Roe vs Wade overturned

[Zardnaar]

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.

If Bernie couldn't win a democratic primary odds are he couldn't win a general election.

He was the best option imho at least for my personal beliefs.

 

[Estebonrober]

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.

I agree with this in principle of course, we are not a democracy and even trying to move us towards democracy looks like it is going to take massive violence.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree with this in principle of course, we are not a democracy and even trying to move us towards democracy looks like it is going to take massive violence.

USA is rated towards the top end of the flawed democracies.

 

[EnglishEdward]

A question I ask is when the judges made the original Roe v Wade decision did they consider that that decision would
last 50 years OR did they think that it was an interim decision and would be replaced by considered law in due course?

What actually happened was that its opponents made bad laws because those in favour became complacent because of it.

 

[Evie]

Roe vs Wade didn't "make a law'. It stated a right. Judicially, that's a small but crucial difference. Rights establish the boundaries within which laws are permitted to be made. It is their very nature to be meant as lasting decisions.

The notion that it was "an interim decision to be replaced by considered law" holds no water.

 

[Zardnaar]

Roe vs Wade didn't "make a law'. It stated a right. Judicially, that's a small but crucial difference. Rights establish the boundaries within which laws are permitted to be made. It is their very nature to be meant as lasting decisions.

The notion that it was "an interim decision to be replaced by considered law" holds no water.

The reverse is also true though. Supreme court can and will change its mind. People just thought because that was rare they wouldn't.

There's a difference between can't and won't.

Hell had to do some things couple of years ago. Wife was "I'm on it" and I'm like "we do it now pay extra".

 

[Evie]

They did based on an absurd and toxic constitutional theory, namely the idea that fundamental rights should be read narrowly and strictly.

That philosophy is a fringe legal farce that powerful interests in the United States went to a lot of effort to establish in legal institutions because it served their interests, and wealthy interests will stop at no self-serving ridiculousness.

 

[Arwon]

I agree with this in principle of course, we are not a democracy and even trying to move us towards democracy looks like it is going to take massive violence.

The whole "get out and vote!" thing is pretty hollow when they're telling you to get out and vote in literally rigged electoral congressional districts, first-past-the-post senate races and an "electoral college", all done by voting on ballots with heavily curtailed access to non-major parties. And of course, only if you haven't been spuriously deregistered from the electoral rolls, can get out of work that Tuesday, can stand in line for 5 hours in heavily populated non white districts, and haven't been convicted of minor racially enforced drug offences taking away your right to vote.

Like yes it's trivially true that enough voting would put enough Democrats into the legislature to pause the creeping unraveling, but that's not a lot of hope. And with these pious exhortations to vote, tone deaf fundraising emails, poetry readings etc, they honestly don't even seem to show understanding of what's wrong with the very electoral playing field, much less fight to reverse it. They've had their chances to restore more of a real franchise to more people and haven't done it. So voting for them is merely a grim defensive act in a busted shell of a system, it's not really much hope for fixing things.

 

[Rg339]

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.

I hate, and continue to hate, that “when they go low we go high” mentality. Is it mature to refuse to use strong rhetoric when the opposition gleefully deploys it? It’s a losing, demoralizing thing. Whenever I heard it, it felt like a rationalization put forward by those afraid to actually try to win. Not very mature that, IMO.

More generally, though, it’s a time of uncertainty. The narratives people have built about what life is supposed to be, many have seen enough contrary to those narratives to abandon them. On economic matters, social ones, people don’t know what the future is going to look like. Old narratives fail, people look for new ones. It’s a ripe climate for swift change.

One young, handsome charismatic leftist candidate with a talent for sales could very well come along and change the minds of the people spoken of in quick time. It’s the age. Present assumptions about what people want are shaky, because I don’t think they themselves know what they want beyond a most general desire for greater well-being. Obama followed this approach, to great success(even if he couldn’t always translate it to policy).

Selling redefined, forward-facing policies, if done well by a good-looking face, isn’t out of the question. What people think they want these days is moving fast.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

It's an interesting analogy, but it breaks down because American Law is systematically built on top of the kluge that came before, with only the occasional pruning. Some things are harder to reverse than they are to create, and some things are harder to tweak than they are to create. So, 'winless season' would allow the opponents to gain irreversible ground, to create damages that should have been prevented. The game never ends, so you can't have a 'season'. All you have is the ball and it's sitting at a certain yard-line. The current and future suffering is determined by where that ball currently sits.

