SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

[Mad Jack]

Lotta people saying if dems were in power they'd pull a Merrick Garland. I highly doubt it when you have fools like Feinstein in power who still believe in decorum. And btw, shes hilariously wrong wrt to the assertion that the filibuster was more prevalent when she first joined the senate.

The democrats absolutely would pull it now, because rhe republicans already did. Politics is no longer a game of decorum, it is two people driving at each other in total confidence that the other will blink first and veer away to safety. The problem is, no one is blinking anymore, and our republic is going to be the wreckage

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[vector2]

The democrats absolutely would pull it now, because rhe republicans already did. Politics is no longer a game of decorum, it is two people driving at each other in total confidence that the other will blink first and veer away to safety. The problem is, no one is blinking anymore, and our republic is going to be the wreckage

Feinstein is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. She's not up for reelection. I've got no reason to doubt her opinion on the filibuster or courtpacking or her general thoughts on preserving institutions, and hence why I pray she doesn't become chair if dems retake the senate.

Here's another quantitative look at "decorumishness"

 

[Twiggidy]

Sounds to me like Republicans need to nominate presidents who can stay elected and not lose the Senate.

With regard to PR and DC, I am 100% sure you’d want statehood (and the senators that come with it) if you could round up a couple more Red places.

Accurate

 

[pgg]

Feinstein is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. She's not up for reelection. I've got no reason to doubt her opinion on the filibuster or courtpacking or her general thoughts on preserving institutions, and hence why I pray she doesn't become chair if dems retake the senate.

Here's another quantitative look at "decorumishness"

Feinstein could kill someone in the middle of 5th Ave (the San Francisco one, naturally) and get re-elected. The fact that she's not up for re-election this year has zero bearing on anything she says or does.

 

[pgg]

I think this is pretty easily disprovable just from a sheer statistical likelihood standpoint since pretty much every single case in the modern era - irrespective of what the case was pertaining to- has liberal judges handing down liberal votes and conservative judges going conservative, with really just a swing justice in between deciding a lot of these cases. Very, very few decisions really have had much to do with the letter of the law or the Constitution because there are so many specific challenges and situations which are not explicitly handled in the original text, and thus each justice’s personal jurisprudence supersedes.

As an example, please refer to the DACA ruling from earlier this year. It is an archetype for the statement you made about which side of the court is following the letter of the law. Roberts probably has no love for DACA, but that wasn’t what the case was about. It was pretty clear cut- trump and DHS could rescind DACA but because they’re stupid and didn’t follow proper procedure, their move had no standing. As Roberts said “the dispute before the court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so..."

It could not be more clear cut. And yet the decision was 5-4.

Fair point

You're kind of close to the "both sides are bad" argument that has been used a lot lately to minimize the badness of bad behavior on the speaker's side. I don't believe there's an even split of wrong decisions. Majority opinions and dissents from the left often hinge on arguments like "this is bad" or "this is wrong" or "it'd be better for the country if we did this" - and those things may even be true. But I do try hard to split my own wants and ideology from my assessment of what the legally correct ruling should be.

For example, I think Citizens United was a bad outcome but the correct ruling per the Constitution and the law. As a supporter of abortion rights, I think Roe vs Wade was a good outcome, but a bad ruling on its legal merits. (Incidentally, RBG felt the same way.) Brown vs Board of Education was a good outcome and a good ruling. And of course obviously these aren't all hard black and white issues else we wouldn't need 9 highly educated, highly experienced, wise people to argue and vote on the answer. It just appears undeniable to me that the left and right approach these contentious issues with different values and a different process. The Constitution is a living document but it shouldn't be a flexible one, and I favor the right's more rigid reading of and application of it.

 

[vector2]

Fair point

You're kind of close to the "both sides are bad" argument that has been used a lot lately to minimize the badness of bad behavior on the speaker's side. I don't believe there's an even split of wrong decisions. Majority opinions and dissents from the left often hinge on arguments like "this is bad" or "this is wrong" or "it'd be better for the country if we did this" - and those things may even be true. But I do try hard to split my own wants and ideology from my assessment of what the legally correct ruling should be.

