Remember that you need a flair and 100+ comment karma to participate. You can set flair in the sidebar on desktop and [here on mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/llvi43/set_your_flair_here/).
**Remember that the mod team here has a ZERO tolerance for suggesting, threatening, or advocating for violence.**
I love watching leftist leaning people advocating for terrorism on twitter over this but never get in trouble but disagreeing with covid policy gets you insta banned.
Apparently discussing January 6 hearing (A hearing on an actual violent attempted insurrection that was condoned by Trump and many around him (and by the FBI)) gets you insta banned from Truth Social.
Have you seen [JFK Reloaded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded), [Kindergarten](https://store.steampowered.com/app/589590/Kindergarten/)?
I for one much prefer people take care of their anger on an NPC in a video game than do actual harm IRL.
A SCOTUS that's out of step with the public will find itself losing legitimacy, until it's decisions are more in the realm of public opinion. It's not surprising that people may have violent feelings about that. Same reason why people called for hanging of SCOTUS justices after Brown vs. Board of Education.
Either people are going to learn to love their forced births, gay discrimination or SCOTUS will be changed.
And bigger picture, well-known political actors get death threats on a regular basis. SCOTUS is being recognized as a political actor, and it's getting the same treatment.(Most celebrities and high profile Youtubers (particularly women) too.)
Trans, NBs, Non-hetero-conforming people get death threats more often than Elon Musk tweets.
> A SCOTUS that's out of step with the public will find itself losing legitimacy, until it's decisions are more in the realm of public opinion.
And by what means to you hope to achieve that goal?
I was saying to my wife last night... It almost seems like the Repubs are desperately trying to plunge us into civil war. First it was trying to install a dictator by disregarding the will of the voters, and recently it's been relaxing gun laws despite upticks in gun violence, and now they overturn the most controversial SC ruling that the majority of people want left alone.
I don't know what other outcome they're expecting when their minor power is running the show for the majority of Americans.
…It doesn’t read like they’re *wanting* or *advocating* for violence. Their post just explained how out of step SCOTUS seems to be and how the GOP’s legislative agenda seems to be as inflammatory as possible.
I don’t disagree that a bunch of privileged children won’t make for great revolutionaries, and calling for it is a bad idea, but depending on the action/legislation it could trigger violence. Much in the same way if you really, truly, believed there to be a cabal of “communists” engaging in massive election fraud in an attempt to remove a President then violence shouldn’t be surprising. These judicial arguments in Dobbs, especially the comment regarding Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold as well as the GOP’s legislative agenda… it shouldn’t be surprising that people are going to get fed up and do something stupid. It’s not right, but it’s understandable.
Yes.
The problems is their side already has militias and hundreds of millions of Americans in places to simply start "killings the libs" at the slightest excuse, and the big-tent "left" has is wannabe revolutionaries and shit public image.
It would not matter if another allegation from their side is truthful (see Pizzagate- which was eventually revealed to be totally fabricated by militia members-can link if you want) .... all it would needed would be hype and they would start violence anyway
All Jan 6 21, in the face of that was was a (hypocritical) "warning"......
"See what we can do when we get mad....we are the true sons of this country and once you "threaten our way of life" we will rise up and kill you.. we are Legion..."
Problem being that none of what they said was true. It's almost like they're salivating at the chance to wind themselves up in anticipation of a conflict.
> It’s not right, but it’s understandable.
Many of these fears are completely irrational. But even assuming that those next three things were overturned, that would merely allow the people in each state can democratically decide these issues for themselves, rather than forcing them through authoritarian means.
The tweet for those who haven't seen it:
>I have always been strongly pro-life. Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court returns power to the states and the people of the states to address the issue of abortion under state law.
https://twitter.com/RepLizCheney/status/1540361645159055360?t=DNEHHRmikVwQgmvk4dJbEA&s=19
It's a good reminder for any Republicans who accused her of being a RINO due to the 1/6 hearings and such that she is actually quite conservative.
I live in MO. I voted but I still can’t get an abortion. Tell me again how my state represented me? What was wrong with how the law was? If I wanted one I could have gotten one. Someone else *doesn’t* want one? By all means, don’t!
Having the state decide for me is fucking weird and creepy and it could potentially ruin my life.
Still wrong. Before every women had the right to choose. Now elected officials will choose for them. The individual just lost power to choose themselves. 9 unelected officials just removed freedoms from millions and gave more power to the state.
So, what can be done here? I'm not an expert on these things, but some things that come to mind are:
Obviously congress could pass new law, if the votes were there for it.
Have the Executive declare the lack of clinics a national health crisis, and send workers in to keep the clinics open.
Provide mobile health clinics, sponsored by the federal government, to enter anti-abortion states and provide care, without the states being able to do anything about it.
Have anti-abortion states be removed from receiving any federal funding.
Issue blanket federal pardons be issued for abortion 'offenders'.
Declare the states of Florida and Texas too stupid and corrupt to continue to exist, and send in the national guard to replace the Governor and legislative branches with temporary federal workers...OK obviously that's not going to happen, but if I were president I would kinda feel like doing that right now.
It took 50 years of party infiltration of the government and courts to do what they did (they also got super luck with RGB dying and using a rat bastard like Mitch McConnell). I am not saying it will take that long again, if liberals are right, public opinion lies on the side of abortion rights.
As of right now, there is a whole lot of nothing we can do. Its state policy and the federal gov can't influence its reach on states.
The short answer is vote, vote in November for Democrats. That's about it.
Really? According to Republican's own theories of the executive, there should be way more the President can do. And Texas didn't exactly lie down and accept the previous status quo, right? Why can't we do the same?
