SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Del Tachi]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1521569658960240642

inciting violence impeech obama when

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

A quick fact to demonstrate how the partisan politics of this issue have changed over the past 30 years:

When Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided (essentially reaffirming Roe in 1992), eight of the nine justices on the Court has been appointed by Republicans.  And the sole Democratic appointee (Byron White) dissented!

[Schiff for Senate]

Absolutely disgusting, if true.

What I think many abortion ban proponents and Republican politicians don't get that statewide bans are primarily a war on poor women, who happen to be disproportionally black or Hispanic. Anyone from a conservative state with enough money is just going to sit in a plane and have an abortion in California, New York or Illinois, or somewhere abroad. All it does is preventing abortions for less wealthy women/families.

Furthermore, this is just a move backwards by a minority wanting to impose their moral views on society as a whole. Of course anything should be done to prevent abortions and late-term be restricted, but a total ban in some states is not a good idea. Generally, I believe abortion should be rare and legal.

Watch the GOP be quick to legalize abortion again when they realize that more Democrat babies are being born

Well the babies won't necessarily grow up to adopt their parents' views. Besides, they won't be able to vote for another 18 years, by which time the vast majority of today's Republican politicians (politicians generally) will have retired.

[Inmate Trump]

Again I ask of our Republican "friends"...

Imagine you have a 12 year old daughter who is raped with no access to a safe, legal abortion.

How do you feel about it?

They think rape is a opportunity.

None of them will address this question for some reason.

[Figueira]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

[Schiff for Senate]

A quick fact to demonstrate how the partisan politics of this issue have changed over the past 30 years:

When Planned Parenthood vs. Casey was decided (essentially reaffirming Roe in 1992), eight of the nine justices on the Court has been appointed by Republicans.  And the sole Democratic appointee (Byron White) dissented!

One of the Nixon appointees, John Paul Stevens, turned out to be very liberal. He was appointed by a Republican, and as a SCOTUS justice he argued against the death penalty and actually called for repealing the Second Amendment. Today I can't imagine a SCOTUS justice, liberal or conservative (but especially conservative) ever having the nerve to actually call for the Second Amendment to be abolished.

In fact SCOTUS appointments used to be a nonpartisan affair where only competance was really considered. Whether the judge was right-wing or left-wing and whether the Senate was controlled by Democrats or Republicans, SCOTUS and other nominees usually got confirmed by overwhelming margins and with big bipartisan support.

Today, it's considered a big deal that KBJ got three Republican votes. Going back to, say, the 1980s or even 1990s, it'd have been crazy for all the members of one party to vote yes and for just three members of the other to vote yes - in fact, much of the time both Democrats and Republicans (i.e., there'd be Republican votes both against and in favour and Republican votes both against and in favour).

[Adam Griffin]

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."

[Figueira]

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 ("[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."

I get that, but Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court ruling to begin with. What exactly could Biden or Democrats do that would prevent red states from banning abortion?

(Pass a law that makes abortion legal everywhere I guess, but that requires Manchin agreeing to get rid of the filibuster, and it's not really the same as "ignoring the courts".)

[Blair]

If you listen to ‘movement conservatives’ the original sin was the appointment of Souter.

It was after that they realised they needed to essentially create republican appointed justices in a test tube.

[Adam Griffin]

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 ("[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."

I get that, but Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court ruling to begin with. What exactly could Biden or Democrats do that would prevent red states from banning abortion?

(Pass a law that makes abortion legal everywhere I guess, but that requires Manchin agreeing to get rid of the filibuster, and it's not really the same as "ignoring the courts".)

Yes, this is a much larger issue of course. Perhaps one of the only reasons why liberals even still care for the court is because of a handful of relatively recent rulings like Roe v. Wade. But after a certain point - if people don't want these kinds of things to continue happening - the trajectory is rather clear. The Warren Court was a blip on the radar of 200 years of anti-democratic, regressive behavior. Combined with the unprecedented partisan and political polarization in today's America, the court is (and always has been) effectively designed in such a manner where if you cannot control it, you must eliminate its influence altogether.

