Abortion. Lose of driving issue for Republicans?

[fromderinside]

‘Fat and Happy’ With a Conservative Court, Are Republicans Losing a Winning Issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Most republicans take voting seriously. IMHO, Just the evangelicals will go back to complaining rather than voting. So Republicans will need another faith wedge issue. Probably they'll revert to something along the line of "The communists/foreigners are coming for your daughters"

Your thoughts?

 

[SimpleDon]

‘Fat and Happy’ With a Conservative Court, Are Republicans Losing a Winning Issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Most republicans take voting seriously. IMHO, Just the evangelicals will go back to complaining rather than voting. So Republicans will need another faith wedge issue. Probably they'll revert to something along the line of "The communists/foreigners are coming for your daughters"

Your thoughts?

Certainly, the Republicans are going to have to put up or shut up about what was a winning issue for them. Assuming that the conservative majority on the court is going to leave the issue up to the states as it was before Roe v. Wade, not an iron-clad guarantee though, the majority might try to exercise its newfound Catholic muscle and write new law for the entire nation, the red states will have to navigate the treacherous waters of criminally prosecuting the doctor and the woman because abortion is murder, right?

And writing a law that does this, that treats abortion as the same as capital murder isn't very popular, even with the people who oppose abortion rights. The most likely way that women will try to self-abort is with one of the abortion pills available in the pro-abortion states. In this case, the state won't have the evil abortion mill doctor to charge, only the woman who the anti-abortion people were always careful to paint as a victim, and who will have to be charged with murder, because abortion is murder, right?

The hope is that the conservatives will suddenly remember that Roe v. Wade was a public health ruling, not a rejection of the doctrine written by celibate men in the Catholic Church.

On second thought the conservatives haven't been doing so well lately on questions of public health, have they?

 

[Elixir]

‘Fat and Happy’ With a Conservative Court, Are Republicans Losing a Winning Issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Most republicans take voting seriously. IMHO, Just the evangelicals will go back to complaining rather than voting. So Republicans will need another faith wedge issue. Probably they'll revert to something along the line of "The communists/foreigners are coming for your daughters"

Your thoughts?

Certainly, the Republicans are going to have to put up or shut up about what was a winning issue for them. Assuming that the conservative majority on the court is going to leave the issue up to the states as it was before Roe v. Wade, not an iron-clad guarantee though, the majority might try to exercise its newfound Catholic muscle and write new law for the entire nation, the red states will have to navigate the treacherous waters of criminally prosecuting the doctor and the woman because abortion is murder, right? And writing a law that does this, that treats abortion as the same as capital murder isn't very popular, even with the people who oppose abortion rights. The most likely way that women will try to self-abort is with one of the abortion pills available in the pro-abortion states. In this case, the state won't have the evil abortion mill doctor to charge, only the woman who the anti-abortion people were always careful to paint as a victim, and who will have to be charged with murder, because abortion is murder, right?

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

 

[Trausti]

‘Fat and Happy’ With a Conservative Court, Are Republicans Losing a Winning Issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/...tion=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Most republicans take voting seriously. IMHO, Just the evangelicals will go back to complaining rather than voting. So Republicans will need another faith wedge issue. Probably they'll revert to something along the line of "The communists/foreigners are coming for your daughters"

Your thoughts?

Certainly, the Republicans are going to have to put up or shut up about what was a winning issue for them. Assuming that the conservative majority on the court is going to leave the issue up to the states as it was before Roe v. Wade, not an iron-clad guarantee though, the majority might try to exercise its newfound Catholic muscle and write new law for the entire nation, the red states will have to navigate the treacherous waters of criminally prosecuting the doctor and the woman because abortion is murder, right? And writing a law that does this, that treats abortion as the same as capital murder isn't very popular, even with the people who oppose abortion rights. The most likely way that women will try to self-abort is with one of the abortion pills available in the pro-abortion states. In this case, the state won't have the evil abortion mill doctor to charge, only the woman who the anti-abortion people were always careful to paint as a victim, and who will have to be charged with murder, because abortion is murder, right?

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

Then a future rep admin would do the same. Could have more justices than members of congress. Careful what you wish for.

 

[prideandfall]

Your thoughts?

this has always seemed to be a carrot on a stick issue to me - in my lifetime i don't feel like i've ever seen republicans mount a serious effort to repeal the ruling or pass laws to make it irrelevant, despite being in control of every branch of government simultaneously for years at a stretch.

and it makes sense, for a political organization such as the GOP why would you ever want to actually fulfill of your base's ideological sticking points? they're never going to do it, because it's something they coax out the base with every few years with vague promises and allusions.

not to mention the fact that as a socio-political body the GOP has to understand the social value of abortion, and be well aware of the fact that abortion as an issue was invented whole cloth in the late 70s and early 80s as a way to trick religious nuts into voting republican, so that would be slaying the goose that laid the golden egg as far as voting blocs are concerned.

