Ohio - Right Wing Power Grab Goes Down To Defeat

[laughing dog]

No. In my view, a tradition should go through at least 3 generations.

Oh. So you have your own meaning for the term "traditional". 3 generations.

My partner has great grandkids. Kids, grandkids, and now great grandkids. All since 1973.

Actually , I got the 3 generations from going through the Internet. Going through 3 generations means 3 generations have passed.

You are entitled to use your own vocabulary.

But I don't feel at all required to use your own vocabulary.
Tom
[/QUOTE] Your feelings are your feelings. No one is asking you to use any particular vocabulary. In discourse with others, it is more conducive to effective discussion to use commonly understand meanings.

If you wish to characterize the Ohio voters’ rejection of a blatant regressive measure as “ conservative” , no one is stopping you. Perhaps you feel it is a clever or an ironic take on the outcome. It is clear others do not share that view.

From your increasingly desperate rebuttals, it seems to me you are either unable or unwilling to grasp the obvious issues inherent in your definition. Or perhaps you are simply trying to distract from the failure of the anti- abortion fanatics in Ohio with this pathetic pedantry of yours.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right, so the judges that voted to keep Roe v. Wade are the conservative ones.

Correct.
They voted to conserve the current, decades old, status quo.
That's what conservatives do.

It might sound surprising, but I completely grasp your point. It's humorous, yet your perspective is spot on.

Not really. The axing of the Voting Rights Act wasn't progressive, it was returning to an older status quo.

Conservatives, who often advocate for a return to traditional values, view backward movement as their form of progress. I believe that's the sentiment Tom was expressing.

It seems he’s expressing a more pedantic point: voting to not change something is conservative by definition.

It is his definition, but it is a pretty much a pointless one.

Y'all need some capital letters.

Biden is the conservative choice; Trump is the Conservative choice.

These are very different things.

All things being equal, whatever that means, Biden has managed (with great help from Pelosi and Schumer) to achieve a more liberal Presidency than I ever thought possible with a 50-50 and 51-49 Senate.

 

[Toni]

So Biden is the conservative choice since he’s already President and Trump is the progressive choice because he wants to change the Presidency to be something new.

Got it?

Not exactly.
Biden is the conservative option because he doesn't want to change much. Trump is not a conservative option because he wants to change a bunch of stuff.
Hugely.
Like change the USA from a nominal democracy to a full on oligarchy. That sort of thing.
It's important to me anyway.
Tom

Conservative generally is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo or return to a previous state. The second portion particularly pertains to today's conservatives, and I'm not just talking about hard right wingers.

Biden is not really conservative. He's mildly progressive and frankly, has made such tremendous progress that I'm both stunned and impressed--and extremely grateful. He has been at the business of working in government for a very long time and is actually good at it. He knows how to make compromises when he must and he certainly knows how to surround himself with intelligent, talented, capable people in his cabinet and on his staff. He has used them all to great effect.

 

[TomC]

Conservative generally is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo

I agree. That's what I mean by conservative. Keeping things pretty much the same. Like the Ohio voters decided to do, concerning their Constitutional Amendment procedures.

or return to a previous state.

That's regressive.
The USA used to have a federal policy concerning abortion. It was generally known as RvW. It's now gone.

There are many people who want to return to that previous state of affairs, including me. It was imperfect, but hugely better than the current crap show of state dumbass legislature wannabes trying to be crueler than Thou. I want to regress to the way things were a couple of years ago.
I'm a regressive, on that particular issue.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Conservative generally is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo

I agree. That's what I mean by conservative. Keeping things pretty much the same. Like the Ohio voters decided to do, concerning their Constitutional Amendment procedures.

or return to a previous state.

That's regressive.
The USA used to have a federal policy concerning abortion. It was generally known as RvW. It's now gone.

There are many people who want to return to that previous state of affairs, including me. It was imperfect, but hugely better than the current crap show of state dumbass legislature wannabes trying to be crueler than Thou. I want to regress to the way things were a couple of years ago.
I'm a regressive, on that particular issue.
Tom

Nope, that's a classic political definition.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ohio GOP may try again on Issue 1

Ohio voters rejected Issue 1 by a convincing margin, but that may not be the final word.

