Moved Fuck yeah, Dark Brandon

[Bomb#20]

"If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose I promise you: I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again".

No he won't, any more than Clinton or Obama enacted Roe v Wade as federal law back when they had Congresses that supported the right to choose. Our rulers are politicians. They'd rather preserve issues than rights.

Given that Roe v Wade was still the SC precedent the need for it was less for Clinton and Obama.

That doesn’t mean that Biden can get it done but to be fair the situations are not the same.

True that -- given that Roe v Wade was still the SC precedent, the political advantage for the Democrats of keeping the issue alive was less then than it is now. Overturning Roe v Wade was the best thing that's happened to their political prospects in like forever; they don't benefit from giving that up just in order to make their constituents better off. Hey, all of you in swing states, that's a really nice reproductive right you've got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it...

 

[southernhybrid]

Historic voter turnout, USA by gender:

Gender wasn't my point.
Young people, black people, single mothers, there's a bunch of demographics that are typically low turnout.

They can be, but they weren't in 2020 or 2022. As a reminder, Abrams helped deliver Georgia's two Senate Seats and the state's EVs! That wasn't white turnout doing that. Abrams' and black turnout gave the Democrats the Senate Majority.

Like I said upthread, I'd love it if they did.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Tom

I"ve met or known about people who never voted until 2020, but the Trump presidency finally helped them realize how important it is to vote. This includes the two middle aged children of Black friend of mine. Obama also brought out a lot of first time Black and young voters. I worked with a lot of them. Did they continue to vote? I really don't know. We can only hope that most apathetic voters will realize how vitally important it is for them to vote Blue in 2024.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose I promise you: I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again".

No he won't, any more than Clinton or Obama enacted Roe v Wade as federal law back when they had Congresses that supported the right to choose. Our rulers are politicians. They'd rather preserve issues than rights.

Given that Roe v Wade was still the SC precedent the need for it was less for Clinton and Obama.

That doesn’t mean that Biden can get it done but to be fair the situations are not the same.

True that -- given that Roe v Wade was still the SC precedent, the political advantage for the Democrats of keeping the issue alive was less then than it is now.

Roe v Wade has been at the forefront, especially with Judicial nominees since the 1990s. The problem is, a bunch of people got stupid in 2000 and voted for fucking Nader, to send a message to the Democrats... and created an awful ballot design in a one county. Then in 2016, people couldn't vote for Clinton, in part thanks to a never ending email and Benghazi investigation, lies from Giuliani connected FBI "source"... and that she was a broad. These two things led to a wickedly partisan Supreme Court.

Overturning Roe v Wade was the best thing that's happened to their political prospects in like forever; they don't benefit from giving that up just in order to make their constituents better off.

We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That isn't a threat, it is a fact.

 

[Toni]

Me too. But maybe take a look at 2020 and 2023 election results for a clue.

I hope y'all are correct.
But I remember 2016. First female candidate Clinton. Opposed by Trump who promised to end Roe v Wade with SCOTUS judges.

Not enough pro-women, pro-choice, voters turned out to prevent what happened. Clinton barely won the popular vote, she lost the real vote in the EC. That's why we are now stuck with the current situation, because pro-choice voters did not vote for the pro-choice candidate.

None of this is news. It was all predicted before the 2016 election. Maybe things are different now but I'm a major cynic.

Tom

Too many voters did not take Trump seriously. That’s no longer an issue, I think.

And 2.9 million votes ( popular) is not ‘barely.’

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

See 1960 for "barely".

 

[TomC]

And 2.9 million votes ( popular) is not ‘barely.’

Out of 120M voters, it is.
Especially given the choices.

Too many voters did not take Trump seriously. That’s no longer an issue, I think.

Trump got 12M more votes in 2020 than 2016.
Tom

 

[Toni]

And 2.9 million votes ( popular) is not ‘barely.’

Out of 120M voters, it is.
Especially given the choices.

Too many voters did not take Trump seriously. That’s no longer an issue, I think.

Trump got 12M more votes in 2020 than 2016.
Tom

Yes, the voter turnout in 2020 was much higher than in 2016.

Trump’s increased number of votes in 2020 compared with his results in 2016 proved insufficient by a wide margin to overcome Biden’s lead.

Do you know one major reason there was a dramatic increase in voters in 2020? Stacy Abrams.

You know another reason 2020 saw a higher voter turnout? Trump. People knew the stakes, and voted accordingly.

 

[Elixir]

"If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose I promise you: I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again".