 

[Rhea]

I agree. I have serious doubts that they would overturn and lose their wedge issue while driving Choice voters into a 100% turnout.

And yet, some of these folks are pretty young (Kavanagh and Barrett) and may not realize they were never supposed to do it. The cause may get away from the craven GOP.

 

[SimpleDon]

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

Then a future rep admin would do the same. Could have more justices than members of congress. Careful what you wish for.

I assume that if the Democrats pack the court they will be smart enough to pass a statutory limit on the number of justices along with the statutory requirement for the USSC justices to be approved by a supermajority in the Senate after the "pack the court" justices are sworn in.

We now have three sitting Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators who likewise don't represent a majority of Americans. The very first, second, and third time that it has happened in the nation's history. A slight majority of Americans live in 9 states. This means that slightly less than a majority of Americans control 82% of the Senate, by electing 82 Senators.

The more likely thing that a Democratic president and Congress would do is to grant statehood to DC, Puerto Rica, and Guam, to pack the Senate. The six new Senators would be reliably Democrats, at least in the beginning, and would make the Senate more democratic, with both a large "D" and a small "d". It would balance out the Republicans' advantage in the small states and provide them with less reason to play racial politics, whites against everyone else.

 

[Bomb#20]

this has always seemed to be a carrot on a stick issue to me - in my lifetime i don't feel like i've ever seen republicans mount a serious effort to repeal the ruling or pass laws to make it irrelevant, despite being in control of every branch of government simultaneously for years at a stretch.

and it makes sense, for a political organization such as the GOP why would you ever want to actually fulfill of your base's ideological sticking points? they're never going to do it, because it's something they coax out the base with every few years with vague promises and allusions.

Yes; and the same goes for the Democrats. They had the Presidency and Congress in 2009-2010, and before that in 1993-1994: perfect opportunities to neuter the threat to Roe v Wade from a conservative SCOTUS by enacting a right to abortion in federal law. But they chose not to, because it was more politically advantageous to have a bogeyman to scare people with than to actually accomplish something useful.

 

[marc]

I agree. I have serious doubts that they would overturn and lose their wedge issue while driving Choice voters into a 100% turnout.

And yet, some of these folks are pretty young (Kavanagh and Barrett) and may not realize they were never supposed to do it. The cause may get away from the craven GOP.

That is what happens when you build a cult mentality in the public for political issues that are just scams. Eventually some 'True Believers' start to get into office and try to carry out the dogma to whatever conclusion was promised, regardless of the fallout.

 

[prideandfall]

Yes; and the same goes for the Democrats. They had the Presidency and Congress in 2009-2010, and before that in 1993-1994: perfect opportunities to neuter the threat to Roe v Wade from a conservative SCOTUS by enacting a right to abortion in federal law. But they chose not to, because it was more politically advantageous to have a bogeyman to scare people with than to actually accomplish something useful.

firstly: no, they didn't. they did not 'have' the presidency and congress in the way that you're trying to imply the word 'have' means.
and even if they did, abortion is legal... there's not really a reason to make a full court press on an issue that isn't currently an issue.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

Then a future rep admin would do the same. Could have more justices than members of congress. Careful what you wish for.

I have to agree here. Stacking the court will effectively eliminate one branch of government's power. This will be great for democratic presidents. But what about in the next republican administration? The current conservative court continually blocked Trump. If it weren't for the conservative court, Trump would have exiled all the dreamers, cancelled the health care for 20 million Americans, and who knows what else.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

Then a future rep admin would do the same. Could have more justices than members of congress. Careful what you wish for.

I assume that if the Democrats pack the court they will be smart enough to pass a statutory limit on the number of justices along with the statutory requirement for the USSC justices to be approved by a supermajority in the Senate after the "pack the court" justices are sworn in.

We now have three sitting Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators who likewise don't represent a majority of Americans. The very first, second, and third time that it has happened in the nation's history. A slight majority of Americans live in 9 states. This means that slightly less than a majority of Americans control 82% of the Senate, by electing 82 Senators.

The more likely thing that a Democratic president and Congress would do is to grant statehood to DC, Puerto Rica, and Guam, to pack the Senate. The six new Senators would be reliably Democrats, at least in the beginning, and would make the Senate more democratic, with both a large "D" and a small "d". It would balance out the Republicans' advantage in the small states and provide them with less reason to play racial politics, whites against everyone else.