Driving the news: After Tuesday's election was called, Senate President Matt Huffman said that lawmakers would "probably" ask voters again to raise the amendment passage threshold, Cleveland.com reports.

Why it matters: The comment signals Ohio Republicans' desire to curb left-leaning constitutional amendments beyond the November abortion rights vote.

State of play: Issue 1 backers offered scant concessions in the wake of its 14-point defeat.

• Supporters blamed the result on a confused electorate, high opposition spending and lack of time to coordinate a campaign.
• Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a key Issue 1 proponent, acknowledged only the yes votes in a statement promoting his U.S. Senate campaign.

What he's saying: Issue 1 "is only one battle in a long war," LaRose wrote.

• "I've said for months now that there's an assault coming on our constitution, and that hasn't changed. I'm just getting started in the fight to protect Ohio's values."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Says the electorate was confused. Gee... based on the pro-1 ads I can't imagine why..

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Conservative generally is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo

I agree. That's what I mean by conservative. Keeping things pretty much the same. Like the Ohio voters decided to do, concerning their Constitutional Amendment procedures.

There was nothing progressive about changing the threshold for passing referendum, or making it much harder to put referendums on the ballot. The conservative vote was to support the increased threshold, which would make it harder for change, making it much more likely that the State Constitution stays the same.

It was a gimmick. The people understood that and voted it down, so they could vote to change the State Constitution to enshrine the protection of Women, the ultimate goal.

 

[Toni]

Conservative generally is someone who wishes to maintain the status quo

I agree. That's what I mean by conservative. Keeping things pretty much the same. Like the Ohio voters decided to do, concerning their Constitutional Amendment procedures.

There was nothing progressive about changing the threshold for passing referendum, or making it much harder to put referendums on the ballot. The conservative vote was to support the increased threshold, which would make it harder for change, making it much more likely that the State Constitution stays the same.

It was a gimmick. The people understood that and voted it down, so they could vote to change the State Constitution to enshrine the protection of Women, the ultimate goal.

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women nor do I think that was the ultimate goal. Short term: the majority of people want abortion protected, including white men and frankly, including a lot of religious people.

 

[Elixir]

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women

We will see about that when the issue is voted on, right?

 

[Toni]

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women

We will see about that when the issue is voted on, right?

Of course. I'm just a lot more....jaded than I was 6 years ago.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women

We will see about that when the issue is voted on, right?

Of course. I'm just a lot more....jaded than I was 6 years ago.

This was a proxy vote, 100% certainty. I'm as jaded as you are, but this vote meant abortion rights would be passed this November, if it is allowed to be on the ballot.

I imagine the next step by the conservatives would be to say they have the right to regulate it and put in strong limitations, like requiring local hospital admission rights and what not. Make it harder to access it. I think the term that'll become important will be "least restrictive means" and the conservative majority on the State Supreme Court's interpretation (read "handwaving") of that.

 

[Toni]

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women

We will see about that when the issue is voted on, right?

Of course. I'm just a lot more....jaded than I was 6 years ago.

This was a proxy vote, 100% certainty. I'm as jaded as you are, but this vote meant abortion rights would be passed this November, if it is allowed to be on the ballot.

I imagine the next step by the conservatives would be to say they have the right to regulate it and put in strong limitations, like requiring local hospital admission rights and what not. Make it harder to access it. I think the term that'll become important will be "least restrictive means" and the conservative majority on the State Supreme Court's interpretation (read "handwaving") of that.

I understand that it is seen as a proxy vote. I see it as a double edged sword.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women

We will see about that when the issue is voted on, right?

Of course. I'm just a lot more....jaded than I was 6 years ago.

This was a proxy vote, 100% certainty. I'm as jaded as you are, but this vote meant abortion rights would be passed this November, if it is allowed to be on the ballot.