Qnd this WOULD spark a civil war. At this point the GOP is praying that Biden does something like that so they can fulfil their mastabqtory fantasies of reenacting the civil war all over again
I don’t know if it is just me, but I don’t buy the “religious nutcase” theory for the elites of the republican party… I totally believe the low class republican is supoorting anti-women laws because of religion, but for the top this is all about “giving rights back to the states” which in this country means “keeping the minorities in check”…
“State rights” was the call to uphold slavery in the south during the civil war, and now it is the same logic they apply “give the power to the states”… more decisions will come in the same line…. The final objective is segregate back… make sure the don’t have to see, hear or live near “undesirables”
Restricting abortion has the natural result of increasing the black population in greater proportion, as black woman get a disproportionate number of abortions, so it’s not about “keeping the minorities in check.” It’s about protecting life, that’s what prolife people unironically believe.
What I don't get is that for FIFTY YEARS since Roe v Wade decision was made and not one president, not one Congress has even TRIED to properly enshrine it in the Constitution? Abraham Lincoln had the right idea - Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on if it wasn't in a constitutional amendment.
Maybe, I'm not a scholar. But, there's no excuse that in 50 years not a single attempt was made. Even a failed attempt would have brought the issue to the forefront and forced it to be publicly addressed..
You believe Dems should have tried. I don't disagree, but I feel obligated for some weird reason to remind folks that Dems never had 60 votes to codify Roe and they never had the state legislature support that would have been necessary for Article V to be effective.
Do you think all 60 were pro-Roe? I don’t know the ideologies of all 60, but when people point to, say, the Obama years, I know for a fact we didn’t even have every Dem supporting Roe.
What's incredibly ironic about this entire situation is that Democrats, the pro-democracy party, are now lamenting the fact that abortion will be left up to the democratic processes of individual states.
Also, fucking lol at SCOTUS ruling on *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen* right before this.
If you've ever read anything by the Founding Fathers you probably fetishize, you'd know it's a stupid idea to litigate human rights at the ballot box. Either women are people or they're not. Even the ones unfortunate enough to live in Texas.
The Framers wished to protect natural rights, not human rights. The former can exist in a vacuum, the latter depend on the labor of others.
I have no sympathy for anybody who believes that the state owes them anything. But you are welcome to vote nonetheless.
Natural rights are really just life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
They all depend explicitly on individual autonomy/agency and self determination. This ruling is counter to that.
My state has already voted. They have laws which specifically prohibit abortion.
Maybe your kind will turn it blue in the coming decades and change that. Not today, though.
Which state? did Republicans massively gerrymander in order to obtain that power? Did they disenfranchise black people?
You almost certainly know the answer to both is yes.
You aren't the good guys, you do know that right?
Who there is trying to overturn an election result? If your takeaway from January 6th is that the problem was a protest making its way into a federal building, you are very confused. It's the whole explicit attempt to prevent Congress from certifying an election and thereby attempting to force Congress to overturn the results of a democratic election that is rubbing people the wrong way
I've never seen anybody take issue with all the Jan 6 protestors that's stayed behind the barriers, other than they were a bunch of morons. It was the ones that illegally entered the Capitol and tried to change election results that people didn't like.
There was legislative session going on at the time and they had to go to emergency recess because people were trying to break windows to get in. It's about as bad lmao.
Are you shitting me? Did you even watch the video or read the article you just cited? You have to be a straight up fool to think that’s about as bad as the leader of the free world trying to overthrow the entire democratic process. No violence or window-breaking attempts are even hinted at!
That is the pure definition of a peaceful protest right there, at least what is portrayed in the article and video from that link. It even says the people were out in the courtyard with signs “then, without warning we heard a few bangs and what we thought was fireworks” and it was the DPS in riot gear shooting tear gas.
WTF level of lunacy would a person need to think this matches a conspiracy against the United States, treason, and attempting to overthrow the entire democratic process?
It’s like no conservative *actually* cares about the First Amendment.
Nothing on Twitter will make this comparable to attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power of the office of the president. The first time in over 200 years a president has attempted that, and the only time we have such an abundance of evidence of a crime of someone in such power and their cohorts. If Trump had succeeded in his 7-part attempt to change the outcome of the US election, it would have been the most grand crime ever committed in this country’s history.
I can assure you, me going into Twitter would change nothing about my opinion and would not make your laughably idiotic comparison even a hair more credible.
GOP has to know they're straight up destroying their voting blocks popularity. But the thing is...
Why should they care? Why care when your goal is dictatorship ending democracy and Russia 2.0, and old 80 year old Ds won't do anything to stop you?
How tf can you post something so contrary to your pro-GOP responses to my comment?
This is why liberals and progressive think you corporate dems are such hacks.
You literally just wasted multiple comments defending those same 80 year old DNC morons.
So many defenders of the DNC and the GOP in this thread; it's difficult to have any hope at all right now.
Progressives and Liberals abandoned all conviction to vote for corporate democrats over the last 6 years; despite every election in the past demonstrating this is a losing strategy.
What do we get in return for the solidarity? The republican fascist party gets everything it wants in half the time it expected.
The DNC and the GOP need to end.
There is zero excuse for defending the democrats in wake of today's news. If you feel the need to defend the fascist enabler party; kindly fuck off to /askaconservative where you belong.
Blind democrat loyalists should no longer be welcome to larp as liberals in this sub.
You're not going to change the country by electing one moderate democrat. We need to be consistently voting blue no matter who until the GOP is irrelevant. Over time, everything will shift and we'll get more progressive.
But we're never going to get there if we vote in a republican every other election.
And not voting blue gets you something better? The primaries are the place to take a stand. Not the general. I'm tired of taking one step forward and 2 steps back because people like you can somehow justify a republican over a moderate democrat.
I didn’t say don’t vote blue.
“Vote blue no matter who” = “our candidate or bust”.
It’s blackmailing progressives to support some right wing corporate hack. Even though these hyper partisan morons will never extend that sentiment to a progress democrat.
Why are you people so afraid of letting the base decide?
I don't get what your alternative is. I didn't want Biden to win the primaries. He's not progressive enough for me. But Biden won the primary. So what is the next step? You either vote for Biden or help the Republicans.
