TX SB8 architect files amicus brief asking SCOTUS to overturn Roe, Casey, Lawrence, and Obergefell

[Non Swing Voter]

It’s a travesty what the Bush wing stands for. Trump deserves blame as well for making that right-wing extremist Pence his VP and for letting McConnell stack the courts with backwards reactionaries.

The sooner the party moderates on moral issues, the sooner it becomes a national party again instead of this regional party of hatred for women and LGBT people.

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican? 

[Non Swing Voter]

Let it happen.

Neither Roe nor Obergefell had popular support at the time those decisions went down.  Perhaps that's not true today.  Perhaps state legislatures will pass into law what these decisions have wrought to date.  Both of those decisions have one thing in common; they created "rights" out of Constitutional Whole Cloth.  They are examples of why Americans on both sides of the Spectrum view the SCOTUS as no less "political" than Congress, and certainly not "the least dangerous Branch".

Not remotely true. The Supreme Court was rather slow to rule on gay marriage, and it was far more popular than interracial marriage was at the time of Loving v. Virginia

He probably wants Loving v. Virginia overturned too.

[Non Swing Voter]

I don't think they will overturn Obergefell because Gorsuch has had some pretty pro-LGBT rulings.  I also think SCOTUS justices aren't idiots and they know where public opinion is on this.  It's more like 60-40 on abortion so they were closer on that issue but it would be too out of the mainstream to undo gay marriage.  Plus do we think Kavanaugh would undo Kennedy's signature ruling? 

[BG-NY]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

[Non Swing Voter]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

Hmm ok.  More people vote on the issues you described in your previous post than the ones in this post but fair enough. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

Hmm ok.  More people vote on the issues you described in your previous post than the ones in this post but fair enough. 

Immigration is routinely underestimated, especially in Republican primaries.

[BG-NY]

Hmm ok.  More people vote on the issues you described in your previous post than the ones in this post but fair enough.  

A lot depends on who they nominate. Trump was barely tolerable, but obviously his picking Pence for VP made the vote really hard to stomach. If someone more secular and less of a toadie for the religious right is nominated in 2024 it would be ideal. Otherwise I probably vote third party.

My first two votes for president were Kerry and Obama, but would be hard to vote for the democrats as for all of its issues the GOP isn't nominating "invade the world, invite the world" types like Bush and McCain right now. I considered Romney in 2012 before the 47% thing and hawkishness on Russia.

[Non Swing Voter]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

Did he?  He completely stopped talking about immigration right before the election to try to win back hispanics...

[Non Swing Voter]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

Hmm ok.  More people vote on the issues you described in your previous post than the ones in this post but fair enough. 

Immigration is routinely underestimated, especially in Republican primaries.

In primaries yes but for general elections I do not think it is a winning issue for Republicans because it turns off minority voters and doesn't really convince swing voters of anything.  A lot of people in the suburbs don't want rampant illegal immigration but it's also not really an issue that resonates with them, especially because most of their interactions with illegal immigrants are not MS-13 but rather people who do service jobs and just work hard trying to make a living.

[BG-NY]

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

Part of the issue is the overlap with conservative justices. In practice it might not be that different, but I'm fine voting for someone nominally pro-life if they don't talk about the abortion issue much and don't prioritize overturning Roe v Wade. A lot depends on presentation, though.

[Comrade Funk]

Hmm ok.  More people vote on the issues you described in your previous post than the ones in this post but fair enough. 

A lot depends on who they nominate. Trump was barely tolerable, but obviously his picking Pence for VP made the vote really hard to stomach. If someone more secular and less of a toadie for the religious right is nominated in 2024 it would be ideal. Otherwise I probably vote third party.

My first two votes for president were Kerry and Obama, but would be hard to vote for the democrats as for all of its issues the GOP isn't nominating "invade the world, invite the world" types like Bush and McCain right now. I considered Romney in 2012 before the 47% thing and hawkishness on Russia.

Trump was barely tolerable? Dude was a complete hack who nominated every evangelical jihadist or Opus Dei nutbag possible. And every Republican will do the same because at the heart of the Christian GOP is the fear of sexual freedom (especially homosexual sex and interracial sex a few decades ago).