For example, I think Citizens United was a bad outcome but the correct ruling per the Constitution and the law. As a supporter of abortion rights, I think Roe vs Wade was a good outcome, but a bad ruling on its legal merits. (Incidentally, RBG felt the same way.) Brown vs Board of Education was a good outcome and a good ruling. And of course obviously these aren't all hard black and white issues else we wouldn't need 9 highly educated, highly experienced, wise people to argue and vote on the answer. It just appears undeniable to me that the left and right approach these contentious issues with different values and a different process. The Constitution is a living document but it shouldn't be a flexible one, and I favor the right's more rigid reading of and application of it.

I think we can probably go back and forth and find cases that each make our point. But I think the statement (or the implication) that every time there is a 5-4 pro-conservative decision it's because they're doing a strict reading of the text and every time there's a 5-4 pro-liberal decision it's because they're legislating from the bench is more opinion than it is supported by the evidence.

Just consider the following..there is very high chance that another abortion case is going to make it the high court in the next few sessions. Does anyone here have any doubt that the decision will come down with the conservative wing on the anti-abortion side of the decision regardless of the merits of the case? The case from Louisiana made it up the court recently and it was literally identical to the Texas law which was struck down a few years ago. That is established precedent, and yet the decision was 5-4 with Roberts as swing. The precedent for the right to abortion being a matter of privacy is essentially already established, and yet we know that conservatives on the bench have been and will continue to legislate to the contrary.

 

[vector2]

Feinstein could kill someone in the middle of 5th Ave (the San Francisco one, naturally) and get re-elected. The fact that she's not up for re-election this year has zero bearing on anything she says or does.

Just out of curiosity I looked up 2018. One, Feinstein got primaried. Two, the result was 54-45. It's a pretty good margin, but it's not the 70-30 (or no primary at all) that I was expecting.

Also, if the Senate dems are as crazy liberal and eye for eye as some are saying, shouldn't Feinstein be at the forefront of the anti-filibuster and pro-court packing rhetoric? After all, there would be a strong impetus to make someone else chair of the judiciary committee if she's showing herself not to be liberal and anti-Mitch enough

 

[deleted126335]

Just out of curiosity I looked up 2018. One, Feinstein got primaried. Two, the result was 54-45. It's a pretty good margin, but it's not the 70-30 (or no primary at all) that I was expecting.

Also, if the Senate dems are as crazy liberal and eye for eye as some are saying, shouldn't Feinstein be at the forefront of the anti-filibuster and pro-court packing rhetoric? After all, there would be a strong impetus to make someone else chair of the judiciary committee if she's showing herself not to be liberal and anti-Mitch enough

Feinstein was credibly challenged in the primary because she wasn’t liberal enough for some of her constituents. By the standards of California politics she is a centrist.
Not so much by the standards of US Senate Democrats. Also seniority counts for a lot in Congress.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I think we can probably go back and forth and find cases that each make our point. But I think the statement (or the implication) that every time there is a 5-4 pro-conservative decision it's because they're doing a strict reading of the text and every time there's a 5-4 pro-liberal decision it's because they're legislating from the bench is more opinion than it is supported by the evidence.

Just consider the following..there is very high chance that another abortion case is going to make it the high court in the next few sessions. Does anyone here have any doubt that the decision will come down with the conservative wing on the anti-abortion side of the decision regardless of the merits of the case? The case from Louisiana made it up the court recently and it was literally identical to the Texas law which was struck down a few years ago. That is established precedent, and yet the decision was 5-4 with Roberts as swing. The precedent for the right to abortion being a matter of privacy is essentially already established, and yet we know that conservatives on the bench have been and will continue to legislate to the contrary.

Just because its precedent doesn't mean its inviolate. I suspect I'm with you, and pgg and others here in saying that I think Roe was the right call. But that doesn't mean it should never be challenged. Sometimes the Court gets things completely wrong (Plessy, Korematsu, and so many others) and so while precedent should be respected to a degree it shouldn't be absolute.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Some would have you believe the conservative members of the court always vote as one block. That is false. The conservative members tend to vote the way they believe the law was Intended. They look at the constitution for guidance.

The liberal members almost always vote as one block and rarely look at the written constitution. Instead, they interpret the law as what’s best for society in their opinion.

This is why on big rulings conservative justices will side with the liberals on occasion vs the liberal justices who rarely, if ever, Peel off and vote with the conservative block.

