SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Ferguson97]

The lion's share of voters who care a lot about this ruling are safe for one party or the other.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this will shift someone from an R voter to a D voter. The argument is that it will shift them from a nonvoter to a D voter.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The lion's share of voters who care a lot about this ruling are safe for one party or the other.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this will shift someone from an R voter to a D voter. The argument is that it will shift them from a nonvoter to a D voter.

I think that we'd likely see the bulk of these allegedly likely-non-voters turn out anyway. Many of them voted for Obama for the first time in 2008 and have became more reliable voters since, after sitting out 2010 and 2014. They have homes, families, more disposable income, and other things that increase voter propensity. They also helped flip many suburban seats in 2018 and helped Ds keep the House in 2020. Why would they suddenly not vote in 2022?

[GregTheGreat657]

Sen. Cornyn compares the overturning of Roe to segregation

Full Article Link

TEXAS, USA — One day after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, which gave constitutional abortion rights to women for more than 50 years, a Texas senator is now going viral online for comparing it to another landmark ruling that was overruled related to racial segregation.

Sen. John Cornyn responded to a tweet by former president Barack Obama that denounced the Roe v. Wade decision. Cornyn's tweet said "Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education."

[jojoju1998]

This is a sh-t hole country.

This country has been going down the Toilet ever since 2000.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The lion's share of voters who care a lot about this ruling are safe for one party or the other.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this will shift someone from an R voter to a D voter. The argument is that it will shift them from a nonvoter to a D voter.

I think that we'd likely see the bulk of these allegedly likely-non-voters turn out anyway. Many of them voted for Obama for the first time in 2008 and have became more reliable voters since, after sitting out 2010 and 2014. They have homes, families, more disposable income, and other things that increase voter propensity. They also helped flip many suburban seats in 2018 and helped Ds keep the House in 2020. Why would they suddenly not vote in 2022?

It's far from obvious that 2010 and 2014 had low turnout because of the demographic forces that you're describing. The conventional wisdom that Democrats weren't energized to turn out in midterms with a Democratic President is still perfectly plausible.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The lion's share of voters who care a lot about this ruling are safe for one party or the other.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this will shift someone from an R voter to a D voter. The argument is that it will shift them from a nonvoter to a D voter.

I think that we'd likely see the bulk of these allegedly likely-non-voters turn out anyway. Many of them voted for Obama for the first time in 2008 and have became more reliable voters since, after sitting out 2010 and 2014. They have homes, families, more disposable income, and other things that increase voter propensity. They also helped flip many suburban seats in 2018 and helped Ds keep the House in 2020. Why would they suddenly not vote in 2022?

It's far from obvious that 2010 and 2014 had low turnout because of the demographic forces that you're describing. The conventional wisdom that Democrats weren't energized to turn out in midterms with a Democratic President is still perfectly plausible.

I think the conventional wisdom is not entirely wrong, only mostly wrong, and there is something to the idea that the outside party is mobilized by default. Most people aren't frequent voters until they reach their 30s, for a variety of reasons I mentioned.
Enthusiasm or not, most people do turn out in presidential years, but midterm cycles are another story. They have structurally lower turnout no matter how enthusiastic people are. The lower the level you get the more you are liable to see differential turnout be a factor. Of course, the laws passed over the past half-decade improving the convenience of voting could well have changed the ballgame here.

Most of the people who feel a significant enough stake in political happenings WILL turn out in a majority of circumstances, no matter how enthusiastic or energized they are about the choices on the ballot. That's easier to attain in the Trump Era than before, for both sides of politics. To a certain extent, this evens out any midterm enthusiasm disadvantage.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Alito said Birth Control isn't gonna be banned and Abortion is different because it takes a Human life and Tammy DUCKWORTH says that Crt packing and impeachment is certainly off the table but certainly this hurts Rs in OH, NC and FL Senate rand FL and TX Gov races races where Beasley and Demings and Ryan are kneck and kneck with their opponents certainly WI and PA are gone and the 303 blue wall, but Vance says he wants to ban Porn which is silly

Certainly it hurts Rs in OR Gov race and ME, it does energize youth Turnout that otherwise would have sat out the Election that's why now we can keep the H with an expanded map, youth were energized during Floyd and since then they have been unenthusiastic about Biden like they were in 2016 with Hillary

It's gonna be close to 65)60M not 80)75 M votes

[T0rM3nTeD]

My wife who grew up Catholic, married into a family of Evangelicals, and is now Atheist after the last couple years has never had an abortion, or considered one. We have one 5-year old daughter. She is basically an independent who leans left on a few things, and leans right on a few things. She is pro-choice now, though once pro-life. She sits on the fence on the issue for the most part, but is terrified about this decision because she sees it as a loss of rights for women, even though it should never affect her personally. This has motivated her to vote blue no matter who for the rest of her life (real blue, not atlas blue). Just some anecdotal experience from me. She sees this as going backwards in time and the start of rewinding women's equality and is terrified about a sort-of handmaids tale reality coming. She wants to move to Canada because of this issue and school shootings. Two years ago she hated how the cops were all getting bad names, was mostly pro-life besides rape/life of mother, and hated the welfare system in America because of those who take advantage of it.

