SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[DaleCooper]

Again, people, look at what happened at Ceausescu's Romania after he outlawed abortion. It didn't stop abortion. It just pushed into back alleys where it resulted in a lot of women died because they didn't have access to the care they needed.

This is not something that Republicans care about.

[DaleCooper]

Oh my god, stop with the stupid semantic arguments about human beings. A fetus is a human life in an extremely early stage of development. Only a fool would deny that. The issue is whether or not we want the government legislating away women's bodily autonomy over an unviable fetus.

We're well on the way to conservative legislation that requires police-state oversight of all female behavior during pregnancy, all in the name of making sure the fetus is preserved. If you care about individual rights and liberties (which we all know conservatives don't) then this is terrible news.

[DaleCooper]

There's an awful lot of religious fundamentalists in this thread trying to impose their values on others. Yes, Congress should have passed a law legalising abortion. However, the issue should have remained settled judicially. Roe was good policy, and a lot of suffering will now be caused by millions of people losing their rights. Just as Roe was not a permanent victory, this won't be either and eventually, one way or another, abortion rights will be guaranteed again.

It is not the job of the courts to decide what is or what is not good policy.

I'm not trying to give an interpretation of the US Constitution, I'm giving my opinion that I support abortion being legal and accessible and so it's obviously a bad outcome from my view that this will not be the situation in many states.

Sadly while I agree with you, it is a huge stretch to say that abortion is guaranteed by any clause within the constitution.

It is long, LONG overdue that congress passed a law guaranteeing the right to an abortion in every single state so that we can finally settle this issue once and for all. Make it limited like in Europe so that the majority of people support it.

This is the number one thing that Democrats should make the centerpiece of their agenda for the next six months. Murkowski and Collins would absolutely go along with it, so you don't need to rely on Manchin or Sinema at all (and Sinema I presume would also go along with it). Use reconciliation this year to pass it and use the legislation itself to continuously make this decision and abortion in general the centerpiece of the 2022 election.

Democrats are largely doomed to a poor result, but if abortion is at the forefront of voters' minds that is infinitely better for Democrats than, say, inflation. Decent chance Dems keep the senate if abortion becomes the main issue at stake.

I don't see how it's possible to pass abortion rights through reconciliation, and filibuster reform still would not get 50 votes-even if Sinema somehow changed her mind Manchin would never do it for this bill. Susan Collins also opposed a federal abortion rights bill this year. She and Murkowski will find some reason to say they support the goal but not the Democrats' particular bill, rather than go against their party in such a big way.

Democrats might as well put it to a vote anyway. They could also put other rights they are worried about now, like gay marriage, to a vote in the Senate as a messaging vote.

The bill you're referring to included a lot of other stuff which Collins / Murkowski don't like.

So don't make it a Democrat vs. Republican bill. Make it two sentences long and let Collins write those sentences. 'The right to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy shall not be infringed by the states.' Do the same for gay marriage (which I think actually could hit 60 votes at this point), then put it to a vote.

I agree that I think the Rs will likely find some way to block it, but at the very least you need to get these things on the agenda and have people talking about them leading up to the election. A huge number of independents (especially women) across the country will shift their thinking over this.

Democrats are unfortunately not going to do this. They can't bear to bring any legislation forward that isn't a modern-day Great Society bill. They're allergic to any kind of straightforward, simple legislation.

[DaleCooper]

18 pages? lol

And all the wishcasting about how it's going to dramatically help Democrats is unbelievably naive. Maybe it's the Democrat's Kavanaugh and it juices them up, but now court-packing and filibuster abolition is going to become a litmus test all over the country (if this is actually the result). Good luck getting independents to vote for you on that.

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

If you understand this country then you understand that abortion debates will outlive all of the current members of congress. It's not a matter of it helping or not helping in 2022 and then never being an issue again.

[DaleCooper]

18 pages? lol

And all the wishcasting about how it's going to dramatically help Democrats is unbelievably naive. Maybe it's the Democrat's Kavanaugh and it juices them up, but now court-packing and filibuster abolition is going to become a litmus test all over the country (if this is actually the result). Good luck getting independents to vote for you on that.