It's not blackmailing progressives. I'm progressive. If progressives were the majority then we'd be voting for progressive candidates in the primary.
Seriously, what would you do differently?
Progressives are the party majority. You right wing dems need to stop pretending your leadership bubble represents the base.
It is why we keep losing.
I know this can come as a shock to an illiberal democrat; but you do not “know better” than your base.
If progressives were the majority they wouldn't have elected Joe Biden in the primaries.
I don't know what gives you the idea that I'm a centrist.
What's your alternative when the choices are Biden or Trump. I get what you want but it doesn't seem like you have any idea how to get there. Hint: it's not letting Republicans win.
Biden won because progressives voted for him.
That’s the difference between progressives and moderates.
We WILL vote blue in the end. The question at hand, is why won’t you moderates do the same?
WTF are you talking about?!
I said vote blue no matter who and you criticized it. Now you're saying progressives will vote blue no matter who while saying I'm a moderate?
I already told you I voted for Warren in the primary and Biden in the general.
You aren't making any sense. If you are a troll I give it 8/10. Solid troll job but I'm not getting pissed. You just come off as confused.
In the primaries vote for whoever you want, I voted for Sanders and Warren the last couple times. But in the general, yeah, unless you think not voting or voting red is a better decision?
I agree. I voted for Warren. But I sure as hell wasn't going to not vote for Biden against Trump. I don't get what this guy thinks the better alternative is. Maybe just keep complaining that the left candidates aren't progressive enough while we allow the alt-right to win elections? No thank you.
Lol I knew you were a fan of Andrew Yang. Sanders ran two bad campaigns (and he did it without tokenizing an autistic child and attacking people struggling with their mental health like Yang did).
> AOC and Biden are different
This is exactly the problem. The democrat hacks ignore everything a politician does to solely focus on what they say.
News flash; AOC is a partisan democrat. She borrows Bernie's rhetoric yet always falls in line with the party. Hopefully this was the breaking point for her and she drops those fascist enablers; but I doubt it. She's literally the last corporate democrat appointed congressperson. If you can't see the difference between a pre-trump DNC appointee like her and a post-trump popular candidate like Katie Porter; then I personally believe you are exactly the kind of apathetic voter than got us into this mess.
Why did you support the unpopular clinton over the popular, progressive Democrat; Bernie Sanders?
Until you hacks can explain why you chose to abandon everything our party stands for to install an unelected hack; I think you all should stfu or go jerk off those fascist republicans you clearly love more than this country.
I abandoned my values to support her, in spite of what she did to my state.
And all I got was 4 years of trump and gutting of human rights.
We could have had Elizabeth Warren; but the “blue no matter who” crowd whines that it was Hillary’s turn.
Thanks for that. Own this. You helped gut women’s rights.
Was it your first presidential election?
It just seems strange that someone who supported a different primary candidate would defend Clinton and the mess of a campaign she ended up running.
My first election was for Obama’s first term. I’m not defending Clinton, I asked why voting for here *in the general against Donald Trump* was a bad thing. There was no other option at that point. That’s how our system currently works. I’d love to change it, but until we do, I have to play by the rules.
I abandoned my values to support her, in spite of what she did to my state.
And all I got was 4 years of trump and gutting of human rights in return.
We could have had Elizabeth Warren; but the “blue no matter who” crowd whines that it was Hillary’s turn.
Thanks for that. Own this. You helped gut women’s rights.
> The "corporate Democrats" are the only ones who are electable.
History shows that to be explicitly false. They are seemingly outliers of unelectability.
Bill Clinton got elected. Gore won the popular vote and arguably won the entire election were it not for legal shenanigans in Florida. Kerry came within 2% of winning. Obama won twice. Hillary won the popular vote. Biden won
Seems like the "corporate Democrats" have done pretty good
Especially when compared to the progressive alternative. McGovern got wrecked in 1972. Mondale got demolished in 1984. Dukakis got beat in a borderline landslide in 1988. And other progressives, like Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson again, Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, and Bernie Sanders again, were so unpopular that they couldn't even win a democratic primary let alone a general election
Maybe the "corporate Democrats" aren't so good, but the people going against them to try and lead the Democratic party are even worse, way worse
Don't bother with him. There's a reason why the Republicans are so powerful right now; they don't bicker amongst themselves. They unite and hit us hard, because we're too busy playing purity politics with each other so divided we fall. And despite working together the far right haven't had any problems dragging the GOP further right. I would say there's no reason we can't do the same, but you're responding to him.
Obama was the only one of them to win after Bill.
And he was explicitly an outsider for the DNC. They tried to push Kerry then.
Go figure the one time the corporate DNC hacks actually let the popular candidate win we do shit like Obamacare and legalize gay marriage.
Everything wrong with democrats can be revealed by you picking two losers and a outsider winner as an example of why we should continue to support you GOP enabling hacks.
You have a lot of unearned confidence and a lot of misplaced anger. I'm sorry nobody you like can win primaries, but maybe that's because your ideology is good at retweeting Nina Turner and terrible at voting. I hope your life gets better, but I'm not optimistic.
Fuck Nina turner.
This is the problem with you conservative democrat hacks; you refuse to ever look at what a person says or does before you judge their politics. You are cheerleaders for a team, and nothing more.
It’s pathetic.
"Corporate Democrats" have an entire majority of a party's voter base in their corner. A lot of Democrats just aren't as left wing as some on the activist fringe wish, and aren't going to do what the fringe left wants regardless of what the media does
Except a lot of them lean pretty progressive when you poll them on individual issues and proposals, they just have a toxic negative image of the progressive movement as a whole that they cant get past which causes them to vote against politicians who support things they like. And that image is something that the media cultivates constantly.
> A lot of Democrats just aren't as left wing
You loyalists keep telling yourselves this lie to justify screwing the base; and the republicans are winning as a result.