[Badger]

“This is about saving lives”

Okay, then mandatory covid vaccines.

“No!!!!”

"This is about 'my body, my choice"

Okay, then no mandatory COVID vaccines.

"No!!!!"

If someone genuinely honestly can't perceive the vast Chasm between being required to get an injection or two and carrying a child to term, is an idiot. You are not an idiot, therefore you are not posting in good faith.

if "my body my choice" is the legal principle you are using to justify saying people have a constitutional right to an abortion than by the same justification COVID Vaccine mandates are also unconstitutional.

You can argue that Roe should be codified by a law passed by congress while supporting COVID vaccines but that is different cause laws are not the same thing as constitutional rights.

No, because the intrusion on any right to privacy between an inoculation-remember that we require these for kids to attend public schools?-is inconceivably less than such intrusion on forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. There are plenty of restrictions, or at least work, on abortion pursuant to Casey V Planned Parenthood despite the right to abortion being a constitutional right because of fundamental balancing test. Surely you understand this, right?

I think the argument is that if abortion is an issue of personal medical freedom, then vaccines are too.

this

That's like saying there's no difference whatsoever between a waiting. Or prohibiting violent felons from possessing firearms versus an all-out ban on Firearms. The argument is there, but it's extremist and foolish given that a balancing test is a fundamental part of judicial scrutiny.

[Badger]

A cousin friend on Facebook who's a Republican posted this today on her page. This is a message that Republicans should read before going off on any orthodox platform spouting of cutting programs or not giving any benefits to the "children" they'd deeply craved to life.

Roe v Wade = Overturned.
Great news….. yay. Now all Pro-lifers, I will be expecting you to sign-up for the next IMPACT classes offered to become certified foster parents. Furthermore,  my fellow Republicans should also now be the first ones to vote for additional Medicaid and TANF benefits, educational costs, funding for government assistance programs, and designated funding to housing resources. There is about to be a huge influx of substance addicted babies, babies with congenital defects, and babies needing end of life hospice homes and children entering the foster care system. Oh, also, better get the prisons built bigger and designate some more funds there because child abuse will also increase. Generational trauma, poverty, and cultural disparities in opportunity will also drastically increase. I‘m not saying I’m pro abortion….. I’m saying I’m pro take care of the kids. As the esteemed George Govignon, Esquire says, “You better protect them from the womb to the tomb.” Now let’s see pro-lifers step up in a new way

Firstly:  Let your cousin on Facebook show how SHE'D a "Womb to Tomber".  How's she doing with taking care of her own kids.  Is she childless?  Then is she stepping up herself.to fill the need of kids in need of competent parenting?  Her post is the post of a Bill Collector, and there's a place for that, but it's harder to be a Bill Payer than a Bill Collector because the Bill Payer accepts responsibility for the outcome.

Secondly:  I've personally stepped up.  My youngest son is a Step-Grandson who we adopted through the Foster Care system in a convoluted situation where my wife and I have raised him since he was 2 years old.  He's 17 now, and we're 65 and 67 now.  I'm working, not thinking of retiring at this point, because of concerns for his health insurance. 

Thirdly:  I know many Christians who had adopted children or served as Foster Parents.  If you went to church you would see such people.  People who have actually loved children sacrifically.  People who have given up their Empty Nest years to raise grandchildren in a tough spot.   

Now I've always supported an adequate Safety Net, and I still do.  I've spoke in public at a political event only once in the last 20 years, and I challenged all 3 candidates to ask why they didn't even mention the atrocious shape of Florida's Foster Care System.  (And this was before my youngest son was even born.)  I'm certainly for the alleviation of poverty, and the reason we have poverty in America is that we allow it.  But it's also fair to point out that many of the children in the tightest spots are the product of irresponsible behaviors, including all sorts of premarital or extramarital sex where there is no serious contemplation of what the couple will do with a child.  Yes, society should act despite the irresponsibility of the parties in question, who have created a child that they have no Earthly ides how to take care of (and minimal interest in learning), but there should be some role in addressing the irresponsibility. 

The problem is fuzzy, you are darn near only pro-lifer at least on this forum, and one of an extremely rare exception, that puts their money where their mouth is and actually supports and aggressively robust social safety net. Know I'm disappointed you're actually going to support Marco Rubio who of course will not do this.

If even half of pro-lifers felt the same way you do, we pro-choice voters would still vividly disagree but at least have a modicum of respect for your movement. As it stands though you're about the one in 50 exception, and sadly if you're voting for Rubio you're helping contribute this year at least to that same problem.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

[Inmate Trump]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

We agree!

[Person Man]

I got an interesting email at work today. Wells Fargo is on board with helping employees dodge abortion bans.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

We agree!

Let's have a virtual toast!  Ha ha. 

[Horus]

I got an interesting email at work today. Wells Fargo is on board with helping employees dodge abortion bans.