 

[vector2]

Feinstein was credibly challenged in the primary because she wasn’t liberal enough for some of her constituents. By the standards of California politics she is a centrist.
Not so much by the standards of US Senate Democrats. Also seniority counts for a lot in Congress.

Agreed, hence why I think pgg's statement about her being able to shoot someone in the middle of (San Fran's) 5th ave and get away with it (politically) isn't that accurate. Seniority and all, she's got challenges from the left which should have precluded her coming out so strongly against the abolishment of the filibuster and court packing. And as you say, if she is left by the standards of the US senate and is against those things, my statement that the dems in the Senate might not do the same thing if the roles were reversed is worthy of some consideration.

 

[vector2]

Just because its precedent doesn't mean its inviolate. I suspect I'm with you, and pgg and others here in saying that I think Roe was the right call. But that doesn't mean it should never be challenged. Sometimes the Court gets things completely wrong (Plessy, Korematsu, and so many others) and so while precedent should be respected to a degree it shouldn't be absolute.

We should really be trying to separate our discussion between modern era SCOTUS and pre-civil rights act SCOTUS cause they really are different ballgames, but regardless, nobody is saying precedent should be absolute. In fact, Roe has been challenged 17 times in 46 years and keeps getting held up on the merits. And yet lower conservative courts keep passing state legislative challenges up the chain and the conservative members of the high court pretty much always, always, always rule with a conservative decision. In the case of Roe, the conservative opinions have nothing to do with the text or law or precedent and everyone knows it.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

We should really be trying to separate our discussion between modern era SCOTUS and pre-civil rights act SCOTUS cause they really are different ballgames, but regardless, nobody is saying precedent should be absolute. In fact, Roe has been challenged 17 times in 46 years and keeps getting held up on the merits. And yet lower conservative courts keep passing state legislative challenges up the chain and the conservative members of the high court pretty much always, always, always rule with a conservative decision. In the case of Roe, the conservative opinions have nothing to do with the text or law or precedent and everyone knows it.

I was under the impression that the Justices who oppose Roe were going back to the original dissent concerning finding a right that wasn't expressly included in the 14th amendment, but I'm not anything approaching a lawyer so I could be wrong on that.

 

[Leon'sMom]

"Fill that seat">>>"Fill those seats"?
Names from Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs being probed, reportedly causing ‘panic’

 

[vector2]

I was under the impression that the Justices who oppose Roe were going back to the original dissent concerning finding a right that wasn't expressly included in the 14th amendment, but I'm not anything approaching a lawyer so I could be wrong on that.

No, you're not wrong that that's where the dissent (particularly Thomas's) comes from, but it's not really a valid critique in my opinion. Pgg earlier said that Brown was a good outcome and a good ruling, but the strict text of the 14th amendment doesn't expressly address separate but equal schools. Nor does the 14th amendment expressly say anything about hanging chads in regard to Bush v Gore. Nor does it expressly say anything about gay marriage in regard to Obergefell, but yet it's the basis for innumerable decisions...because strict originalist textualism becomes more absurd and impractical as more times goes by.

I'm sure though if you ask Clarence Thomas about Brown and then about Roe he would be able to come up with all kinds of squirrelly lawyer language about why the 14th applies to them differently, but I think we all know it would be based on his preconceived notions of morality and justice.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

Some would have you believe the conservative members of the court always vote as one block. That is false. The conservative members tend to vote the way they believe the law was Intended. They look at the constitution for guidance.

Like on the separation of church and state?

 

[agammaglobulin]

There's no way Roe v Wade is overturned. Period. Straight up political bull $h!t for people to suggest that. RBG should have stepped down under Obama. She was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer 10 YEARS AGO and is 87. Honestly, wtf was she thinking staying on the court... She (like everyone else) thought Clinton was going to win, and was wrong. Poor decision making. Her 'dying wish' doesn't supersede the constitution. End of story.

What is more ridiculous, to appoint a judge in an election year (has been done 20 times before) or to threaten to stack the courts (hasn't been done in 150 years) or impeach to prevent it? Not a good look for Dems right now. The left is going to lose their mind up until election day = more fires and riots.

 

[Twiggidy]

The left is going to lose their mind up until election day = more fires and riots.

Lets be clear. There would be less “fires and riots”’ if there were less police killings. What has happened in recent months have zero to do with a SCOTUS seat.