I for one, find it disgusting that it's even possible to "leak" a future SC decision in order to intimidate the court into doing exactly what they want (which is what this is, no doubt). The court's integrity is on the line, not because they might overrule Roe, but if they buckle to social/political pressure in response to this leak.

If you feel more strongly about the leak than the court decision, you are a fundamentally unserious person.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be disturbed by the leak. I'm not and I don't care because I have long been opposed to the Supreme Court. If (again, emphasis on if) we could set up a better replacement then I would support the Supreme Court's immediate abolition, I think SCOTUS is one of the worst things about the United States. But if you're a person who thinks positively about it then I get why you would be unsettled by the leak.

[DaleCooper]

Will this accelerate the population’s migration away from religion, as more and more people get fed up with these people shoving their religious beliefs down our throats?

Lol. Christians have been against killing the unborn since i was unborn and im 30.

Pro-life isn't a generic "Christian" issue. It's specific to certain denominations and interpretations, but if you've read the Bible then you know there's nothing in there to clearly and definitively get one to the anti-abortion position. That's not to say it's necessarily an unbiblical position to be against abortion, but you have to stretch some verses to get there.

[DaleCooper]

I'm starting to change my mind on the leak, what's with the opposition to this? SCOTUS is the least accountable institution in the country, and I understand that's by design, but why are they entitled to strategically withholding information from the public? If they're too weak to make decisions and face the backlash, then they're too weak to be in this business. Americans have a right to know which rights are going to be taken away by unelected officials.

[DaleCooper]

I'm starting to change my mind on the leak, what's with the opposition to this? SCOTUS is the least accountable institution in the country, and I understand that's by design, but why are they entitled to strategically withholding information from the public? If they're too weak to make decisions and face the backlash, then they're too weak to be in this business. Americans have a right to know which rights are going to be taken away by unelected officials.

This is a cameras-in-courts level take.

I'm opposed to live televised hearings but I've never liked the ban on cameras in the Supreme Court. I understand not releasing the footage until the case has been heard, but refusing to give the public a look at what they do is creepy, but then again most of the Supreme Court's rituals are creepy and straight out of an occult fraternity.

[DaleCooper]

I'm starting to change my mind on the leak, what's with the opposition to this? SCOTUS is the least accountable institution in the country, and I understand that's by design, but why are they entitled to strategically withholding information from the public? If they're too weak to make decisions and face the backlash, then they're too weak to be in this business. Americans have a right to know which rights are going to be taken away by unelected officials.

This is a cameras-in-courts level take.

I'm opposed to live televised hearings but I've never liked the ban on cameras in the Supreme Court. I understand not releasing the footage until the case has been heard, but refusing to give the public a look at what they do is creepy, but then again most of the Supreme Court's rituals are creepy and straight out of an occult fraternity.

Jesus

The Supreme Court is very creepy, and the no-cameras-allowed thing is just one element of it. It's a bunch of elitist snobs in robes with lifetime appointments and no accountability. American politics hinging on waiting for elderly people to die is outrageously unacceptable and it's terrible for the country. I don't even give them much credit for most of their good decisions. They can overturn whatever they want so none of the rights they've granted to us in the past are safe, and a lot of their proper decisions were only necessary because they f-cked up in the first place.

[DaleCooper]

I'm starting to change my mind on the leak, what's with the opposition to this? SCOTUS is the least accountable institution in the country, and I understand that's by design, but why are they entitled to strategically withholding information from the public? If they're too weak to make decisions and face the backlash, then they're too weak to be in this business. Americans have a right to know which rights are going to be taken away by unelected officials.

This is a cameras-in-courts level take.

I'm opposed to live televised hearings but I've never liked the ban on cameras in the Supreme Court. I understand not releasing the footage until the case has been heard, but refusing to give the public a look at what they do is creepy, but then again most of the Supreme Court's rituals are creepy and straight out of an occult fraternity.

Jesus

The Supreme Court is very creepy, and the no-cameras-allowed thing is just one element of it. It's a bunch of elitist snobs in robes with lifetime appointments and no accountability. American politics hinging on waiting for elderly people to die is outrageously unacceptable and it's terrible for the country. I don't even give them much credit for most of their good decisions. They can overturn whatever they want so none of the rights they've granted to us in the past are safe, and a lot of their proper decisions were only necessary because they f-cked up in the first place.