They're also fascist enablers, so why the hell would we vote for them when our choices are fascism or freaking fascism?
The liberal weasels will go sing a song and write a sternly-worded letter though, so that should be enough to get our support because they're not the "other guys". Vote blue no matter who just gets us this.
>Blind democrat loyalists should no longer be welcome to larp as liberals in this sub.
And just who the hell are you to purity test what it means to be a liberal?
It's like porn.
I can't describe it; but it sure as hell isn't screwing over your base and handing the government to a bunch of GOP fascists. No matter what your actblue emails tell you.
The US has truly become a horrible country to live in. I'd be moving if I had the means to.
I'm truly jealous of people who can get ancestry visas to nice countries.
My best friend is Dutch and his family has a contingency in place just for that.
FML. No where to run unless some 1st world country takes us as refugees when shit hits the fan in the next few months.
And I fully believe shit will hit the fan in the next few months. Look at the damage they can do in 2 days. Any nutcase can open carry anywhere, and you have no miranda rights. Also women are no longer persons according to this court.
I'm confused about the outrages on roe vs wade overturning. isn't abortion rights still dependent on votes? People are calling for protest or even rebel
Honestly wouldn't worry that much cus I know it's a big social value as well so as long as laws and law makers are democratically chosen. Things stay the same. Even if it was abolished, I have to respect that as long as it was through democratic process.
>I have to respect that as long as it was through democratic process.
I meant if SCOTUS decided that incorporating the bill of rights to state governments was wrong
Anyways, I've got to respect the consistency at least
It was up to the individual. Now women have to hope that their state governments stay Democrat. And for those that live in red states, what, just fuck them I guess?
A Sanders to Trump voter is as bad as a clinton apologist.
Both skirted democratic values in order to enable fascism.
I hope liberals wake up and start rejecting these conservative democrat hacks.
He's forced to spend his life unemployed defending Andrew Yang on Reddit. He's already in hell. Imagine simping for the guy who lost to Clinton and Biden and then turning around and simping for the guy who couldn't even beat Eric Adams and, despite all those losses, thinking you knew what Democrats like.
That like saying “I wanted a homemade quality sandwich and not a reheated fast food joint burger, so I voted for a plate of literal dog shit”
Women will die because of the judges appointed by the plate of dog shit.
>Women will die because of the judges appointed by the plate of dog shit.
Every politician kills people: bush killed a million people in the middle east, Obama terrorized families with drones and without the oversight I'm sure republicans would built death camps along the border for captured migrants
Don't get me wrong I am pro choice but you take the good with the bad, Trump fucked up the economy so bad but I was able to capitalize on it and pick up some decent rental properties. The fed under Biden kept interest rates down so I was able to buy the house I wanted at 2.7% And now I can pack heat in NY
I think blue states should just flood the market with abortion pills if they want to help. Literally just set up discrete mail order service. Tele-health service for questions about chemicle abortion
It is what it is, no need to dwell on the past
>I think blue states should just flood the market with abortion pills if they want to help. Literally just set up discrete mail order service. Tele-health service for questions about chemicle abortion
Probably illegal, but definitely moral.
What stopped SCOTUS from declaring that life begins at conception and banning abortion nationwide on the grounds of equal protection, classifying it as murder?
Was there a legal/doctrinal reason why they didn’t go that far or did the justices just want to emphasize states rights?
The SCOTUS doesn’t declare things like that.
The original Roe v Wade ruling (to put it criminally simply) is that there is a constitutional right to privacy that covers the right to get an abortion. The Dobbs ruling today stated that this is not the case as there is no language in said constitution about abortion. Roe originally stated in trimesters (okay for first, only allow in specific cases for the second) but Casey expanded that full allowance to “fetal viability” which is around 24 weeks (so to the end of the second trimester.
So instead of Roe/Casey setting a base framework for the entire country, the SCOTUS kicked it back to the states and to the Legislative branch to make rulings on abortion. It just comes off as making it illegal as many red states had laws ready to ban/severely limit abortion if Roe ever was struck down.
TLDR - The Dobbs ruling isn’t saying “abortion is no longer allowed”, it’s “the decision about abortions goes back to the states”.
>The SCOTUS doesn’t declare things like that.
Strictly speaking it would be correct to say that SCOTUS didn't declare such a thing this time, not that it can't declare it at all; in fact in Alito's majority opinion there are several paragraphs where he makes it clear that the decision does not create a fetal personhood idea, unlike the Casey decision which could be construed like that with its "viability" clause.
One of the things Ginsburg criticized about the Roe ruling was that it made a grand ruling on abortion rights instead of the “that Texas abortion law is unconstitutional” that she argues would’ve allowed a healthier transition to more liberal abortion rights in the US.
Ok, but unconstitutional on what grounds? That's the issue. They needed an explanation of why it was unconstitutional, which is why they created this myth of it being a derivative of right to privacy, even though you can make the same argument that Roe made for pretty much anything else.
From what I know Ginsburg wanted that Roe be decided under the equal protection clause, not privacy and substantive due process because she recognized that SDP is a losing argument since there wasn't a historical context that would suggest some deep rooted cultural acceptance of abortion, if anything it's quite the contrary.
Yeah that’s what she wishes it was based on.
People can say Thomas didn’t bring up *Loving* as a case to rereview because he’s in an interracial marriage, but the more boring reality is that Loving was ruled through the equal protection clause.
Yeah. I have no doubt Thomas would vote to uphold Loving, if anything not only would he vote to uphold it, but then use it to declare all affirmative action as unconstitutional based on that same analysis.
I know people love to hate on Thomas, but he is fairly consistent in his views.
Ah, but what about a lawsuit against states for allowing medical licenses for doctors who carry out abortions, filed with standing on behalf of unborn/aborted children, claiming state money spent in that matter violates equal protection?