 

[agammaglobulin]

What has happened in recent months have zero to do with a SCOTUS seat.

agree

 

[The Duck Knows]

At this point, I'm voting for whoever approves season 2 of Ted Lasso.

Ted Lasso - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I have some good news for you

 

[Twiggidy]

Ted Lasso - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I have some good news for you

 

[pgg]

I think we can probably go back and forth and find cases that each make our point.

Totally agree.

Just consider the following..there is very high chance that another abortion case is going to make it the high court in the next few sessions. Does anyone here have any doubt that the decision will come down with the conservative wing on the anti-abortion side of the decision regardless of the merits of the case? The case from Louisiana made it up the court recently and it was literally identical to the Texas law which was struck down a few years ago. That is established precedent, and yet the decision was 5-4 with Roberts as swing. The precedent for the right to abortion being a matter of privacy is essentially already established, and yet we know that conservatives on the bench have been and will continue to legislate to the contrary.

Yep, totally agree.

I'll go back and forth once more - 4 Justices dissented in McDonald, a case as identical to Heller, as LA was to the TX abortion shenanigans. Notably, one Justice who dissented in McDonald lied during her confirmation hearing a year before when specifically asked if she'd respect stare decisis.

 

[DoctwoB]

Moving beyond the immediate aftermath of the court decision, I really think we are screwed, as this article puts forth.

Opinion | How Wobbly Is Our Democracy? (Published 2018)

If partisan polarization continues to intensify, checks and balances will not save us.

www.nytimes.com

The TLDR version is that our democracy to this point has been dependent on the party in power demonstrating restraint and not doing everything they are legally capable of doing. Now that norms are becoming worthless and the country is becoming, more polarized (wheras in the past violating norms may have hurt you electorally due to a more moderate electorate), as Schumer said, "everything is on the table". When you expect your oponents to show no restraint, you are forced to "lose" or abandon restraint as well.

Gingrich (and then Mcconnell) filibuster everything beyond what norms were. D's do away with filibuster for D's filibuster R judges, R do away with filibuster for judges, R's steal court seat by refusing to vote on D nominee then do the same, D's pack the court, add states, etc. The end result is our government loses legitimacy in everyone's eyes. It becomes a race to the bottom where we all lose. So sure, pack the court, add states, blame the republicans (and honestly they do deserve a disproportionate amount of blame in norms violation, though there is plenty to go around), but don't do it gleefully like I see online. This is not a good road to be on and we won't like the destination.

 

[vector2]

Totally agree.


Yep, totally agree.

I'll go back and forth once more - 4 Justices dissented in McDonald, a case as identical to Heller, as LA was to the TX abortion shenanigans. Notably, one Justice who dissented in McDonald lied during her confirmation hearing a year before when specifically asked if she'd respect stare decisis.

You’ll find no argument from me that liberals on the court don’t take the “living, breathing” part quite seriously. I just want everyone disabused of the notion that conservatives aren’t also legislating from the bench regarding their pet positions, because ultimately it's not "both sideserism" when both sides are actually doing it.

 

[Matty44]

Lets be clear. There would be less “fires and riots”’ if there were less police killings. What has happened in recent months have zero to do with a SCOTUS seat.

Except police killings of unarmed blacks are trending down

And riots and looting and have been trending up.

That’s what you’d call an inverse correlation I believe.

 

[Twiggidy]

Except police killings of unarmed blacks are trending down

View attachment 318832

And riots and looting and have been trending up.

That’s what you’d call an inverse correlation I believe.

But it’s a direct correlation to anger over the events and more cell phone footage capturing the actions. The George Floyd video was gasoline on the fire. The discussion for who is actually doing the violence at the protests is for another thread.

My point was saying that more Democratic voters would riot and loot based on politics was a false equivalency.

 

[vector2]

Moving beyond the immediate aftermath of the court decision, I really think we are screwed, as this article puts forth.

Opinion | How Wobbly Is Our Democracy? (Published 2018)

If partisan polarization continues to intensify, checks and balances will not save us.

www.nytimes.com

The TLDR version is that our democracy to this point has been dependent on the party in power demonstrating restraint and not doing everything they are legally capable of doing. Now that norms are becoming worthless and the country is becoming, more polarized (wheras in the past violating norms may have hurt you electorally due to a more moderate electorate), as Schumer said, "everything is on the table". When you expect your oponents to show no restraint, you are forced to "lose" or abandon restraint as well.