Totally agree that we should add states. Not sure that it's "packing the senate". It's more that it would be more fair. Adding more senators would make the playing field more fair.

 

[Jarhyn]

I assume that if the Democrats pack the court they will be smart enough to pass a statutory limit on the number of justices along with the statutory requirement for the USSC justices to be approved by a supermajority in the Senate after the "pack the court" justices are sworn in.

We now have three sitting Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators who likewise don't represent a majority of Americans. The very first, second, and third time that it has happened in the nation's history. A slight majority of Americans live in 9 states. This means that slightly less than a majority of Americans control 82% of the Senate, by electing 82 Senators.

The more likely thing that a Democratic president and Congress would do is to grant statehood to DC, Puerto Rica, and Guam, to pack the Senate. The six new Senators would be reliably Democrats, at least in the beginning, and would make the Senate more democratic, with both a large "D" and a small "d". It would balance out the Republicans' advantage in the small states and provide them with less reason to play racial politics, whites against everyone else.

Totally agree that we should add states. Not sure that it's "packing the senate". It's more that it would be more fair. Adding more senators would make the playing field more fair.

For me the bigger issue of the Senate is that people are bound by out laws, pay taxes, and have no representation. Giving representation to certain jurisdictions is just the right thing to do. Now, there is another question as to whether some geographic regions have excessive representation and how to resolve that..

 

[Harry Bosch]

I assume that if the Democrats pack the court they will be smart enough to pass a statutory limit on the number of justices along with the statutory requirement for the USSC justices to be approved by a supermajority in the Senate after the "pack the court" justices are sworn in.

We now have three sitting Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators who likewise don't represent a majority of Americans. The very first, second, and third time that it has happened in the nation's history. A slight majority of Americans live in 9 states. This means that slightly less than a majority of Americans control 82% of the Senate, by electing 82 Senators.

The more likely thing that a Democratic president and Congress would do is to grant statehood to DC, Puerto Rica, and Guam, to pack the Senate. The six new Senators would be reliably Democrats, at least in the beginning, and would make the Senate more democratic, with both a large "D" and a small "d". It would balance out the Republicans' advantage in the small states and provide them with less reason to play racial politics, whites against everyone else.

Totally agree that we should add states. Not sure that it's "packing the senate". It's more that it would be more fair. Adding more senators would make the playing field more fair.

For me the bigger issue of the Senate is that people are bound by out laws, pay taxes, and have no representation. Giving representation to certain jurisdictions is just the right thing to do. Now, there is another question as to whether some geographic regions have excessive representation and how to resolve that..

Agreed. The system now gives more rights and power to the American citizen in Montana than the American citizen in Washington DC. It's not right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As seen with the confirmation hearing, this isn't Roe v Wade. They want to go back further. They want to kill The Pill, ie the daily pill millions of women use every day. So there is still plenty of control they can start over-reaching on us. The right-wing is going to love this nanny-state... you know... a real nanny state.

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

Then a future rep admin would do the same. Could have more justices than members of congress. Careful what you wish for.

I wished for a balanced SCOTUS. McConnell fucked that up. Too bad the Dems in the late 80's/early 90s didn't tell George HW Bush to go fuck himself and wait for Clinton to fill the vacancies.

Careful what you wish for? The GOP is destroying our democracy, but it is okay, but it works in what you think is your favor. Of course, a Christian Dominion likely isn't what you had in mind. Right-wingers are fine with rights being withheld as long as it isn't their rights. Boy the tune will change quickly. It'd be funny, if not tragic.

 

[SimpleDon]

I assume that if the Democrats pack the court they will be smart enough to pass a statutory limit on the number of justices along with the statutory requirement for the USSC justices to be approved by a supermajority in the Senate after the "pack the court" justices are sworn in.

We now have three sitting Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators who likewise don't represent a majority of Americans. The very first, second, and third time that it has happened in the nation's history. A slight majority of Americans live in 9 states. This means that slightly less than a majority of Americans control 82% of the Senate, by electing 82 Senators.

The more likely thing that a Democratic president and Congress would do is to grant statehood to DC, Puerto Rica, and Guam, to pack the Senate. The six new Senators would be reliably Democrats, at least in the beginning, and would make the Senate more democratic, with both a large "D" and a small "d". It would balance out the Republicans' advantage in the small states and provide them with less reason to play racial politics, whites against everyone else.

Totally agree that we should add states. Not sure that it's "packing the senate". It's more that it would be more fair. Adding more senators would make the playing field more fair.