I meant the part about surface-level legal traditions being like an “occult fraternity.” This is a really bizarre and awfully personal rant for a group of 9 people we really know nothing about. I would agree with you on the last point though; the only reason there is so much pressure on how the Court rules is because they opined these rights to begin with. You have to rip the bandaid off at some point, though.

I'm not talking about 9 people. I'm talking about the Supreme Court as an institution. I'll admit I'm a little more angry at it now, but I can assure you I've been opposed to it since before Trump was even an idea.

[DaleCooper]

I don't know what issue polling to believe and I don't trust any of it, but I absolutely do not believe that 50% of this country favors a 6 week abortion ban.

[DaleCooper]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

The messiness is real, of course. This is a recurring pattern: "what happens if one side decides to invalidate the courts?", "what happens if the filibuster is abolished?", etc. Increasingly, it is the status quo party (Democrats) that argue these concerns. After all, "MUH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE RIGHT CONTROLS GOVERNMENT?" etc. Elections should have real consequences - and in the absence of being able to realize them electorally due to various machinations, the politicians should face them via more overt means.

Compared to virtually every other legitimate democratic republic/representative democracy in the world, the US is an anachronistic monolith frozen in time, with no real consequences for elections and no ability to change its governing procedures. Maybe this was a beneficial concept in its early days, but the fact that basically every other developed nation has rewritten its governing documents multiple times and can actually respond to a changing world has left the US in the dust.

I'd also argue that the fact that so many Americans from across the aisle have lost confidence in the government to do what's right, act in their best interests or solve any problem is directly a result of this mindset. When it takes 75% of states to ratify even a minor change to the Constitution or 60% of one body of one branch of government to even pass statute, it's no surprise that so many feel that "both parties are the same" or that "government doesn't matter". Of course, this is a wet dream and intended outcome for the right (as they've never relied upon confidence in government in the modern era), so why should anybody else buy into it?

Let elections actually have consequences. Grease the slippery slope. Maybe we'll have a terrible revolution or breakthrough in enlightenment; either way, this nation is doomed if it remains on its current trajectory. Time to let the fault lines crack. Change is growth and vice-versa.

All fair points - I don't disagree. I just don't see why abortion access / shutting down the two clinics still open in faraway states that have no personal impact would cause that level of reaction. It's easy to see how it animates the rights since they have this deranged belief that mass murder is occurring.

The people most animated by the Supreme Court as an issue don't strike me as the people who support reform by any means necessary because a huge contingent are far too comfortable with the status quo. I think it's going to need mass economic stagnation. Especially with the loaded language coming out against 1/6, I don't think there is any appetite for left-wing escalation.

I also think it's going to be an economic issue that finally sinks the Supreme Court. Whenever Democrats next find themselves in the majority with the presidency, and there's a serious recession (at least on 2008's scale) then that is when the filibuster will go. Then the Supreme Court will be targeted immediately after it strikes down one of the Democrats' policies, assuming it hasn't overstepped to the point that packing it isn't already issue number 1 on their agenda. Whether this happens sooner rather than later, who knows. What's important to consider is that faith in this country's institutions is plummeting, as Adam said, and I suspect that faith in the Supreme Court is likely going to become as partisan as approval of whoever the current president is. Once the geriatric leadership is gone, you're going to see leaders in both parties that don't even pretend to respect this country's institutions. If Roberts thinks that it's the leak that is threatening his Court's institution then he is way behind the times.

[DaleCooper]

For people feeling pain, this is what the conservative movement has felt for the last 50 years, as they fought to overturn the ruling. For the many who think abortion is murder, it has certainly been a painful time in their lives. Both sides will struggle through this battle and unity is key. I wish to see Americans from both aisles learn to be civil to each other, not attack fellow citizens over policy. Sadly, the fact that this was even leaked makes me feel that is getting less possible by the day.

You know what, for a split second I was going to post something snarky in response to this, but I think this is a great post and it's an attitude people should appreciate. Well done.

[DaleCooper]

Lol, the Young Turks Network is one of the worst "news" outlets in American history.

[DaleCooper]

https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1522670972909805569


Like I said , nobody outside Partisans will care in October

I don't know how it's going to affect this year's elections but it will have an effect longterm. Abortion is not something that only partisans care about.