They will never elect anyone remotely interested in nominating secular judges.

[BG-NY]

In primaries yes but for general elections I do not think it is a winning issue for Republicans because it turns off minority voters and doesn't really convince swing voters of anything.  A lot of people in the suburbs don't want rampant illegal immigration but it's also not really an issue that resonates with them, especially because most of their interactions with illegal immigrants are not MS-13 but rather people who do service jobs and just work hard trying to make a living.

Which is why the argument against motivation needs to be motivated by labor considerations, rather than for personal responsibility or cultural reasons. The exception would be during the pandemic. I have made clear I support a vaccine mandate - I also support an immigration moratorium as long as Covid is an issue.

Legal immigration levels should be purely a function of unemployment and wage levels. If we've hit maximum employment and wage growth is considerable (especially in industries prospective immigrants are most likely to work), then let more people in.

[Non Swing Voter]

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

Part of the issue is the overlap with conservative justices. In practice it might not be that different, but I'm fine voting for someone nominally pro-life if they don't talk about the abortion issue much and don't prioritize overturning Roe v Wade. A lot depends on presentation, though.

I don't think that will pan out.  The entire focus of the GOP over the last 10 years hasn't been legislating on anything (including immigration).  It's basically 2 things:

1) Tax cuts to uber wealthy donors and corporations (not UMC, I mean people with net worths over 3 or 4 million)

2) Getting federalist society judges into the courts to overturn abortion

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

Did he?  He completely stopped talking about immigration right before the election to try to win back hispanics...

Name me one Republican who would dare run on a 2013 style immigration bill in a Republican primary and stand a chance?

That's the difference from before.

[Non Swing Voter]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

Did he?  He completely stopped talking about immigration right before the election to try to win back hispanics...

Name me one Republican who would dare run on a 2013 style immigration bill in a Republican primary and stand a chance?

That's the difference from before.

Sure, but if you think they are going to do anything on the issue with power you're in for a rude awakening.  Just like abortion, they want to complain about it but they're not going to run on it in a general election campaign nor will they do anything with power.

[Non Swing Voter]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

Did he?  He completely stopped talking about immigration right before the election to try to win back hispanics...

Name me one Republican who would dare run on a 2013 style immigration bill in a Republican primary and stand a chance?

That's the difference from before.

Sure, but if you think they are going to do anything on the issue with power you're in for a rude awakening.  Just like abortion, they want to complain about it but they're not going to run on it in a general election campaign nor will they do anything with power.

Should clarify... I mean at the Federal level.  State legislatures in extremely GOP states might.

[BG-NY]

Trump was barely tolerable? Dude was a complete hack who nominated every evangelical jihadist or Opus Dei nutbag possible. And every Republican will do the same because at the heart of the Christian GOP is the fear of sexual freedom (especially homosexual  sex).

I'm 34 years old, and I turned 18 under W Bush. While I think the Federalist Society's influence on the GOP is problematic, it means quite a lot to me that Trump was not personally religious. I don't mind a transactionalist for president.

My issue with a Bush or Pence is they actually believe this stuff. This is my trepidation with Hawley as well, even if I like him on a lot of policy. He has a lot of eyebrow-raising views. Tucker won't run, but he has Hawley's views with the requisite charisma and is significantly more secular.

[Non Swing Voter]

Trump was barely tolerable? Dude was a complete hack who nominated every evangelical jihadist or Opus Dei nutbag possible. And every Republican will do the same because at the heart of the Christian GOP is the fear of sexual freedom (especially homosexual  sex).

I'm 34 years old, and I turned 18 under W Bush. While I think the Federalist Society's influence on the GOP is problematic, it means quite a lot to me that Trump was not personally religious. I don't mind a transactionalist for president.

My issue with a Bush or Pence is they actually believe this stuff. This is my trepidation with Hawley as well, even if I like him on a lot of policy. He has a lot of eyebrow-raising views. Tucker won't run, but he has Hawley's views with the requisite charisma and is significantly more secular.

I don't see why this matters at all?  he appointed the exact same judges Mike Pence or any other Republican would. 

