paper at best, and a poison pill freezing a country in time at worse.

Constitutional regimes that do not evolve, fail.

 

[Kaitzilla]

People can amend the U.S. Constitution whenever they gather enough support.

The Supremes are usually reluctant to overturn their own court, very reluctant to overturn something Congress passed, and tend to worship the Constitution and all its amendments.

 

[Evie]

And that's a bad system.

Bad, because for the rights in a constitution to be meaningful, they BOTH must be very difficult to ammend (otherwise a government would simply ammend away the right it doesn't like) AND allowed to evolve in interpretation (so that they don't become completely out of sync with our understanding of what fundamental rights are).

The literal specific list of right approach of the US constitution is a legal farce - an unfinished, badly balanced alpha version of constitutional democracy that America clings to.

Living tree (Living Constitution in the US, but that's far less common) >>>>> Literalism/Originalism

 

[Birdjaguar]

Gun control and support for abortion aren't far left ultra-liberal positions. They are supported by a majority of the American people including many Republicans. Its the Republicans who have been captured by extremist idealogues, not the Democrats.

The Myth of the ‘Good Guy With a Gun’ Has Religious Roots
June 23, 2022

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/opinion/uvalde-evangelicals-guns.html

 

[Birdjaguar]

People can amend the U.S. Constitution whenever they gather enough support.

The Supremes are usually reluctant to overturn their own court, very reluctant to overturn something Congress passed, and tend to worship the Constitution and all its amendments.

In a heavily divided nation, amendments are not possible and the GOP has been pushing to keep the nation divided even since the fairness Doctrine was eliminated and they choose the path of Talk hate radio in the 1990s.

SCOTUS has become a political arm of the GOP under Mitch McConnell.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The way I see this.

Roe v Wade was made by 9 votes; rest of USA voters ignored, de facto disenfranchised.

Roe v Wade was cancelled by 9 votes; rest of USA voters ignored, de facto disenfranchised.

A point the judges made in cancelling Roe v Wade they said it was up to the legislatives to make the laws.
And in the USA, at both state and federal level, it is down to the ordinary USA voters to appoint the legislatures.

The Roe v Wade cancellation might actually galvanise the US voter base, and thereby restore democracy.

 

[Lexicus]

I dunno if I agree with this. It’s the conventional wisdom, but I’d need to see it put to the test to a much greater extent than it has been. Both dem party chiefs and primary voters THINK it is the case, and vote strategically for arguably untalented stiffs, but I dunno if it’s still the case.

They’re haunted by Reagan. I don’t think it’s similar, today, culturally. Most dem voters are, to my mind, single issue voters: they find the norms republicans support so repellent that I don’t think they have anywhere else to go. The dems could trot out a left wing candidates, and the moderates would still vote for them. Where are they gonna go? To the Republicans? The guys that are culturally anathema within their bougie social circles?

What’s more, an actual charismatic candidate proposing left wing policies previously unseen would likely pull working-class votes back, and turn moderates left-wing.

I really think that a majority of Democratic voters are either or both of:
-ideologically conservative but vote Dem because the Republicans are racist or otherwise too immoderate
-would rather see the Dems as "the adults in the room" than as doing uncouth or immoderate things to actually enact an ideologically-driven legislative agenda ("we go high when they go low")


If things were otherwise, I think Bernie would have won the primary.

 

[Zardnaar]

And that's a bad system.

Bad, because for the rights in a constitution to be meaningful, they BOTH must be very difficult to ammend (otherwise a government would simply ammend away the right it doesn't like) AND allowed to evolve in interpretation (so that they don't become completely out of sync with our understanding of what fundamental rights are).

The literal specific list of right approach of the US constitution is a legal farce - an unfinished, badly balanced alpha version of constitutional democracy that America clings to.

Living tree (Living Constitution in the US, but that's far less common) >>>>> Literalism/Originalism

My theory is if you have a constitution a supermajority if 2/3 can change it. Of the population not states.

75% is to high, 51% is to low and 75% of states don't represent the general population (Cali vs Wyoming).

Here we don't have it and theoretically the bill of rights and human rights acts can be tweaked, repealed etc with an act of parliament.

Theoretically that's about 47-48% of the voters that turn up.

 

[Kyriakos]

The way I see this.

Roe v Wade was made by 9 votes; rest of USA voters ignored, de facto disenfranchised.

Roe v Wade was cancelled by 9 votes; rest of USA voters ignored, de facto disenfranchised.

A point the judges made in cancelling Roe v Wade they said it was up to the legislatives to make the laws.
And in the USA, at both state and federal level, it is down to the ordinary USA voters to appoint the legislatures.

The Roe v Wade cancellation might actually galvanise the US voter base, and thereby restore democracy.

It's always a ridiculous state of affairs when you expect a court to indirectly legislate. If enough people (a majority) wish for legislation on abortion similar to that in Europe, one has to suppose it will get through. It might even help uninspiring corporate democrats appear as if they have something to do for the common people.