Gingrich (and then Mcconnell) filibuster everything beyond what norms were. D's do away with filibuster for D's filibuster R judges, R do away with filibuster for judges, R's steal court seat by refusing to vote on D nominee then do the same, D's pack the court, add states, etc. The end result is our government loses legitimacy in everyone's eyes. It becomes a race to the bottom where we all lose. So sure, pack the court, add states, blame the republicans (and honestly they do deserve a disproportionate amount of blame in norms violation, though there is plenty to go around), but don't do it gleefully like I see online. This is not a good road to be on and we won't like the destination.

Let me go on the record that if we could hop in a pre-escalator time machine and visit 2009, I think anyone suggesting we abolish the filibuster and pack the court would need to have his head examined. And even now, I think doing those things introduces unnecessary destabilization. But with the way gerrymandering and disproportional representation has broken our system, consider that if trump gets this judge pushed through, a full 5 out of 9 justices will have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote

But let's look at the realpolitik. While many on the left can at least tolerate a 5-4 conservative court with a swing, there is no one on the left who is going to accept a 6-3 court, esp when the last member is a total nutjob like Coney Barrett. It's a foregone conclusion in that scenario that a bunch of precedent on abortion, the ACA, unions, gay marriage, and voting rights is going to get overturned, and that outcome is simply unacceptable. It's so unacceptable in fact that imo the calculus vis a vis risk to an already wobbly democracy swings in favor of still packing the court.

The only way I can see avoiding it is if trump and mitch leave the seat open for the next president, or if some kind of bipartisan legislative or amendment change to the SCOTUS appointment process in the effort to prevent these shenanigans passes next week...but obviously neither of those seems like a very likely outcome.

 

[Mad Jack]

Let me go on the record that if we could hop in a pre-escalator time machine and visit 2009, I think anyone suggesting we abolish the filibuster and pack the court would need to have his head examined. And even now, I think doing those things introduces unnecessary destabilization. But with the way gerrymandering and disproportional representation has broken our system, consider that if trump gets this judge pushed through, a full 5 out of 9 justices will have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote

But let's look at the realpolitik. While many on the left can at least tolerate a 5-4 conservative court with a swing, there is no one on the left who is going to accept a 6-3 court, esp when the last member is a total nutjob like Coney Barrett. It's a foregone conclusion in that scenario that a bunch of precedent on abortion, the ACA, unions, gay marriage, and voting rights is going to get overturned, and that outcome is simply unacceptable. It's so unacceptable in fact that imo the calculus vis a vis risk to an already wobbly democracy swings in favor of still packing the court.

The only way I can see avoiding it is if trump and mitch leave the seat open for the next president, or if some kind of bipartisan legislative or amendment change to the SCOTUS appointment process in the effort to prevent these shenanigans passes next week...but obviously neither of those seems likely a very likely outcome.

She's going to be put on the SCOTUS, then things are really going to get ugly. I predict our democracy basically failing within 30 years at this rate. This is the price we pay for being unable to compromise. I'll most likely be pleasantly dead by the time most of the worst of it comes to fruition, and I've got no kids, so good luck to your descendents everyone

 

[nimbus]

I'll most likely be pleasantly dead by the time most of the worst of it comes to fruition, and I've got no kids, so good luck to your descendents everyone

That is possibly the best thing I’ve read on SDN

 

[AMEHigh]

We’ll know the nominee by the end of the week per the administration. So yep, definitely going to be pushed through. I don’t even know why some of these republicans are acting like they’re not going to confirm. You know Susan Collins will hem and haw about it in public like usual and then vote for it.

 

[PainDrain]

But let's look at the realpolitik. While many on the left can at least tolerate a 5-4 conservative court with a swing, there is no one on the left who is going to accept a 6-3 court, esp when the last member is a total nutjob like Coney Barrett. It's a foregone conclusion in that scenario that a bunch of precedent on abortion, the ACA, unions, gay marriage, and voting rights is going to get overturned, and that outcome is simply unacceptable. It's so unacceptable in fact that imo the calculus vis a vis risk to an already wobbly democracy swings in favor of still packing the court.