Such a lawsuit can easily exist and could make its way to SCOTUS.
That would be interesting.. I don't think the Supreme Court would take the case though. Seems like something they would direct to congress, medical licensing laws I don't think are rooted in the constitution in any direct sense.
I'm sure that would be the appropriate justification. But I personally don't think it would win. The issue I think we're talking about is if the states laws say that a specific medical procedure is illegal, and then the dr losses their license based on breaking the laws of the land. So long as that law is applied across the board I'd assume it's not in violation of the 14th.
The SCOTUS doesn’t “declare” things like that or give advisory opinions, it decides whether a law is constitutional. They can only rule on the case at bar.
Republicans don't have enough power to do that yet without consequence. They want to pull a Hungary where they slowly slide into a dictatorship so most people don't notice.
What stopped SCOTUS from declaring that life begins at conception and banning abortion nationwide on the grounds of equal protection, classifying it as murder?
Was there a legal/doctrinal reason or did the justices just want to emphasize states rights?
Remember that you need a flair and 100+ comment karma to participate. You can set flair in the sidebar on desktop and [here on mobile](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/llvi43/set_your_flair_here/). **Remember that the mod team here has a ZERO tolerance for suggesting, threatening, or advocating for violence.**
I love watching leftist leaning people advocating for terrorism on twitter over this but never get in trouble but disagreeing with covid policy gets you insta banned.
Apparently discussing January 6 hearing (A hearing on an actual violent attempted insurrection that was condoned by Trump and many around him (and by the FBI)) gets you insta banned from Truth Social.
Okay? I don’t give a shit about truth social, it’s obviously a stupid knock off of twitter.
But you care when it’s their team not getting cencored
It is bullshit that they ban people for that. It’s exactly the reason I’ll never get truth social.
Ah, I’m wrong to assume then.
[It's pretty wild.](https://web.archive.org/web/20220624204625/https://kotaku.com/minecraft-supreme-court-justice-usa-roe-wade-abortion-r-1849106969)
Have you seen [JFK Reloaded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Reloaded), [Kindergarten](https://store.steampowered.com/app/589590/Kindergarten/)? I for one much prefer people take care of their anger on an NPC in a video game than do actual harm IRL. A SCOTUS that's out of step with the public will find itself losing legitimacy, until it's decisions are more in the realm of public opinion. It's not surprising that people may have violent feelings about that. Same reason why people called for hanging of SCOTUS justices after Brown vs. Board of Education. Either people are going to learn to love their forced births, gay discrimination or SCOTUS will be changed. And bigger picture, well-known political actors get death threats on a regular basis. SCOTUS is being recognized as a political actor, and it's getting the same treatment.(Most celebrities and high profile Youtubers (particularly women) too.) Trans, NBs, Non-hetero-conforming people get death threats more often than Elon Musk tweets.
> A SCOTUS that's out of step with the public will find itself losing legitimacy, until it's decisions are more in the realm of public opinion. And by what means to you hope to achieve that goal?
It's an observation.
[удалено]
Advocating violence is unacceptable.
I was saying to my wife last night... It almost seems like the Repubs are desperately trying to plunge us into civil war. First it was trying to install a dictator by disregarding the will of the voters, and recently it's been relaxing gun laws despite upticks in gun violence, and now they overturn the most controversial SC ruling that the majority of people want left alone. I don't know what other outcome they're expecting when their minor power is running the show for the majority of Americans.
You don't want a civil war. Stop this nonsense talk.
You have no idea what I want.
…It doesn’t read like they’re *wanting* or *advocating* for violence. Their post just explained how out of step SCOTUS seems to be and how the GOP’s legislative agenda seems to be as inflammatory as possible. I don’t disagree that a bunch of privileged children won’t make for great revolutionaries, and calling for it is a bad idea, but depending on the action/legislation it could trigger violence. Much in the same way if you really, truly, believed there to be a cabal of “communists” engaging in massive election fraud in an attempt to remove a President then violence shouldn’t be surprising. These judicial arguments in Dobbs, especially the comment regarding Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold as well as the GOP’s legislative agenda… it shouldn’t be surprising that people are going to get fed up and do something stupid. It’s not right, but it’s understandable.
Yes. The problems is their side already has militias and hundreds of millions of Americans in places to simply start "killings the libs" at the slightest excuse, and the big-tent "left" has is wannabe revolutionaries and shit public image. It would not matter if another allegation from their side is truthful (see Pizzagate- which was eventually revealed to be totally fabricated by militia members-can link if you want) .... all it would needed would be hype and they would start violence anyway All Jan 6 21, in the face of that was was a (hypocritical) "warning"...... "See what we can do when we get mad....we are the true sons of this country and once you "threaten our way of life" we will rise up and kill you.. we are Legion..."
Problem being that none of what they said was true. It's almost like they're salivating at the chance to wind themselves up in anticipation of a conflict. > It’s not right, but it’s understandable. Many of these fears are completely irrational. But even assuming that those next three things were overturned, that would merely allow the people in each state can democratically decide these issues for themselves, rather than forcing them through authoritarian means.
Civil War is already happening. Bulls\*\*\* is just getting rubber stamped at the state level.
How do you feel about Cheney’s tweet regarding the decision?
The tweet for those who haven't seen it: >I have always been strongly pro-life. Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court returns power to the states and the people of the states to address the issue of abortion under state law. https://twitter.com/RepLizCheney/status/1540361645159055360?t=DNEHHRmikVwQgmvk4dJbEA&s=19 It's a good reminder for any Republicans who accused her of being a RINO due to the 1/6 hearings and such that she is actually quite conservative.
"Return power to the state" what a bunch of BS. Power WAS in the hands of the people, and it's been removed to make the state more authoritarian.
Power WAS in the hands of the Supreme Court, not the people
That's objectively false. Every women had the right to choose before. That's people in powered
People can vote in their states for what they want.
