SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The legally correct result, sadly enough.

With all due respect, if you really believe this then you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

By the way is no one else going to discuss the fact that there was a leak at all?

Maybe its a liberal clerk trying to get Kavanaugh to face public pressure/bullying?

Maybe its Breyer?

Who cares?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The political fallout of this will be fascinating

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Folks who repeatedly concern troll about this will be muted from this board for 24 hrs.  I’ve already had to issue one of these.  I am in no mood for concern trolling right now; this is the first and last warning.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am a big believer in the 10th Amendment and I would love to see someone argue that I am a theocrat or an enabler of theocracy.

You’re not a theocrat, you just don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to this issue, legally speaking.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Folks who repeatedly concern troll about this will be muted from this board for 24 hrs.  I’ve already had to issue one of these.  I am in no mood for concern trolling right now; this is the first and last warning.

So uh, can you define this so no one gets unfairly moderated for expressing genuine opinions?

Just asking since the transparency would be a good thing here.

Use your common sense, that’s what God gave it to you for.  I’m not playing this game.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am a big believer in the 10th Amendment and I would love to see someone argue that I am a theocrat or an enabler of theocracy.

You’re not a theocrat, you just don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to this issue, legally speaking.

I'm not interested in the legal analysis of anyone who opposes overturning West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Folks who repeatedly concern troll about this will be muted from this board for 24 hrs.  I’ve already had to issue one of these.  I am in no mood for concern trolling right now; this is the first and last warning.

So uh, can you define this so no one gets unfairly moderated for expressing genuine opinions?

Just asking since the transparency would be a good thing here.

Use your common sense, that’s what God gave it to you for.  I’m not playing this game.

Um no, this needs clarification.

Which part?  This isn’t complicated; use your common sense.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And ISTFG, if Manchin & Sinema won't finally vote to end the filibuster, at least on a bill to just do a Lilly Ledbetter & statutorily codify Roe, then what good are they even for? We have to assume that we only have the majority for 8 more months. Use it, f**kers! This, if NOTHING else, is what it's f**king for!!

Well Manchin is pro-life. In fact he probably would have lost to a Republican in West Virginia in 2018 if he supported Roe. So I'm not sure what you're complaining about there.

Joe Manchin is pro-Joe Manchin. He will do whatever enables him to exercise the most influence, flip-flopping included.

Manchin exercises the most influence by getting re-elected by West Virginians in 2024. Voting for a federal abortion law would end his political career. Would Roe be safer with Patrick Morrisey in the Senate and a Republican majority blocking Breyer from retiring?

If you want to be angry at a Democratic politician, be angry at Cal Cunningham, Sarah Gideon and Ben Nelson for blowing winnable races in purple states. Being angry at Manchin for not signing Democrats' political death warrant in his state is infantile.

You mean be upset at Schumer for forcing them on the state parties?

Schumer didn’t do that lol

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Folks who repeatedly concern troll about this will be muted from this board for 24 hrs.  I’ve already had to issue one of these.  I am in no mood for concern trolling right now; this is the first and last warning.

So uh, can you define this so no one gets unfairly moderated for expressing genuine opinions?

Just asking since the transparency would be a good thing here.

Use your common sense, that’s what God gave it to you for.  I’m not playing this game.

Um no, this needs clarification.

Which part?  This isn’t complicated; use your common sense.

That’s not an answer, that’s being a bad mod.

That’s the answer, so I guess it’ll have to do.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I can't wait for the usual nutjobs to defend this monstrosity.
https://twitter.com/chipfranklin/status/1542911673094356992

So is the idea to ban all pregnant women from leaving Mississippi?  Pretty sure that’d be wildly unconstitutional.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Not been on the forum for a while so this may have been discussed but what do you guys think of the idea to nuke the filibuster and legalize abortion nationwide?

I guess it's kind of moot because the SC would almost surely strike that down, but that seems like a dangerous road to go down because you're setting up Republicans to not just repeal it when they get in power again but to use that precedent to ban abortion in all 50 states in Congress. As it stands it's going to be legal in the overwhelming majority of the country, especially going by population.

It can only hurt the pro-choice side.  Either SCOTUS rules that there is no federal issue and most of the red state abortion bans are locked in for the century or SCOTUS allows it but then it flip-flops between legal nationwide and banned nationwide every 4-8 years if the filibuster is gone.It only makes sense for either side to pursue federal legislation if there is a 60+ vote bipartisan deal to be had.

With all due respect, not only is your overall conclusion wrong here, but the bolded part is simply not grounded in anything resembling reality and completely ignores almost every major political lesson of the last decade.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Not been on the forum for a while so this may have been discussed but what do you guys think of the idea to nuke the filibuster and legalize abortion nationwide?

I guess it's kind of moot because the SC would almost surely strike that down, but that seems like a dangerous road to go down because you're setting up Republicans to not just repeal it when they get in power again but to use that precedent to ban abortion in all 50 states in Congress. As it stands it's going to be legal in the overwhelming majority of the country, especially going by population.

It can only hurt the pro-choice side.  Either SCOTUS rules that there is no federal issue and most of the red state abortion bans are locked in for the century or SCOTUS allows it but then it flip-flops between legal nationwide and banned nationwide every 4-8 years if the filibuster is gone.It only makes sense for either side to pursue federal legislation if there is a 60+ vote bipartisan deal to be had.

With all due respect, not only is your overall conclusion wrong here, but the bolded part is simply not grounded in anything resembling reality and completely ignores almost every major political lesson of the last decade.

If federal abortion policy can be set with only 50 senate votes or even worse, by executive order, it will flip-flip between banned and legalized every time the opposite party takes office.  We see this with the Mexico City Policy, which has been immediately repealed by every Democratic president and then immediately reinstated by every Republican president since Reagan.

Elections have consequences; that’s kind of the idea. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Call this a part of a campaign to slowly but surely chip away at abortion rights until it becomes entirely illegal, but this proposal is pretty moderate and maybe even to the left of the median voter.

Imagine actually believing this