The only way I can see avoiding it is if trump and mitch leave the seat open for the next president, or if some kind of bipartisan legislative or amendment change to the SCOTUS appointment process in the effort to prevent these shenanigans passes next week...but obviously neither of those seems likely a very likely outcome.

So the SCOTUS in the past 15 or so years has had absolutely terrible decisions that have largely accelerated the political turmoil. Citizens United, under the false notion that corporations should have speech rights equivalent to an individual, and that, regardless of resources, the corporation’s speech cannot be hindered. This is an abomination and completely ignores the corrupting influence of money in politics. The last decade also saw class action lawsuits gutted and a massive expansion of corporate power. Social conservatives are largely responsible for our current state because of their obsession with Roe and they will have to look themselves in the mirror when the system implodes. I tend to take a very libertarian view of things in the social sphere and if you actually read the damn Constitution (and it’s historical context) this is the only way it can be interpreted. The government should have no role in controlling a person’s mind or body, and no class should be given more rights then others. Roe and Griswold, when looked at from the view of privacy and self determination of one’s body, is a solid decision.

 

[DoctwoB]

Let me go on the record that if we could hop in a pre-escalator time machine and visit 2009, I think anyone suggesting we abolish the filibuster and pack the court would need to have his head examined. And even now, I think doing those things introduces unnecessary destabilization. But with the way gerrymandering and disproportional representation has broken our system, consider that if trump gets this judge pushed through, a full 5 out of 9 justices will have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote

But let's look at the realpolitik. While many on the left can at least tolerate a 5-4 conservative court with a swing, there is no one on the left who is going to accept a 6-3 court, esp when the last member is a total nutjob like Coney Barrett. It's a foregone conclusion in that scenario that a bunch of precedent on abortion, the ACA, unions, gay marriage, and voting rights is going to get overturned, and that outcome is simply unacceptable. It's so unacceptable in fact that imo the calculus vis a vis risk to an already wobbly democracy swings in favor of still packing the court.

The only way I can see avoiding it is if trump and mitch leave the seat open for the next president, or if some kind of bipartisan legislative or amendment change to the SCOTUS appointment process in the effort to prevent these shenanigans passes next week...but obviously neither of those seems likely a very likely outcome.

I agree. If the R's push through a rightwing candidate and we go full 6-3, the D's will have no choice. I hate that it is coming to this, but it is a classical prisoner's dillema.

If the R's go no holds barred, the D's have to as well or they (and the populations they represent) get steamrolled. Even though both sides would probably be better off back in a original situation of mutual respect.

The solution that would be best for everyone would be a backroom deal in which Mitch agrees to nominate a middle of the road candidate who respects precedent and Schumer agrees to not oppose. But both sides would get eviscerated by their base, especially the right, where nominating a candidate who wont overturn RvW is unacceptable.

 

[ButterButter]

But both sides would get eviscerated by their base, especially the right, where nominating a candidate who wont overturn RvW is unacceptable.

Democrats may seem united against Trump, but I would argue that they would go completely ape **** if leadership acquiesces to anything other than postponing consideration of a nominee until after inauguration.

 

[T-burglar]

Lmao at all this political science

Burn this sh1thole to the ground

 

[Southpaw]

Lmao at all this political science

Burn this sh1thole to the ground

Oh. It’s you. Hi mr. president.

 

[DirtDocMD]

Roe and Griswold, when looked at from the view of privacy and self determination of one’s body, is a solid decision.

Not to get off on a tangent, but if the Dems want to pass a law that says “abortion is legal”, that is a lot different from the Court saying, “The Constitution grants the right to abortion.”. THAT is the “legal” (obviously there are plenty with a moral) rub with what the Court did in Roe. Many felt the Court, in effect, “created” an amendment which did not exist.

If “self-determination of one’s body” is the standard, then how has the “Draft” ever been legal?? Is telling someone they have to “fight for their country” for two years, any less oppressive then telling someone they need to “carry a pregnancy of a future citizen” for nine months?? Either way, isn’t the Government “telling you what to do with your body”??

Anyway, there’s one side talking court packing/ending filibuster/impeachment/ending the electoral college/riots/looting, and another side that is talking about nominating a Justice, and having the Senate “advise and consent” (vote) on them.

Which one is trying to “fundamentally transform” the way things are done, and which one is simply following the letter of the law, as it stands, today?