You can go for a Hail Mary and potentially lose ground on the play - that's going to happen, the risk might have been worth it. But you cannot strategically lose ground in a way that makes future yardage more likely. Losing ground just makes it harder to get your next first down.

The two options are hold the line and press forward. There are a lot of parties that have incentive to confuse and dilute people's efforts, so it ain't easy.

 

[Arakhor]

This article suggests that SCOTUS has in fact assigned itself powers beyond the Constitution. Extract:

 

[Takhisis]

In the past, many pro choice voters may have not bothered too much what
happened at the state level because they understood Roe v Wade prevailed.

Now the Supreme Court has decided that it is for the legislatures, abortion
will suddenly becomes the key deciding issue in many/most state elections.

But I do not know how this may impact the mid-term US federal elections.

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.

But you don't understand the fundamental motivation behind this!

This is about hurting the enemy. You might not watch e.g. Fox News, but I do and I've seen two interesting segments recently.
In one there's an incredibly horrible things for the presenter to say about women. It's basically the rant of a drunken husband or a manager who's been caught cheating with his secretary. And then the word flash into the screen ‘A chauvinist would say’ and the man grins and explains that wink, wink it's not like that at all.

In the other (new! only from this week's edition onward!) they literally tell you about how there's leftwingers weeping because their rights are taken away.

This is only about hurting others out of hatred, mistrust and fear of the other. Nothing else, except for some people who pull the strings and stoke these destructive emotions in order to win power, money, benches…
And these acts legitimise the courts and legislators who wreak such damage unto the enemy who will, in turn, allow anything else to happen, like raise taxes on the poor to afford tax breaks for the rich, or excuse various sex offenders in power because it's not an unChristian immorality if they do it.

 

[Evie]

The US Supreme Court is a wonky beast in many ways, and yes, (like all of the rest of the American political system, because all of it was written by assorted business elites for assorted business elites) is set to protect the entrenched power of the privileged at the expanse of the disprivileged).

But the idea that legislative supremacy is any better, and that the will of the majority should always prevail over that of the minority is as terrifying as anything the Republicans have ever done (and in fact up until the last 10-ish years, is exactly what the Republicans playbook was with regard to Queer people). The worker class majority (including the labor movement) has shown itself throughout history to be just as capable of oppression and discrimination as the highest of elites.

Yes, ideally the legislative should do things right in the first place, but the world not being ideal and the members of the legislative not being perfect, they'll sometimes cross lines that shouldn't be crossed, whether by mistake or intentionally. There must exist a mechanim to limit how much those lines get crossed.

 

[AdamCrock]

Democracy is not a perfect system, but there never will be a perfect system, bacause humans are not perfect themselves. At least the Democracy is better than others. I do not know a better system. Do You ?

 

[Lexicus]

But the idea that legislative supremacy is any better, and that the will of the majority should always prevail over that of the minority is as terrifying as anything the Republicans have ever done. The worker class majority (including the labor movement) has shown itself throughout history to be just as capable of oppression and discrimination as the highest of elites.

"Taking away my slaves is literally slavery"

 

[AdamCrock]

Slavery existed long before any of our ships even dreamed of landing in America.

Theo word "Slacvic" literally means Slave .....

 

[Zardnaar]

Democracy is not a perfect system, but there never will be a perfect system, bacause humans are not perfect themselves. At least the Democracy is better than others. I do not know a better system. Do You ?

Benevolent dictator or Monarch.

Hard to implement irl.

 

[Zardnaar]

Theo word "Slacvic" literally means Slave .....

Us had chattel slavery. Slavery in other parts of the world wasn't as bad eg slaves got treated better or they got freed.

They created a slave state vs a state with some slaves eg war captives or whatever.

 

[AdamCrock]

The thing about Slaves You see - They tend to Rebel at one point or another.

 

[Evie]

I don't know a better system than democracy, but I know better versions of that system than the nearly 250 years old obvious beta America clings to. There's a whole thread on that topic elsewhere on this forum. Suffice to say: a democracy with strong human rights safeguard limiting the power of the majority is better than one without.

Precisely, as you say, because humans are not perfect.

Lex - I was more thinking of labor's and the worker class's history with segregation, queer oppression, etc. Slavery itself is largely a pre-industrial institution, so thinking of it in terms of the working class and organized labor gets pretty messy pretty fast.