There will continue to be many more rulings such as these in the coming years I am sure - many of which will be against concepts not established by previous iterations of the court.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If you listen to ‘movement conservatives’ the original sin was the appointment of Souter.

It was after that they realised they needed to essentially create republican appointed justices in a test tube.

Even now, there are absolutely huge numbers of careerists who just pose as a potential "firm conservative" just so that they might get a SCOTUS appointment.

[Blair]

As harrowing and awful as it is, it’s been noted before just how weak and unsustainable it’s been to rely on the Supreme Court-  a body that is so powerful that not only is the process rigged to appoint it, but people are prepared to die on it rather than risk someone else getting an appointment.

There’s a very long pattern of Democrats making stupid decisions; LBJ trying to appoint Fortas in 68, Ted Kennedy being too much of an emotional wreck to stop Clarence Thomas, RBG not retiring in 2014 when the Senate was clearly going to flip, letting Feinstein stay on the Judiciary committee, Manchin voting in favour of BK. But these were only stupid because the court has the features of an absolute monarch- virtually unmatched power only tempered by death.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

Issue. Polling. Is. Worthless!!!

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

Issue. Polling. Is. Worthless!!!

No. It's. Not. Lmfao.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

Issue. Polling. Is. Worthless!!!

It is a weak (but real) indicator of just how laughably incompetent and repulsive the Democrats are. They tend to underperform on most issues of the day.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

Issue. Polling. Is. Worthless!!!

It is a weak (but real) indicator of just how laughably incompetent and repulsive the Democrats are. They tend to underperform on most issues of the day.

It is still legal overturning Roe doesn't Natl ban Abortion it gives it right to the states and it's legal in every tate

It's just not a Federal issue Amy longer, people get confused when you say overturn Roe they think Abortion is made illegal

[Badger]

It's pretty wild, and under discussed, how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all blatantly lied to the Senate about how they respected Roe's precedent.

It's underreported because frankly no one, in Congress, the media, or nearly any voter paying attention actually believed them for a second.

[afleitch]

In related news Oklahoma signed into law it's 6 week ban, with 'bounty hunter' provisions.

[Aurelius]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

Issue. Polling. Is. Worthless!!!

No. It's. Not. Lmfao.

Then explain why universal background checks always poll at above 90% no matter how it's asked, then when it was put on the ballot in Maine it lost even though anti-gun groups spent six times as much as pro-gun groups.

The only form of issue polling that actually matters is the ballot box.

[ProudModerate2]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1521569658960240642

inciting violence impeech obama when

"Impeech when" he actually has a huge rally in DC, asking and inciting a very large crowd to go to the Supreme Court, in where the crowd beats DC/SC police with American flag poles, gouges their eyes, and kills police officials from the physical and emotional trauma they endured (including by suicide).

God forbid we actually have a President or former President, that would actually do such a despicable thing to our nation's democratic way of life.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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."

Also, Congress can simply explicitly invoke its Constitutional power to place legislation and other matters beyond the Court's authority. While I'm not aware of any examples, Article III is very clear:

"The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

[GeorgiaModerate]

Historically, issue polling tends to show less bias than election polling.  (Caveat: assuming quality pollsters and sound question wording.)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

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?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

Issue. Polling. Is. Worthless!!!

No. It's. Not. Lmfao.

Then explain why universal background checks always poll at above 90% no matter how it's asked, then when it was put on the ballot in Maine it lost even though anti-gun groups spent six times as much as pro-gun groups.

The only form of issue polling that actually matters is the ballot box.

Ok, since we're playing this game. Personhood ballot initiatives have failed in states like North Dakota and Mississippi in the past ten years. West Virginia Republicans were able to get one passed in their state back in 2018 by just 3 points in a state that Trump won by over 40 just two years prior.

There's no reason to believe the polls I posted are inaccurate, especially since they passed your ballot box test