Overturning Roe v Wade was the best thing that's happened to their political prospects in like forever; they don't benefit from giving that up just in order to make their constituents better off. Hey, all of you in swing states, that's a really nice reproductive right you've got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it...

"If Americans send me a Congress ..." is a huge "if". I hope Dark Brandon gets a chance to prove you wrong, and I believe he will restore RvW if possible. It is doubtful that he will ever get the chance though.

He's too old to try to preserve political advantages at the cost of the electorate. He will be term limited out in four years if he wins and lives that long, and can't be expecting to live a whole lot longer than that. So legacy is probably more important to him than political advantage.

 

[Elixir]

Dems are more likely than not to be the minority party in the Senate, unless women in Arizona, Florida, Montana, and Ohio keep or turn seats blue. I'd say men, but men seem to be unreliable.

I think FL alone would suffice.
(Don't think that'll happen but... )

 

[bilby]

Wait a doggone minute. Are you insinuating that Clarence’s dearest friends don’t value him for who he is but for what he can do for them?

Not at all! I take offense at that!

I am certain that Clarence’s dearest friend$ are all simply so charmed by his effervescent personality, rapier wit and profound insights into the human condition, they will do anything just to keep him nearby.

It is Clarence who values his friends by the size of their boats, planes and willingness to shell out for toys.

Shouldn't that be ¢laren¢e?

(Just my 2¢)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dems are more likely than not to be the minority party in the Senate, unless women in Arizona, Florida, Montana, and Ohio keep or turn seats blue. I'd say men, but men seem to be unreliable.

I think FL alone would suffice.
(Don't think that'll happen but... )

The Dems are losing West Virginia, minus a 1993 epic PC Party destruction in Canada. So, it is 50-50.

Ohio has an incumbent that is very good with this state (though Ryan wasn't a bad candidate in 2022).
Montana has an incumbent who is Montana. Tester isn't the weakest of the candidates.
Arizona is tough to call as it is reddish purple, but has been blue'ing up recently.

There are three are not impossible to hold seats. The GOP will fight hard for those three. The Dems lose any one of them loses the majority unless:

And the long shots are,
Florida has Rick Scott who even his mother doesn't send him Xmas cards.
Texas has Cruz who... no one likes.

The odd thing, at 50-50, I think Biden and Schumer could accomplish more than with their 51-49.

 

[Bomb#20]

"If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose I promise you: I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again".

Overturning Roe v Wade was the best thing that's happened to their political prospects in like forever; they don't benefit from giving that up just in order to make their constituents better off. Hey, all of you in swing states, that's a really nice reproductive right you've got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it...

"If Americans send me a Congress ..." is a huge "if". I hope Dark Brandon gets a chance to prove you wrong,

I hope I'm wrong.

and I believe he will restore RvW if possible. It is doubtful that he will ever get the chance though.

He's too old to try to preserve political advantages at the cost of the electorate. He will be term limited out in four years if he wins and lives that long, and can't be expecting to live a whole lot longer than that. So legacy is probably more important to him than political advantage.

That only matters if Congress sends him a bill to sign. It will never get to his desk. Congress isn't term limited out.

 

[Bomb#20]

Overturning Roe v Wade was the best thing that's happened to their political prospects in like forever; they don't benefit from giving that up just in order to make their constituents better off.

We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That isn't a threat, it is a fact.

Not following. There's no federal law against abortion for the SCOTUS to uphold. What scenario do you have in mind?

 

[Elixir]

It will never get to his desk.

That's likely. But you made it sound like he wouldn't sign it if it did. I think he would, but I agree that it's academic.

Not following. There's no federal law against abortion for the SCOTUS to uphold. What scenario do you have in mind?

The one where Trump is elected, Republicans pass a nationwide ban, Trump signs it, dems sue and SCROTUS upholds it.
Trump may never "learn his lesson" but I firmly believe that Republicans' collective ass is hurting so bad right now they'd like to never hear another word about reproductive rights.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Overturning Roe v Wade was the best thing that's happened to their political prospects in like forever; they don't benefit from giving that up just in order to make their constituents better off.

We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That isn't a threat, it is a fact.

Not following. There's no federal law against abortion for the SCOTUS to uphold. What scenario do you have in mind?

They ban it outright. They can ban medicinal abortions with the FDA case.

What rock are you living under?

 

[Ford]

Overturning Roe v Wade was the best thing that's happened to their political prospects in like forever; they don't benefit from giving that up just in order to make their constituents better off.

