Roe v Wade is on deck

[lostone]

Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.

Should we conclude that our system of government does not work? If not, what recourse do we have? Is there any effective recourse?

Of course we should continue trying. But I'd rather see a plan than a vague plea for support. And yes, I know that some Democrats are working on exactly that, albeit far too late to do any good. But I also fully expect those efforts to be sabotaged by fellow Democrats. I'm going to invest my money (and votes) in people and organizations I trust to use them well, not just hand it to the Party as a blank check that I have no reason to assume they will spend prudently.

Advocacy groups, such as ACLU, PP, and NARAL?

 

[Hermit]

In light of the two recent SCOTUS decisions:

 

[Metaphor]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

 

[Toni]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

 

[laughing dog]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.

 

[Metaphor]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.

Yes, mere legislation can be overturned as soon as there are the numbers to support it. So, it makes the Democrats demanding money to 'fix' the situation quite odd. Even if in November they get all the numbers they need because of that extra money, it could last only two years.

EDIT: 1986 Joe Biden said there was an 'overwhelming, universal criticism' of the bad reasoning in Roe v Wade.

Many years ago, I asked why (probably to someone on this board), if the Republicans were so anti-abortion, they didn't just ban it federally when they had the chance(s). The simple answer was 'Roe v Wade prevents them doing that', which was true. But over the years, I never understood the reasoning in 'Roe v Wade'. Or, rather like my experience with the Ontological argument for the existence of God, I thought I didn't understand it. But nowI think I did understand it, it is just bad and shaky reasoning.

What I really don't understand is the criticism of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade because of the outcome. It was a Constitutional question, not a policy question. If anything, the first decision ought be criticised, because it reached the outcome so many people wanted, but based on nothing. And if the recent decision was somehow 'political', then so was the first one.

Democrats and other commentators have said the Supreme Court is no longer 'legitimate', because of this decision. Of course, they are wrong. There is no evidence that the Court is somehow improperly appointed or has done something unConstitutional.

There is, of course, always the choice of revolution which some people on Twitter are talking about. I'm sure they'll do better than January 6.

 

[Metaphor]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

 

[laughing dog]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.

Yes, mere legislation can be overturned as soon as there are the numbers to support it. So, it makes the Democrats demanding money to 'fix' the situation quite odd. Even if in November they get all the numbers they need because of that extra money, it could last only two years.

Not odd if one is sn optimist: they have to get and keep significant majorities. I suspect they think if they can use this travesty of a decision to motivate voters to give them even small majorities in both houses, that will scare a sufficient number of republicans to compromise.
And perhaps get a couple of SCOTI replacements

 

[Patooka]

By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

True, and context matters. There was a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis and the US was still balls deep in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody suspected the GOP would be so batshit bonkers they would shred 50 years of legal stability to appease the Taliban-esque part of America.

Yeah the Democrats fucked up, but use an appropriate analogy that's like blaming the rape victim because of how they were dressed.

 

[Metaphor]

By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

True, and context matters. There was a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis and the US was still balls deep in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody suspected the GOP would be so batshit bonkers they would shred 50 years of legal stability to appease the Taliban-esque part of America.

So, you think the recent Supreme Court decision was by six 'batshit bonkers' Republican judges? What was 'batshit' about their reasoning?

Yeah the Democrats fucked up, but use an appropriate analogy that's like blaming the rape victim because of how they were dressed.

That seems wildly inappropriate an analogy. What I think you mean is 'the Democrats are not to blame, any more than dressing in a certain way means you are to blame if you are raped'. But then you opened the sentence with 'the Democrats fucked up'.

 

[Metaphor]

False

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.

Yes, mere legislation can be overturned as soon as there are the numbers to support it. So, it makes the Democrats demanding money to 'fix' the situation quite odd. Even if in November they get all the numbers they need because of that extra money, it could last only two years.

Not odd if one is sn optimist: they have to get and keep significant majorities. I suspect they think if they can use this travesty of a decision to motivate voters to give them even small majorities in both houses, that will scare a sufficient number of republicans to compromise.
And perhaps get a couple of SCOTI replacements

What makes the decision 'a travesty'? Do you think the legal reasoning is poor?

 

[Toni]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

 

[Metaphor]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

 

[laughing dog]

What makes the decision 'a travesty'? Do you think the legal reasoning is poor?

The travesty is this decision restricts previously established rights by justices who testified that Roe v Wade was settled law. Then to preach about letting legislators as elected representatives to deal with this issue after gutting a state law about gun control shows the depth of their lack of prnciple.

 

[laughing dog]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

More importantly, during the Clinton years, there was insufficient SCOTUS turnover to cement a large majority of reasonable judges.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

NO! SCOTUS just ruled that the Constitution doesn't touch this. Which means if a State law and Federal law bumped heads, the State would win as the Federal Government had no Constitutional authority to force a state to do X on abortion.

 

[Metaphor]

What makes the decision 'a travesty'? Do you think the legal reasoning is poor?

The travesty is this decision restricts previously established

There's a word missing here: constitutional rights?

by justices who testified that Roe v Wade was settled law.

Which justices testified it was 'settled law'? What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned? If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?

Then to preach about letting legislators as elected representatives to deal with this issue after gutting a state law about gun control shows the depth of their lack of prnciple.

So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.

Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.

And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.

What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?

This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.

This may surprise you, but during the many times that the Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature, they may have even tried a constitutional amendment. Or they could have exercised their dormant power of determining what the SCOTUS can review when passing legislation to codify RvW. There are more options that just leaving it to a court.

 

[Metaphor]

So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?

NO! SCOTUS just ruled that the Constitution doesn't touch this. Which means if a State law and Federal law bumped heads, the State would win as the Federal Government had no Constitutional authority to force a state to do X on abortion.

No, what?

After Roe v Wade, but before this decision, do you think the Roe decision could have been codified into federal law?

After this decision, do you think achieving something like Roe can be achieved with federal legislation (it can't be permanent, of course, but then neither is the Constitution).