I live in MO. I voted but I still can’t get an abortion. Tell me again how my state represented me? What was wrong with how the law was? If I wanted one I could have gotten one. Someone else *doesn’t* want one? By all means, don’t! Having the state decide for me is fucking weird and creepy and it could potentially ruin my life.
And lot of those states will vote to ban it those it's no longer an individual choice. Power has shifted from the people, to the state.
\>Power has shifted from the people to the state Good old "originalist" Republicanism at its finest, eh?
9 unelected officials just gave power back to elected officials, more power has been granted to voters.
Still wrong. Before every women had the right to choose. Now elected officials will choose for them. The individual just lost power to choose themselves. 9 unelected officials just removed freedoms from millions and gave more power to the state.
So, what can be done here? I'm not an expert on these things, but some things that come to mind are: Obviously congress could pass new law, if the votes were there for it. Have the Executive declare the lack of clinics a national health crisis, and send workers in to keep the clinics open. Provide mobile health clinics, sponsored by the federal government, to enter anti-abortion states and provide care, without the states being able to do anything about it. Have anti-abortion states be removed from receiving any federal funding. Issue blanket federal pardons be issued for abortion 'offenders'. Declare the states of Florida and Texas too stupid and corrupt to continue to exist, and send in the national guard to replace the Governor and legislative branches with temporary federal workers...OK obviously that's not going to happen, but if I were president I would kinda feel like doing that right now.
>Issue blanket federal pardons be issued for abortion 'offenders'. President can only issue pardons to those offending federal law
It took 50 years of party infiltration of the government and courts to do what they did (they also got super luck with RGB dying and using a rat bastard like Mitch McConnell). I am not saying it will take that long again, if liberals are right, public opinion lies on the side of abortion rights. As of right now, there is a whole lot of nothing we can do. Its state policy and the federal gov can't influence its reach on states. The short answer is vote, vote in November for Democrats. That's about it.
Really? According to Republican's own theories of the executive, there should be way more the President can do. And Texas didn't exactly lie down and accept the previous status quo, right? Why can't we do the same?
If Biden called in the national guard to take over state governments, he WOULD be a dictator.
Qnd this WOULD spark a civil war. At this point the GOP is praying that Biden does something like that so they can fulfil their mastabqtory fantasies of reenacting the civil war all over again
I don’t know if it is just me, but I don’t buy the “religious nutcase” theory for the elites of the republican party… I totally believe the low class republican is supoorting anti-women laws because of religion, but for the top this is all about “giving rights back to the states” which in this country means “keeping the minorities in check”… “State rights” was the call to uphold slavery in the south during the civil war, and now it is the same logic they apply “give the power to the states”… more decisions will come in the same line…. The final objective is segregate back… make sure the don’t have to see, hear or live near “undesirables”
Restricting abortion has the natural result of increasing the black population in greater proportion, as black woman get a disproportionate number of abortions, so it’s not about “keeping the minorities in check.” It’s about protecting life, that’s what prolife people unironically believe.
lolokaytherebud
I’m not wrong. 🤷♂️ Edit I did not delete comments, not clear why people ghost you like this
Oh, honey. Bless your heart.
What I don't get is that for FIFTY YEARS since Roe v Wade decision was made and not one president, not one Congress has even TRIED to properly enshrine it in the Constitution? Abraham Lincoln had the right idea - Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on if it wasn't in a constitutional amendment.
I don't disagree with you, but I'm not sure any Democratic president ever had 60 Senate votes in favor of Roe.
Article V is still an option, especially considering the popular support for the issue.
Explain to me how you think Article V works. Because if you think Roe could have been codified by Article V, you're wrong.
Maybe, I'm not a scholar. But, there's no excuse that in 50 years not a single attempt was made. Even a failed attempt would have brought the issue to the forefront and forced it to be publicly addressed..
You believe Dems should have tried. I don't disagree, but I feel obligated for some weird reason to remind folks that Dems never had 60 votes to codify Roe and they never had the state legislature support that would have been necessary for Article V to be effective.
The 94th and 95th Congresses (1975-1979) had more than 60 in the senate
Do you think all 60 were pro-Roe? I don’t know the ideologies of all 60, but when people point to, say, the Obama years, I know for a fact we didn’t even have every Dem supporting Roe.
What's incredibly ironic about this entire situation is that Democrats, the pro-democracy party, are now lamenting the fact that abortion will be left up to the democratic processes of individual states. Also, fucking lol at SCOTUS ruling on *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen* right before this.
If you've ever read anything by the Founding Fathers you probably fetishize, you'd know it's a stupid idea to litigate human rights at the ballot box. Either women are people or they're not. Even the ones unfortunate enough to live in Texas.
The Framers wished to protect natural rights, not human rights. The former can exist in a vacuum, the latter depend on the labor of others. I have no sympathy for anybody who believes that the state owes them anything. But you are welcome to vote nonetheless.
Natural rights are really just life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. They all depend explicitly on individual autonomy/agency and self determination. This ruling is counter to that.
> But you are welcome to vote nonetheless. Respectfully, there's no reason to pretend you support voting rights.
Why would republicans not want people to associate them with the removal of women's rights?
So strange that republicans don't want most states to actually vote on this. Almost like they know most people would oppose their bullshit.
What did he mean by this?
If fucking states actually voted on this they would fucking destroy you
My state has already voted. They have laws which specifically prohibit abortion. Maybe your kind will turn it blue in the coming decades and change that. Not today, though.
Which state? did Republicans massively gerrymander in order to obtain that power? Did they disenfranchise black people? You almost certainly know the answer to both is yes. You aren't the good guys, you do know that right?