 

[PainDrain]

I agree. If the R's push through a rightwing candidate and we go full 6-3, the D's will have no choice. I hate that it is coming to this, but it is a classical prisoner's dillema.

If the R's go no holds barred, the D's have to as well or they (and the populations they represent) get steamrolled. Even though both sides would probably be better off back in a original situation of mutual respect.

The solution that would be best for everyone would be a backroom deal in which Mitch agrees to nominate a middle of the road candidate who respects precedent and Schumer agrees to not oppose. But both sides would get eviscerated by their base, especially the right, where nominating a candidate who wont overturn RvW is unacceptable.

The thing that McConnell and the social conservatives don’t understand is that there is going to be some serious hell to pay when Roe is gone. The backlash may be more then they expected.

 

[PainDrain]

Not to get off on a tangent, but if the Dems want to pass a law that says “abortion is legal”, that is a lot different from the Court saying, “The Constitution grants the right to abortion.”. THAT is the “legal” (obviously there are plenty with a moral) rub with what the Court did in Roe. Many felt the Court, in effect, “created” an amendment which did not exist.

If “self-determination of one’s body” is the standard, then how has the “Draft” ever been legal?? Is telling someone they have to “fight for their country” for two years, any less oppressive then telling someone they need to “carry a pregnancy of a future citizen” for nine months?? Either way, isn’t the Government “telling you what to do with your body”??

Anyway, there’s one side talking court packing/ending filibuster/impeachment/ending the electoral college/riots/looting, and another side that is talking about nominating a Justice, and having the Senate “advise and consent” (vote) on them.

Which one is trying to “fundamentally transform” the way things are done, and which one is simply following the letter of the law, as it stands, today?

I suggest you read Griswold and Roe.

There hasn’t been a draft since Vietnam Remember, even during a draft you could be a conscientious objector.

 

[AMEHigh]

The thing that McConnell and the social conservatives don’t understand is that there is going to be some serious hell to pay when Roe is gone. The backlash may be more then they expected.

Yep. Especially since the vast majority of americans think that abortion should be legal and those "conservatives" are certainly having abortions as well. It's just that when it's illegal the rich will find ways around the system of course while the majority of the country continues to suffer. But yeah there's going to be a lot of backlash.

We'll definitely have a new justice before Nov 3.

 

[AMEHigh]

Which one is trying to “fundamentally transform” the way things are done, and which one is simply following the letter of the law, as it stands, today?

Why is it a problem to want to "fundamentally transform" things? Isn't that what a democracy is about.
Not long ago slavery was the law, segregation was the law, discrimination was the law, etc. I'm glad people continue to want fundamental change because this country has a lot of flaws.

 

[DirtDocMD]

I suggest you read Griswold and Roe.

There hasn’t been a draft since Vietnam Remember, even during a draft you could be a conscientious objector.

Well, I had to go sign up for Selective Service a helluva long time after Vietnam ended, and the bar for “conscientious objector” is way higher than “It’s my choice not to go.”.

I’m not looking to get off on an abortion tangent, and I don’t need to read Roe. I’m merely pointing out how MILLIONS of folks feel regarding perceived “judicial activism” of the Court, irregardless of what they may believe about abortion and it’s legality/morality.

Whether legitimate or not, the PERCEPTION of “judicial activism” is there.

As for Citizens United (and perceived activism by right-leaning judges), there IS too much money in politics, and saying that a corporation is the same as an individual may be a stretch, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to treat corporations (owned by thousands of willing shareholders) different than a labor union (made up of thousands of willing dues-paying members). I find it hard to believe that the GOP is the benefactor of more corporate contributions, these days, than Democrats, as well....

 

[vector2]

Yep. Especially since the vast majority of americans think that abortion should be legal and those "conservatives" are certainly having abortions as well. It's just that when it's illegal the rich will find ways around the system of course while the majority of the country continues to suffer. But yeah there's going to be a lot of backlash.

We'll definitely have a new justice before Nov 3.

Goes to show you how broken our federalist tilting republic/senate/electoral college system can be when this is the polling for abortion yet there is no federal law protecting the right explicitly.

 

[DirtDocMD]

Why is it a problem to want to "fundamentally transform" things? Isn't that what a democracy is about.
Not long ago slavery was the law, segregation was the law, discrimination was the law, etc. I'm glad people continue to want fundamental change because this country has a lot of flaws.

