Abortion. Lose of driving issue for Republicans?

[Harry Bosch]

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?!?!

I'm not sure that I'm following your question completely. But I'd assume that a liberal court would be even a bigger check on a republican president than a conservative court.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

I'm mystified as to what distinction you're drawing. By "have" I meant what you appeared to mean by "in control". The Democrats were simultaneously in the majority in both the House and the Senate for the first two years of the Obama administration and for the first two years of the Clinton administration. What is it you think I was trying to imply by "have", that you think isn't correct? Help me out here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

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.

Oh please. Of course it was an issue at the time. Red states kept trying to whittle away the "abortion is legal" status quo -- trying to regulate abortion into inaccessibility by a death of a thousand cuts since they couldn't just prohibit it openly. There was every reason for Democrats in Congress to pass a federal law ending that practice, if they'd ever wanted to actually fulfill their base's ideological sticking points.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Check out articles like this one that say the Democrats only had total control for four months of Obama’s first term not two years.

https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

 

[ZiprHead]

I think the SC will allow the states to regulate the abortion issue, not ban it completely. The issue isn't going away anytime soon.

 

[prideandfall]

I'm mystified as to what distinction you're drawing. By "have" I meant what you appeared to mean by "in control". The Democrats were simultaneously in the majority in both the House and the Senate for the first two years of the Obama administration and for the first two years of the Clinton administration. What is it you think I was trying to imply by "have", that you think isn't correct? Help me out here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

the implication is that democrats had control of the government and a carte blanche to do whatever they wanted, and so what laws they passed (or didn't pass) during that time period is a look into the ideological workings of the political party.

i disagree with this for two reasons:
1. they did not have super majorities, and given the level of party division in politics that means anything they tried to push through would have been (and in fact was) stone-walled by an opposition that refused to play along and could stymie everything by simply refusing to participate.
2. as a party, the democrats are a mewling pack of tepid spineless worms who would never use any strong-arm tactics to pass legislation while they have an advantageous position to attempt to do so - which means that having a small majority from 2009 to 2011 that was inadequate to overcome republican obstruction might be a good indicator of how weak the democrats are in terms of political will, but it's wildly disingenuous to make even a suggestion that they were "in control" of the government.

Oh please. Of course it was an issue at the time. Red states kept trying to whittle away the "abortion is legal" status quo -- trying to regulate abortion into inaccessibility by a death of a thousand cuts since they couldn't just prohibit it openly. There was every reason for Democrats in Congress to pass a federal law ending that practice, if they'd ever wanted to actually fulfill their base's ideological sticking points.

why would they ever want to do that? the same thing i said of republicans at the beginning of this thread is true for democrats.

but regardless of that, i refer again to my assertion that the democrats are the milquetoast status quo party, nerveless and without will or impetus.
they would stall on passing legislation to codify abortion simply out of a simpering limp-wristed compulsion to placate conservatives and not rock the boat of the political landscape.

 

[Rhea]

I would argue that it is less milquetoast and more diverse coalition that values comity.

I don't expect they will be as gentle this time around. And with a majority of Americans supporting the right to choose, they may make that change in the laws now.

 

[Bomb#20]

Check out articles like this one that say the Democrats only had total control for four months of Obama’s first term not two years.

https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

But that article is defining "control" to mean "filibuster-proof majority". Since prideandfall said in his lifetime he's seen the Republicans in control of every branch of government simultaneously for years at a stretch, "filibuster-proof majority" evidently wasn't what he was talking about. By that standard, the Republicans haven't had control of both houses and the presidency since 1923.

 

[Bomb#20]

Oh please. Of course it was an issue at the time. Red states kept trying to whittle away the "abortion is legal" status quo -- trying to regulate abortion into inaccessibility by a death of a thousand cuts since they couldn't just prohibit it openly. There was every reason for Democrats in Congress to pass a federal law ending that practice, if they'd ever wanted to actually fulfill their base's ideological sticking points.

why would they ever want to do that? the same thing i said of republicans at the beginning of this thread is true for democrats.

That's what I said. Why are we arguing? We appear to be in violent agreement.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Check out articles like this one that say the Democrats only had total control for four months of Obama’s first term not two years.

https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20120909/NEWS/309099447

But that article is defining "control" to mean "filibuster-proof majority". Since prideandfall said in his lifetime he's seen the Republicans in control of every branch of government simultaneously for years at a stretch, "filibuster-proof majority" evidently wasn't what he was talking about. By that standard, the Republicans haven't had control of both houses and the presidency since 1923.

But the implication of “total” control is passing whatever legislation you want. If you can’t break the Senate filibuster then it’s much more difficult to pass whatever you want.