Also, he tricked a lot of people pretending to not be full on conservative before the 2016 election.  I think that's one of the main reasons he lost.  Fundamentally very few voters changed their minds in this polarized electorate, between 2016 and 2020.  But there was immediate buyers remorse over Trump because he governed much more conservatively than he came off in the election. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

Hmm ok.  More people vote on the issues you described in your previous post than the ones in this post but fair enough.  

Immigration is routinely underestimated, especially in Republican primaries.

In primaries yes but for general elections I do not think it is a winning issue for Republicans because it turns off minority voters and doesn't really convince swing voters of anything.  A lot of people in the suburbs don't want rampant illegal immigration but it's also not really an issue that resonates with them, especially because most of their interactions with illegal immigrants are not MS-13 but rather people who do service jobs and just work hard trying to make a living.

It doesn't play well in NOVA sure, but it has routinely played well here in NC. Which is why every major statewide Republican (except for Tillis) has traditionally been hawkish on the border/tough on illegal immigration including McCrory (even back in his Eisenhower moderate days) and Richard Burr (in spite of his friendship with open border John Boehner).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is all 100% true.  Why are you a Republican?  

Because my top three issues are immigration reduction (illegal and legal), unilateral foreign policy/isolationism, protectionism on trade. More broadly I believe in redistribution from the New Economy to the Old Economy.

One thing that Trump succeeded in doing was facilitating a complete realignment on immigration (finishing what Romney had started on this front) and I don't see that being reversed. Immigration is now a key litmus for any Republican nominee.  

On the other hand, the primary key litmus test is abortion and I don't see that changing any time soon either.

Did he?  He completely stopped talking about immigration right before the election to try to win back hispanics...

Name me one Republican who would dare run on a 2013 style immigration bill in a Republican primary and stand a chance?

That's the difference from before.

Sure, but if you think they are going to do anything on the issue with power you're in for a rude awakening.  Just like abortion, they want to complain about it but they're not going to run on it in a general election campaign nor will they do anything with power.

Don't patronize me, who do you think you are talking to? I haven't spent the last several years criticizing multiple aspects of Republicans disappointing and failing to keep their promises to be taken as some gullible idiot.

[BG-NY]

I don't think that will pan out.  The entire focus of the GOP over the last 10 years hasn't been legislating on anything (including immigration).  It's basically 2 things:

1) Tax cuts to uber wealthy donors and corporations (not UMC, I mean people with net worths over 3 or 4 million)

2) Getting federalist society judges into the courts to overturn abortion

I don't disagree about the GOP's legislative priorities being frustrating.

The GOP did quite a bit on immigration through the executive branch. Remain in Mexico policy, Safe Third County agreement, Public Charge, the pause during Covid, were all important. I would like to have a lot of this codified in legislation, but it will take a reconstitution of the party's House and Senate delegations to do so. Even a simple, inoffensive bill with very basic reform for legal immigration in Grassley-Cornyn fell around 6 votes short in the Senate.

Regarding my other top two issues, Trump's administration did kill TPP and negotiated USMCA, the most protectionist trade agreement the US has signed in modern history. I disliked the phase 1 agreement with China, but a lot of this is post hoc given they couldn't live up to the requirements during Covid (or it gave them an excuse) - otherwise the trade war with China was fantastic, and I appreciated the rampling up of a trade war with Europe. As Yankee noted, this isn't unique to Trump, and Romney probably would've done some similar things in this vein (as did most Republicans prior to Reagan - who did have a trade war of his own). Whether Trump wins in 2024 or not, the next non-Trump nominee will also have similar priorities on Trade.

On foreign policy, a lot of the GOP is still removed from Trump. One of the worst developments of the past month is a lot of the party criticizing Biden on the Afghanistan withdrawal, for the wrong reasons. I did not like the Solemani strike, and Trump allowed the generals in his administration to convince him to slow walk withdrawals in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. He also increased troop presence in a few places like Somalia, which was unfortunate. My biggest fear of nominating DeSantis, btw, is that during his time in the House, he came off as somebody who would be a step back (in my opinion) on alliances and foreign policy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't think that will pan out.  The entire focus of the GOP over the last 10 years hasn't been legislating on anything (including immigration).  It's basically 2 things:

1) Tax cuts to uber wealthy donors and corporations (not UMC, I mean people with net worths over 3 or 4 million)

2) Getting federalist society judges into the courts to overturn abortion

I don't disagree about the GOP's legislative priorities being frustrating.