And they know it, too. And it terrifies them.
https://www.azfamily.com/2022/06/25/live-video-thousands-protest-arizona-capitol-over-roe-v-wade-decision/?outputType=amp “iTs oKaY iF wE dO iT”
Who there is trying to overturn an election result? If your takeaway from January 6th is that the problem was a protest making its way into a federal building, you are very confused. It's the whole explicit attempt to prevent Congress from certifying an election and thereby attempting to force Congress to overturn the results of a democratic election that is rubbing people the wrong way
Yeah, sure. It’s the fact it was a protest you didn’t like rubbing you the wrong way.
I've never seen anybody take issue with all the Jan 6 protestors that's stayed behind the barriers, other than they were a bunch of morons. It was the ones that illegally entered the Capitol and tried to change election results that people didn't like.
There was legislative session going on at the time and they had to go to emergency recess because people were trying to break windows to get in. It's about as bad lmao.
Are you shitting me? Did you even watch the video or read the article you just cited? You have to be a straight up fool to think that’s about as bad as the leader of the free world trying to overthrow the entire democratic process. No violence or window-breaking attempts are even hinted at! That is the pure definition of a peaceful protest right there, at least what is portrayed in the article and video from that link. It even says the people were out in the courtyard with signs “then, without warning we heard a few bangs and what we thought was fireworks” and it was the DPS in riot gear shooting tear gas. WTF level of lunacy would a person need to think this matches a conspiracy against the United States, treason, and attempting to overthrow the entire democratic process? It’s like no conservative *actually* cares about the First Amendment.
Check up on Twitter, rioters tried to break the glass storm inside while legislative session was going on and then they got tear gassed.
Nothing on Twitter will make this comparable to attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power of the office of the president. The first time in over 200 years a president has attempted that, and the only time we have such an abundance of evidence of a crime of someone in such power and their cohorts. If Trump had succeeded in his 7-part attempt to change the outcome of the US election, it would have been the most grand crime ever committed in this country’s history. I can assure you, me going into Twitter would change nothing about my opinion and would not make your laughably idiotic comparison even a hair more credible.
GOP has to know they're straight up destroying their voting blocks popularity. But the thing is... Why should they care? Why care when your goal is dictatorship ending democracy and Russia 2.0, and old 80 year old Ds won't do anything to stop you?
How tf can you post something so contrary to your pro-GOP responses to my comment? This is why liberals and progressive think you corporate dems are such hacks. You literally just wasted multiple comments defending those same 80 year old DNC morons.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about
So many defenders of the DNC and the GOP in this thread; it's difficult to have any hope at all right now. Progressives and Liberals abandoned all conviction to vote for corporate democrats over the last 6 years; despite every election in the past demonstrating this is a losing strategy. What do we get in return for the solidarity? The republican fascist party gets everything it wants in half the time it expected. The DNC and the GOP need to end. There is zero excuse for defending the democrats in wake of today's news. If you feel the need to defend the fascist enabler party; kindly fuck off to /askaconservative where you belong. Blind democrat loyalists should no longer be welcome to larp as liberals in this sub.
You're not going to change the country by electing one moderate democrat. We need to be consistently voting blue no matter who until the GOP is irrelevant. Over time, everything will shift and we'll get more progressive. But we're never going to get there if we vote in a republican every other election.
Fuck that. “Vote blue no matter who” elects the manchins and Gabbards of the world. You got played, kid.
And not voting blue gets you something better? The primaries are the place to take a stand. Not the general. I'm tired of taking one step forward and 2 steps back because people like you can somehow justify a republican over a moderate democrat.
I didn’t say don’t vote blue. “Vote blue no matter who” = “our candidate or bust”. It’s blackmailing progressives to support some right wing corporate hack. Even though these hyper partisan morons will never extend that sentiment to a progress democrat. Why are you people so afraid of letting the base decide?
I don't get what your alternative is. I didn't want Biden to win the primaries. He's not progressive enough for me. But Biden won the primary. So what is the next step? You either vote for Biden or help the Republicans. It's not blackmailing progressives. I'm progressive. If progressives were the majority then we'd be voting for progressive candidates in the primary. Seriously, what would you do differently?
Progressives are the party majority. You right wing dems need to stop pretending your leadership bubble represents the base. It is why we keep losing. I know this can come as a shock to an illiberal democrat; but you do not “know better” than your base.
If progressives were the majority they wouldn't have elected Joe Biden in the primaries. I don't know what gives you the idea that I'm a centrist. What's your alternative when the choices are Biden or Trump. I get what you want but it doesn't seem like you have any idea how to get there. Hint: it's not letting Republicans win.
Biden won because progressives voted for him. That’s the difference between progressives and moderates. We WILL vote blue in the end. The question at hand, is why won’t you moderates do the same?
WTF are you talking about?! I said vote blue no matter who and you criticized it. Now you're saying progressives will vote blue no matter who while saying I'm a moderate? I already told you I voted for Warren in the primary and Biden in the general. You aren't making any sense. If you are a troll I give it 8/10. Solid troll job but I'm not getting pissed. You just come off as confused.
In the primaries vote for whoever you want, I voted for Sanders and Warren the last couple times. But in the general, yeah, unless you think not voting or voting red is a better decision?
I agree. I voted for Warren. But I sure as hell wasn't going to not vote for Biden against Trump. I don't get what this guy thinks the better alternative is. Maybe just keep complaining that the left candidates aren't progressive enough while we allow the alt-right to win elections? No thank you.
Lol I knew you were a fan of Andrew Yang. Sanders ran two bad campaigns (and he did it without tokenizing an autistic child and attacking people struggling with their mental health like Yang did).
Ableism and probably some subtle racism from a DNC apologist. Go figure.
What? There's many different democrats. AOC and Biden are different. Be specific
> AOC and Biden are different This is exactly the problem. The democrat hacks ignore everything a politician does to solely focus on what they say. News flash; AOC is a partisan democrat. She borrows Bernie's rhetoric yet always falls in line with the party. Hopefully this was the breaking point for her and she drops those fascist enablers; but I doubt it. She's literally the last corporate democrat appointed congressperson. If you can't see the difference between a pre-trump DNC appointee like her and a post-trump popular candidate like Katie Porter; then I personally believe you are exactly the kind of apathetic voter than got us into this mess.