Really is a shame that so many women will have to rely on these mega corporations for healthcare. And it's not because the corporations are making some kind of moral statement, it's only because providing the healthcare is cheaper than dealing with a child.

Dystopian.

[Person Man]

I got an interesting email at work today. Wells Fargo is on board with helping employees dodge abortion bans.

Really is a shame that so many women will have to rely on these mega corporations for healthcare. And it's not because the corporations are making some kind of moral statement, it's only because providing the healthcare is cheaper than dealing with a child.

Dystopian.

At least they aren’t doing “abortion-free” workplaces or failing candidates for abortion coming up on their pre-join clearance. It could always be worse but I wish I got a month for paternity leave. This will have to be something I’m looking for in my next job.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

[Person Man]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

Imagine how stupid things would get if they replaced Kagan or Sotomayor with a Federalist society wunderkind/handmaid.

[Alben Barkley]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

What in the absolute f--k

If that's gonna happen, then Biden should just go full Andrew Jackson and refuse to enforce this court's asinine rulings.

[Person Man]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

What in the absolute f--k

If that's gonna happen, then Biden should just go full Andrew Jackson and refuse to enforce this court's asinine rulings.

That would basically mean that the President basically 1) fires everyone who uses the decision to disobey him, 2) send in the national guard to prevent states from enforcing the rulings, and 3) pardoning everyone involved, including himself, after leaving office.

[Ferguson97]

I got an interesting email at work today. Wells Fargo is on board with helping employees dodge abortion bans.

Really is a shame that so many women will have to rely on these mega corporations for healthcare. And it's not because the corporations are making some kind of moral statement, it's only because providing the healthcare is cheaper than dealing with a child.

Dystopian.

I've seen people say this several times, but I'm not really sure that it's true.

Several of these companies also offer paid maternity leave, and the higher-ups are at the corporations probably lean socially-liberal, so they are ideologically in favor of abortion access.

Material interests are always going to play a part, but they're not the only factor in decision-making.

[Person Man]

I got an interesting email at work today. Wells Fargo is on board with helping employees dodge abortion bans.

Really is a shame that so many women will have to rely on these mega corporations for healthcare. And it's not because the corporations are making some kind of moral statement, it's only because providing the healthcare is cheaper than dealing with a child.

Dystopian.

I've seen people say this several times, but I'm not really sure that it's true.

Several of these companies also offer paid maternity leave, and the higher-ups are at the corporations probably lean socially-liberal, so they are ideologically in favor of abortion access.

Material interests are always going to play a part, but they're not the only factor in decision-making.

Things can be a lot worse.

[Horus]

I got an interesting email at work today. Wells Fargo is on board with helping employees dodge abortion bans.

Really is a shame that so many women will have to rely on these mega corporations for healthcare. And it's not because the corporations are making some kind of moral statement, it's only because providing the healthcare is cheaper than dealing with a child.

Dystopian.

I've seen people say this several times, but I'm not really sure that it's true.

Several of these companies also offer paid maternity leave, and the higher-ups are at the corporations probably lean socially-liberal, so they are ideologically in favor of abortion access.

Material interests are always going to play a part, but they're not the only factor in decision-making.

You can take the corporate bigwigs at their word if you'd like, I won't.

[jojoju1998]

I got an interesting email at work today. Wells Fargo is on board with helping employees dodge abortion bans.

Really is a shame that so many women will have to rely on these mega corporations for healthcare. And it's not because the corporations are making some kind of moral statement, it's only because providing the healthcare is cheaper than dealing with a child.

Dystopian.

I've seen people say this several times, but I'm not really sure that it's true.

Several of these companies also offer paid maternity leave, and the higher-ups are at the corporations probably lean socially-liberal, so they are ideologically in favor of abortion access.

Material interests are always going to play a part, but they're not the only factor in decision-making.

You can take the corporate bigwigs at their word if you'd like, I won't.

A friend of mine took 5 months off and paid after she had her Kid; and she works for a Medical device company.

Companies have to compete globally for talent; and if they don't offer the same benefits as the global world;  they're going to lose out.

[Alben Barkley]

There was zero need for this ruling.  Dangerous and dumb.

Fortunately, this Supreme Court has also recently ruled that it's fine to ignore the Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects its own precedent in death row decision

The Supreme Court held in June 2020 that Texas cannot execute Andrus because he had received unconstitutionally inadequate legal representation at his trial.

But the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling – essentially flouting the bedrock judicial principle that lower court judges must abide by the decisions of the highest court in the land, even when they disagree.

But this time, the Supreme Court decided not to intervene, effectively acquiescing to a lower court’s insubordination.

What in the absolute f--k

If that's gonna happen, then Biden should just go full Andrew Jackson and refuse to enforce this court's asinine rulings.

That would basically mean that the President basically 1) fires everyone who uses the decision to disobey him, 2) send in the national guard to prevent states from enforcing the rulings, and 3) pardoning everyone involved, including himself, after leaving office.

And?

I no longer care if the rule of law is this fundamentally broken anyway.

He also should have forcibly enforced that death penalty decision Texas violated if SCOTUS wasn’t going to do anything about it.