2020 might be the last chance for the Democrats to control the Senate in a generation if the Republicans continue to be successful in their public choice theory of racially divisive politics to achieve politically unpopular goals, the increases in income inequality and the ever-growing, profitable defense budget with continual low-level wars, for example.

The constitutional gerrymandering will continue to tilt the demographics in the Republicans' favor by shifting ever more of the population into the larger states, making the Senate less democratic, exactly the way that the Republicans need it to be. Turning the never realized tyranny of the majority in democracy into their tyranny of the minority.

Read this for an explanation, "America’s democracy is failing. Here’s why.", of how we could again have a minority government in all three branches of the government in 2020 as we had in 2016.

And yes, "packing the Senate" was an intended hyperbole for the effect that didn't succeed obviously.

 

[SimpleDon]

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

Then a future rep admin would do the same. Could have more justices than members of congress. Careful what you wish for.

I have to agree here. Stacking the court will effectively eliminate one branch of government's power. This will be great for democratic presidents. But what about in the next republican administration? The current conservative court continually blocked Trump. If it weren't for the conservative court, Trump would have exiled all the dreamers, cancelled the health care for 20 million Americans, and who knows what else.

Another possibility would be to limit the term of Appeal Court and SCOTUS justices to say twenty years.

 

[SimpleDon]

I agree. I have serious doubts that they would overturn and lose their wedge issue while driving Choice voters into a 100% turnout.

And yet, some of these folks are pretty young (Kavanagh and Barrett) and may not realize they were never supposed to do it. The cause may get away from the craven GOP.

They already have gotten away from them. Their playbook was public choice theory to use racially charged divisive politics and the culture wars to gain the votes needed to achieve otherwise unpopular goals as, for example, increasing income inequality. But it was never meant to be used to govern the nation. We saw occasional problems that this caused in conservative governance; Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, the savings and loan scandal, the slow erosion of the gains from the civil rights movement, the politicization of a public health problem- abortion, the slow reversal of any anti-monopoly action strengthening the corporations while weakening the workers and their unions, some more I have forgotten.

But then the inevitable happened. Republicans were elected to office who grew up hearing and repeating this vile mix of outright lies and conspiracy theories and believed that it was a valid way to govern. This was when we started to see the run of total incompetence in conservative governance, the Bush II administration. They gave us 9/11, wars started by intentional "mistakes," the defense budget run as corporate subsidies far beyond any legitimate defense need, income inequality soaring, and to top it all off the deregulation delusion Great Recession depression. Even this didn't prepare us for the ultimate in conservative incompetence, the Trump administration. A nightmare we are now living through.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I assume that if the Democrats pack the court they will be smart enough to pass a statutory limit on the number of justices along with the statutory requirement for the USSC justices to be approved by a supermajority in the Senate after the "pack the court" justices are sworn in.

We now have three sitting Supreme Court Justices who were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators who likewise don't represent a majority of Americans. The very first, second, and third time that it has happened in the nation's history. A slight majority of Americans live in 9 states. This means that slightly less than a majority of Americans control 82% of the Senate, by electing 82 Senators.

The more likely thing that a Democratic president and Congress would do is to grant statehood to DC, Puerto Rica, and Guam, to pack the Senate. The six new Senators would be reliably Democrats, at least in the beginning, and would make the Senate more democratic, with both a large "D" and a small "d". It would balance out the Republicans' advantage in the small states and provide them with less reason to play racial politics, whites against everyone else.

Totally agree that we should add states. Not sure that it's "packing the senate". It's more that it would be more fair. Adding more senators would make the playing field more fair.

2020 might be the last chance for the Democrats to control the Senate in a generation if the Republicans continue to be successful in their public choice theory of racially divisive politics to achieve politically unpopular goals, the increases in income inequality and the ever-growing, profitable defense budget with continual low-level wars, for example.

While the Senate is important, very important, there is one other thing that is under the radar that is a couple magnitudes larger. And for whatever reason, Trump and the right-wing aren't even paying attention to it!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any move to strike down Roe by the Coney Island fantasy Court will rightly be seen by any Dem administration as an open invitation to expand the court, then enact a statutory limit to its numbers.
As Chuck says, right wing extremists have foregone their right to complain about it if that happens.

Then a future rep admin would do the same. Could have more justices than members of congress. Careful what you wish for.

I have to agree here. Stacking the court will effectively eliminate one branch of government's power. This will be great for democratic presidents. But what about in the next republican administration? The current conservative court continually blocked Trump. If it weren't for the conservative court, Trump would have exiled all the dreamers, cancelled the health care for 20 million Americans, and who knows what else.

You think a liberal court would have done worse?!?!