I imagine the next step by the conservatives would be to say they have the right to regulate it and put in strong limitations, like requiring local hospital admission rights and what not. Make it harder to access it. I think the term that'll become important will be "least restrictive means" and the conservative majority on the State Supreme Court's interpretation (read "handwaving") of that.

Wait... Conservatives will say they have the right to regulate constitutionally protected rights? Interesting...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women

We will see about that when the issue is voted on, right?

Of course. I'm just a lot more....jaded than I was 6 years ago.

This was a proxy vote, 100% certainty. I'm as jaded as you are, but this vote meant abortion rights would be passed this November, if it is allowed to be on the ballot.

I imagine the next step by the conservatives would be to say they have the right to regulate it and put in strong limitations, like requiring local hospital admission rights and what not. Make it harder to access it. I think the term that'll become important will be "least restrictive means" and the conservative majority on the State Supreme Court's interpretation (read "handwaving") of that.

I understand that it is seen as a proxy vote. I see it as a double edged sword.

It isn't. The issue here isn't that Ohio won't pass the referendum to support abortion rights. It'll be like it was in Kentucky, Kansas, and everywhere else in the United States.

The power for the GOP isn't statewide, it is in the gerrymandered legislatures. The problem is going to be that in Dobbs, SCOTUS gave the finger to Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which indicated that, federally, 'least restrictive means' must be abided by, which kicks the policing to the State courts.

The State Legislature in Ohio will likely pass laws to "protect the health of women" that will require hospital admission rights, exactly 12.5 doctors on staff at all times, require women be probed and forced to watch ultrasounds, a waiting period, and art deco interior bathrooms at the clinic. From there it'd require the State Supreme Court (a very conservative one) to enforce the "least restrictive means" portion of the referendum.

 

[Toni]

I'm definitely unsure that they want to vote to change the state constitution to enshrine the protection of women

We will see about that when the issue is voted on, right?

Of course. I'm just a lot more....jaded than I was 6 years ago.

This was a proxy vote, 100% certainty. I'm as jaded as you are, but this vote meant abortion rights would be passed this November, if it is allowed to be on the ballot.

I imagine the next step by the conservatives would be to say they have the right to regulate it and put in strong limitations, like requiring local hospital admission rights and what not. Make it harder to access it. I think the term that'll become important will be "least restrictive means" and the conservative majority on the State Supreme Court's interpretation (read "handwaving") of that.

I understand that it is seen as a proxy vote. I see it as a double edged sword.

It isn't. The issue here isn't that Ohio won't pass the referendum to support abortion rights. It'll be like it was in Kentucky, Kansas, and everywhere else in the United States.

The power for the GOP isn't statewide, it is in the gerrymandered legislatures. The problem is going to be that in Dobbs, SCOTUS gave the finger to Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which indicated that, federally, 'least restrictive means' must be abided by, which kicks the policing to the State courts.

The State Legislature in Ohio will likely pass laws to "protect the health of women" that will require hospital admission rights, exactly 12.5 doctors on staff at all times, require women be probed and forced to watch ultrasounds, a waiting period, and art deco interior bathrooms at the clinic. From there it'd require the State Supreme Court (a very conservative one) to enforce the "least restrictive means" portion of the referendum.

I know what’s at stake.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Abortion (and birth control) will be "legal" in Ohio. The question is, will it be regulated out of existence (or made hard to access) and rubber stamped by the conservative State Supreme Court. There is every reason to believe the GOP will do the former as there remain no Federal limitations to them doing so. What is unknown is how the Ohio State Supreme Court will respond. The other unknown is what speed with the GOP react to the November passage. Do they go all out and pass it before the end of 2023 or wait until the third week of November 2024?

 

[Elixir]

Do they go all out and pass it before the end of 2023 or wait until the third week of November 2024?

An interesting conundrum. A fait accompli doesn’t hold attention like the threat of the future act might do. So maybe they go for it right away and risk losing jobs. Or try to hide their intent - and risk losing their jobs. I reckon it depends on the margins in each district.