[DaleCooper]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

[DaleCooper]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

Politics as physics with equal and opposite reactions.

Republicans are actively trying to overthrow the republic, but on the other hand a random state rep is too sensitive in her language.
So both sides really.

Because seeming political and well informed without actually having to have an opinion is a drug allot of people can't quit.

That's beautiful. But you need to win votes to take power in this country, so unless the left has figured out a way to win elections without persuading voters then I suggest it start speaking to the voters in a way they actually understand.

[DaleCooper]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

My friends and Associates are overwhelmingly liberal and pro-choice. Anecdote is not evidence, but I do not know a single person on the left, even acquaintances level, who talks like this. Not one. I refuse to believe that I am somehow the exception to the rule and my circle of friends are likewise.

Sorry, but I am firmly convinced you are wrong and that in fact nearly no one on the left actually talks like this, let alone almost everyone as you facetiously claim.

I'm referring to the left that everybody sees on the news and in politics. And if nearly no one on the left actually talks like this, then why is it a hill the Democrats want to die on? Why not oppose this kind of talk since it obviously turns people away?

[DaleCooper]

THIS DOESN'T HELP, PLEASE SHUT THE F[INKS] UP WITH THIS TYPE OF LANGUAGE AT A TIME LIKE THIS

https://twitter.com/StateRepHong/status/1521298873859334145

The language is dumb, but acting like it's going to do any meaningful damage to the pro-choice cause is laughable. The internet isn't real life.

Sorry to dredge this up, I know this post is a couple days old, but I just had a conversation this afternoon with the least online person I know, and her exact words were, "You can't even say 'mothers' anymore". I don't know where she heard it, but we're way past the point of this being a Twitter only thing. Everybody knows that the left talks like this.

Politics as physics with equal and opposite reactions.

Republicans are actively trying to overthrow the republic, but on the other hand a random state rep is too sensitive in her language.
So both sides really.

Because seeming political and well informed without actually having to have an opinion is a drug allot of people can't quit.

That's beautiful. But you need to win votes to take power in this country, so unless the left has figured out a way to win elections without persuading voters then I suggest it start speaking to the voters in a way they actually understand.

Umm, a State Rep from Wisconsin's twitter post may not be indicative of Democratic party messaging writ large?

Okay great, then the Democrats have absolutely nothing to change. Just keep doing exactly what they're doing and then complain about how unfair it is that nobody voted for them every time they lose.

[DaleCooper]

https://twitter.com/DouglasKBlair/status/1523095574156742657


The people who leaked this need to be arrested and throw in prison for years

Put the insurrection traitors in a gulag first, then maybe we can talk about the - *checks notes* - whistleblowers trying to save the future of women's rights in America.

They are in jail and leaking the addresses is completely out of line and horrific.

If they were private citizens, then sure, but these are 9 of the most powerful people in the country.

[DaleCooper]

When Republicans cried about the “tyranny of the majority”, it wasn’t the “tyranny” part they had a problem with, it was the “majority” part. They wanted to be the tyrants without needing a majority of the country.

This is definitely true, but it's also interesting how quickly they turned on the Supreme Court. I remember just a few years ago all the lines from fake Christians who were heartbroken about gay marriage complaining about the "black-robed tyrants" on the Supreme Court. Now they love them. It's crazy how nakedly partisan and political these people are.

[DaleCooper]

Our God IS an Awesome God!

Profiting off the name of the Lord is satanic.

[DaleCooper]

Our God IS an Awesome God!

This decision is only ging to drive younger people further and further away from religion. You do realise that?

Four people to date have recommended this, none of which have a history of caring what God might thing enough to change their mind on an issue.  I take these assessments with a grain of salt.  

I can assure you that God's reputation is in the toilet, especially among younger people in this country, and it's "Christians" who have put it there. Prominent Christians in this country made the decision a while back to whore themselves and their faith out for worldly influence, and because of that sin, Christianity in the US is now often seen as a brand or cultural identity rather than a genuine faith. And that's a reputation that all Christians, even the good ones, have to deal with now.