The GOP did quite a bit on immigration through the executive branch. Remain in Mexico policy, Safe Third County agreement, Public Charge, the pause during Covid, were all important. I would like to have a lot of this codified in legislation, but it will take a reconstitution of the party's House and Senate delegations to do so. Even a simple, inoffensive bill with very basic reform for legal immigration in Grassley-Cornyn fell around 6 votes short in the Senate.

Regarding my other top two issues, Trump's administration did kill TPP and negotiated USMCA, the most protectionist trade agreement the US has signed in modern history. I disliked the phase 1 agreement with China, but a lot of this is post hoc given they couldn't live up to the requirements during Covid (or it gave them an excuse) - otherwise the trade war with China was fantastic, and I appreciated the rampling up of a trade war with Europe. As Yankee noted, this isn't unique to Trump, and Romney probably would've done some similar things in this vein (as did most Republicans prior to Reagan - who did have a trade war of his own). Whether Trump wins in 2024 or not, the next non-Trump nominee will also have similar priorities on Trade.

On foreign policy, a lot of the GOP is still removed from Trump. One of the worst developments of the past month is a lot of the party criticizing Biden on the Afghanistan withdrawal, for the wrong reasons. I did not like the Solemani strike, and Trump allowed the generals in his administration to convince him to slow walk withdrawals in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. He also increased troop presence in a few places like Somalia, which was unfortunate. My biggest fear of nominating DeSantis, btw, is that during his time in the House, he came off as somebody who would be a step back (in my opinion) on alliances and foreign policy.

The only way to make permanent the shifts on trade and to push towards different policies on taxation would be to reform campaign finance. As long as rich neoliberals can buy the Republican Party every cycle, nothing will change in terms of those policies long term. They will certainly try to erode the immigration litmus test as well but the party has twice demonstrated its willingness to give them the finger on that point.

[BG-NY]

I don't see why this matters at all?  he appointed the exact same judges Mike Pence or any other Republican would. 

Also, he tricked a lot of people pretending to not be full on conservative before the 2016 election.  I think that's one of the main reasons he lost.  Fundamentally very few voters changed their minds in this polarized electorate, between 2016 and 2020.  But there was immediate buyers remorse over Trump because he governed much more conservatively than he came off in the election. 

It's just something that makes it difficult for me to vote for somebody. Trump, like Obama, does not vote with his God or faith in mind first. If that shapes and informs someone's politics, that hurts quite a bit.

Regarding governing like a conservative, I agree and disagree. Ironically, the RGB retirement might've cost Trump the election as much as Covid. If you look at the map, the regions* in which Trump performed worse in 2020 than in 2016 were in the Northeast and bordering states like Pennsylvania in which secular and Catholic whites turned on him. Some of this might've been an identity politics thing, given that Biden himself is a Catholic white male, but it did make a bit of a difference. From speaking with people who I know personally (danger - anecdotes), having Pence on the ticket was anathema. At first he seemed like someone who was there to placate the coalition, but his views had an outsized influence on courts and priorities.

(*There were some changes in voter laws. As I have noted before, while I do have some issues with changes made to voter laws in the year prior to elections - this was an issue in GA and PA particularly - I am in favor of expansion of voter rights. While some people, particularly third-party voters, did change their minds from 2016->2020, the shift in results was disproportionately due to 2016 nonvoters entering the electorate.)

[BG-NY]

The only way to make permanent the shifts on trade and to push towards different policies on taxation would be to reform campaign finance. As long as rich neoliberals can buy the Republican Party every cycle, nothing will change in terms of those policies long term. They will certainly try to erode the immigration litmus test as well but the party has twice demonstrated its willingness to give them the finger on that point.

Well, I think something else that can accomplish this is a move toward extreme deficit spending, quantitative easing and MMT. Trump wasn't somebody who cared a ton about the budget for most of his presidency, and during the pandemic he clearly ripped the bandaid off. Biden has continued to move the Overton Window even further left.

I wouldn't be surprised if we attempt negative interest rates soon, and in practice it might not hurt us given America's virtual monopsony status (as reserve currency and top economy).