We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That isn't a threat, it is a fact.

Not following. There's no federal law against abortion for the SCOTUS to uphold. What scenario do you have in mind?

They ban it outright. They can ban medicinal abortions with the FDA case.

What rock are you living under?

Within about a nanosecond after Dobbs came down, the "let's leave it up to the states" Republicans introduced a nationwide ban.

If you think they always wanted "the states to decide," then I've got a nice fresh box of Trump Steaks I'd like to sell you.

 

[Bomb#20]

It will never get to his desk.

That's likely. But you made it sound like he wouldn't sign it if it did.

Not what I meant -- like you I presume he'd sign it if it did. But I'm agnostic as to whether he has enough dementia to believe he has the control over Congress it would take to get them to send him a bill. If he's still lucid then he must know he was making a promise he won't be able to keep.

We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That isn't a threat, it is a fact.

Not following. There's no federal law against abortion for the SCOTUS to uphold. What scenario do you have in mind?

The one where Trump is elected, Republicans pass a nationwide ban, Trump signs it, dems sue and SCROTUS upholds it.

Oh, that scenario. That's not one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That's one lost presidential election, two lost congressional elections, one Senate vote to abolish the filibuster, and one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. I took JH to be claiming the SCOTUS could do it on its own and the first four steps weren't also necessary.

Trump may never "learn his lesson" but I firmly believe that Republicans' collective ass is hurting so bad right now they'd like to never hear another word about reproductive rights.

The smart ones, yep. One has to wonder how many of those are still around...

 

[Bomb#20]

We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That isn't a threat, it is a fact.

Not following. There's no federal law against abortion for the SCOTUS to uphold. What scenario do you have in mind?

They ban it outright.

Um, are you familiar with the concept of "Separation of powers"? If you think the SCOTUS gets to just go around banning outright whatever it dislikes, what rock are you living under?

They can ban medicinal abortions with the FDA case.

And that's because Congress in its infinite wisdom already thoroughly prepared the ground for that by banning Americans from taking prescription drugs without a prescription, classifying mifepristone as a prescription drug, banning doctors from prescribing unapproved drugs, and putting the FDA in charge of drug approvals, leaving the SCOTUS in a position where all it had to do was declare the FDA approval to be in violation of one of the million-odd regulations Congress delegated the FDA to impose on itself. This is very much an own goal by Congress.

So what comparable mass of preexisting legislation has Congress gifted the SCOTUS with that they can divert to banning surgical abortions outright?

What rock are you living under?

Save it for when you have a case.

 

[Bomb#20]

We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States. That isn't a threat, it is a fact.

Not following. There's no federal law against abortion for the SCOTUS to uphold. What scenario do you have in mind?

They ban it outright. They can ban medicinal abortions with the FDA case.

What rock are you living under?

Within about a nanosecond after Dobbs came down, the "let's leave it up to the states" Republicans introduced a nationwide ban.

Of course they did. So what? Introduced does not equal made law. For it to be made law they still have to win both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, and convince all their backbench Senators that abolishing the filibuster for the sake of making the majority of American voters hate them won't come back to bite them in the ass some time down the road when the Democrats take back the Senate. How the heck does that qualify as "We are one SCOTUS ruling away from abortion being banned in all cases in the United States."?

If you think they always wanted "the states to decide," then I've got a nice fresh box of Trump Steaks I'd like to sell you.

If you're implying that "let's leave it up to the states" is pure unadulterated window-dressing, thank you Captain Obvious. And if you think I ever gave any indication whatsoever that I believe people who say they want "the states to decide" are being truthful about their commitment to so-called "States' Rights" then I can send you the address of an elementary school that teaches remedial reading.

 

[Derec]

Women are scrutinized in ways that men are not.

Not again with that! SCOTUS justices are scrutinized no matter their plumbing!

Women are seen as more fragile than men, when clearly, women have a longer life expectancy and a longer healthy life expectancy compared with men.

According to SSA actuarial tables, a 70 year old woman has a life expectancy ~2.3 years longer than a 70 year old man. Significant on a population level, but not really for assessing individual 70 year olds. Red Sonia's long history of Type I Diabetes probably plays a lot bigger role in her projected life expectancy than her sex.

Remember Trump claiming that Hillary was too old and medically unsound? Bill Clinton is a little more than a year older than his wife but he looks to be in much more frail condition than she is.

Does he? To me they both look about equally decrepit.