Well, isn’t that why we have a legislative branch? Hey, what party ended those practices, anyway?? Hmmmm....

 

[Matty44]

But it’s a direct correlation to anger over the events and more cell phone footage capturing the actions. The George Floyd video was gasoline on the fire. The discussion for who is actually doing the violence at the protests is for another thread.

My point was saying that more Democratic voters would riot and loot based on politics was a false equivalency.

You mean people like this?View attachment 318854

 

[vector2]

To quote one of my favorite @pgg posts whenever someone disingenuous is like "lol Republicans ended slavery, u just got owned lib"

 

[AMEHigh]

Well, isn’t that why we have a legislative branch? Hey, what party ended those practices, anyway?? Hmmmm....

No. I think you’re missing the point in regards to wanting fundamental change. The whole system is problematic. I don’t have all the answers, but to have a criticism that "one-side" wants fundamental change, like that is a criticism, is out of touch. That was my only point.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Goes to show you how broken our federalist tilting republic/senate/electoral college system can be when this is the polling for abortion yet there is no federal law protecting the right explicitly.

View attachment 318847

Because the certain circumstances vary wildly? I have issues with post-viability abortion outside of maternal health or severe birth defects. I know plenty of hard core anti-abortion folks who are still OK with it for maternal health reasons but nothing else. We both fall into the large category of OK in certain circumstances but there's no way we could come to a compromise on this given how strongly the anti-abortion people feel about this.

Because both sides use this to get out their voters? Look what's happening now. 99% of the talk is about Roe on both sides.

 

[vector2]

Because the certain circumstances vary wildly? I have issues with post-viability abortion outside of maternal health or severe birth defects. I know plenty of hard core anti-abortion folks who are still OK with it for maternal health reasons but nothing else. We both fall into the large category of OK in certain circumstances but there's no way we could come to a compromise on this given how strongly the anti-abortion people feel about this.

Because both sides use this to get out their voters? Look what's happening now. 99% of the talk is about Roe on both sides.

The bolded part is my point exactly. The people who feel the most strongly (aka total ban) are also the smallest minority, but yet all the laws coming out of the legislatures effectively end up becoming total bans because of the prohibitive restrictions they place. At the end of the day 70-80% of people are in favor of some kind of abortion access (which at the very least could be explicit federal legalization in the case of rape/incest, saving mothers life, and electively up to the age of viability without making post 22-24wk explicitly legal or illegal), and yet the political debate is centered around the 20% lowest common denominator biblical screwballs who are living in another century.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The bolded part is my point exactly. The people who feel the most strongly (aka total ban) are also the smallest minority, but yet all the laws coming out of the legislatures effectively end up becoming total bans because of the prohibitive restrictions they place. At the end of the day 70-80% of people are in favor of some kind of abortion access (which at the very least could be explicit federal legalization in the case of rape/incest, saving mothers life, and electively up to the age of viability without making post 22-24wk explicitly legal or illegal), and yet the political debate is centered around the 20% lowest common denominator biblical screwballs who are living in another century.

But see there's the problem. There are plenty of people who are OK with it for maternal health and fatal birth defects. That puts them in the "OK in certain circumstances" crowd. But there aren't going to be OK with your "at the very least" list there. So that 50% isn't going to be behind what you propose. What I don't know is what amount of that 50% would back out given what you suggest. That's part of the problem with why this isn't likely to work out. As for the "legal under all circumstances", will they accept restrictions? Because you're going to need them if you lose more than a bare handful of the certain circumstances crowd.

 

[vector2]

But see there's the problem. There are plenty of people who are OK with it for maternal health and fatal birth defects. That puts them in the "OK in certain circumstances" crowd. But there aren't going to be OK with your "at the very least" list there. So that 50% isn't going to be behind what you propose. What I don't know is what amount of that 50% would back out given what you suggest. That's part of the problem with why this isn't likely to work out. As for the "legal under all circumstances", will they accept restrictions? Because you're going to need them if you lose more than a bare handful of the certain circumstances crowd.

I'm not disputing that there are a lot of details in the middle that need to be worked out. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of 30% being for unrestricted abortion, 50% for abortion with restrictions, and 20% being for total ban.......and yet the starting point for all legislation or scotus picks or anything else seems to be "total ban." It's nonsensical and antidemocratic.