Christians have forgotten what they're here for, and that's to serve others and lead people to Christ. It's not to save the world themselves through political action. Look at Trump, one of the men most responsible for this repeal. He's a hell-bound man. Trump is 76 and will soon die, and the "Christians" who have been kissing his ass for the last few years have never once bothered to attempt to lead that man to Christ. Even worse, they're willing to publicly pretend that he's Christian because they need his influence and power. They're fine with him and his devotees burning in hell if it means they can get some more political power to push whatever their next issue is. It's goddamn disgusting. How can you possibly expect people who don't already agree with you to take anything you say related to God seriously?

[DaleCooper]

Our God IS an Awesome God!

This decision is only ging to drive younger people further and further away from religion. You do realise that?

Four people to date have recommended this, none of which have a history of caring what God might thing enough to change their mind on an issue.  I take these assessments with a grain of salt.  

I can assure you that God's reputation is in the toilet, especially among younger people in this country, and it's "Christians" who have put it there. Prominent Christians in this country made the decision a while back to whore themselves and their faith out for worldly influence, and because of that sin, Christianity in the US is now often seen as a brand or cultural identity rather than a genuine faith. And that's a reputation that all Christians, even the good ones, have to deal with now.

Christians have forgotten what they're here for, and that's to serve others and lead people to Christ. It's not to save the world themselves through political action. Look at Trump, one of the men most responsible for this repeal. He's a hell-bound man. Trump is 76 and will soon die, and the "Christians" who have been kissing his ass for the last few years have never once bothered to attempt to lead that man to Christ. Even worse, they're willing to publicly pretend that he's Christian because they need his influence and power. They're fine with him and his devotees burning in hell if it means they can get some more political power to push whatever their next issue is. It's goddamn disgusting. How can you possibly expect people who don't already agree with you to take anything you say related to God seriously?

I've heard this from you already.  We agree on some subjects, but not this one.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
Proverbs 1:7, KJV.  The word "fool" has a powerful meaning in Scripture, implying someone who is both unreasonable and unteachable.  If people are beginning to think that maybe they're not on God's Side on this issue, that is all to the good.  I hope their discomfort grows to the point to where they cry out to God, who is lovingly waiting for them to come.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

[DaleCooper]

Our God IS an Awesome God!

This decision is only ging to drive younger people further and further away from religion. You do realise that?

Four people to date have recommended this, none of which have a history of caring what God might thing enough to change their mind on an issue.  I take these assessments with a grain of salt.  

I can assure you that God's reputation is in the toilet, especially among younger people in this country, and it's "Christians" who have put it there. Prominent Christians in this country made the decision a while back to whore themselves and their faith out for worldly influence, and because of that sin, Christianity in the US is now often seen as a brand or cultural identity rather than a genuine faith. And that's a reputation that all Christians, even the good ones, have to deal with now.

Christians have forgotten what they're here for, and that's to serve others and lead people to Christ. It's not to save the world themselves through political action. Look at Trump, one of the men most responsible for this repeal. He's a hell-bound man. Trump is 76 and will soon die, and the "Christians" who have been kissing his ass for the last few years have never once bothered to attempt to lead that man to Christ. Even worse, they're willing to publicly pretend that he's Christian because they need his influence and power. They're fine with him and his devotees burning in hell if it means they can get some more political power to push whatever their next issue is. It's goddamn disgusting. How can you possibly expect people who don't already agree with you to take anything you say related to God seriously?

I've heard this from you already.  We agree on some subjects, but not this one.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
Proverbs 1:7, KJV.  The word "fool" has a powerful meaning in Scripture, implying someone who is both unreasonable and unteachable.  If people are beginning to think that maybe they're not on God's Side on this issue, that is all to the good.  I hope their discomfort grows to the point to where they cry out to God, who is lovingly waiting for them to come.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Let the reader decide.  I'm sorry that my religious convictions didn't lead me to vote the way you'd like me to, but my reasoning is far more consistent and Biblical than those who argue that a Biblical Christian ought to have voted for Biden. 

The Biden Administration has unleashed the Forces of Mordor against the church.  They are actively anti-Christian, not just passively.  Voting is a choice between two (2) individuals, not an endorsement of that candidate's every issue position.  I have no regrets as to my 2016 and 2020 votes. 

I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about exploiting the name of Jesus Christ for political power and deliberately ignoring their Christian obligations in order to maintain worldly power.