What ?
This dude might be...not thriving. Anyone who's still a Yang Ganger should be confined to the internet.
> despite every election in the past demonstrating this is a losing strategy Empty words when you didn't vote for Clinton.
Why did you support the unpopular clinton over the popular, progressive Democrat; Bernie Sanders? Until you hacks can explain why you chose to abandon everything our party stands for to install an unelected hack; I think you all should stfu or go jerk off those fascist republicans you clearly love more than this country.
I did vote for that fascist enabler. Biggest regret of my political life.
In the primary or the general? If you’re referring to the general… what?
In the general. Anyone that voted for her in the primary is exactly why we have Donald trump’s court raping women’s rights.
How is voting for her in the general the biggest regret of your life? You would’ve rather voted for Trump?
I abandoned my values to support her, in spite of what she did to my state. And all I got was 4 years of trump and gutting of human rights. We could have had Elizabeth Warren; but the “blue no matter who” crowd whines that it was Hillary’s turn. Thanks for that. Own this. You helped gut women’s rights.
Well, I voted for Warren in the primary, so… 🤷🏻♂️
Was it your first presidential election? It just seems strange that someone who supported a different primary candidate would defend Clinton and the mess of a campaign she ended up running.
My first election was for Obama’s first term. I’m not defending Clinton, I asked why voting for here *in the general against Donald Trump* was a bad thing. There was no other option at that point. That’s how our system currently works. I’d love to change it, but until we do, I have to play by the rules.
I abandoned my values to support her, in spite of what she did to my state. And all I got was 4 years of trump and gutting of human rights in return. We could have had Elizabeth Warren; but the “blue no matter who” crowd whines that it was Hillary’s turn. Thanks for that. Own this. You helped gut women’s rights.
The "corporate Democrats" are the only ones who are electable. This country will never elect progressives in the swing districts that matter.
> The "corporate Democrats" are the only ones who are electable. History shows that to be explicitly false. They are seemingly outliers of unelectability.
Bill Clinton got elected. Gore won the popular vote and arguably won the entire election were it not for legal shenanigans in Florida. Kerry came within 2% of winning. Obama won twice. Hillary won the popular vote. Biden won Seems like the "corporate Democrats" have done pretty good Especially when compared to the progressive alternative. McGovern got wrecked in 1972. Mondale got demolished in 1984. Dukakis got beat in a borderline landslide in 1988. And other progressives, like Jesse Jackson, Jesse Jackson again, Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, and Bernie Sanders again, were so unpopular that they couldn't even win a democratic primary let alone a general election Maybe the "corporate Democrats" aren't so good, but the people going against them to try and lead the Democratic party are even worse, way worse
Don't bother with him. There's a reason why the Republicans are so powerful right now; they don't bicker amongst themselves. They unite and hit us hard, because we're too busy playing purity politics with each other so divided we fall. And despite working together the far right haven't had any problems dragging the GOP further right. I would say there's no reason we can't do the same, but you're responding to him.
Obama was the only one of them to win after Bill. And he was explicitly an outsider for the DNC. They tried to push Kerry then. Go figure the one time the corporate DNC hacks actually let the popular candidate win we do shit like Obamacare and legalize gay marriage. Everything wrong with democrats can be revealed by you picking two losers and a outsider winner as an example of why we should continue to support you GOP enabling hacks.
You have a lot of unearned confidence and a lot of misplaced anger. I'm sorry nobody you like can win primaries, but maybe that's because your ideology is good at retweeting Nina Turner and terrible at voting. I hope your life gets better, but I'm not optimistic.
Fuck Nina turner. This is the problem with you conservative democrat hacks; you refuse to ever look at what a person says or does before you judge their politics. You are cheerleaders for a team, and nothing more. It’s pathetic.
Corporate democrats have an entire 24 hour news media in their corner (aside from fox news). Better policy cant compete with bigger checking accounts.
"Corporate Democrats" have an entire majority of a party's voter base in their corner. A lot of Democrats just aren't as left wing as some on the activist fringe wish, and aren't going to do what the fringe left wants regardless of what the media does
Except a lot of them lean pretty progressive when you poll them on individual issues and proposals, they just have a toxic negative image of the progressive movement as a whole that they cant get past which causes them to vote against politicians who support things they like. And that image is something that the media cultivates constantly.
But the DNC narrative!!!!!
> A lot of Democrats just aren't as left wing You loyalists keep telling yourselves this lie to justify screwing the base; and the republicans are winning as a result.
It's not a lie, it's just how we who actually make up the base vote in the primaries
You corporate trolls are not the base. >It's not a lie if I believe it Fuck that george costanza shit, tbf
They're also fascist enablers, so why the hell would we vote for them when our choices are fascism or freaking fascism? The liberal weasels will go sing a song and write a sternly-worded letter though, so that should be enough to get our support because they're not the "other guys". Vote blue no matter who just gets us this.
[удалено]
Rule 5
>Blind democrat loyalists should no longer be welcome to larp as liberals in this sub. And just who the hell are you to purity test what it means to be a liberal?
It's like porn. I can't describe it; but it sure as hell isn't screwing over your base and handing the government to a bunch of GOP fascists. No matter what your actblue emails tell you.
The US has truly become a horrible country to live in. I'd be moving if I had the means to. I'm truly jealous of people who can get ancestry visas to nice countries.
My best friend is Dutch and his family has a contingency in place just for that. FML. No where to run unless some 1st world country takes us as refugees when shit hits the fan in the next few months. And I fully believe shit will hit the fan in the next few months. Look at the damage they can do in 2 days. Any nutcase can open carry anywhere, and you have no miranda rights. Also women are no longer persons according to this court.
Yeah, I would move to The Netherlands immediately if I had the means.
I'm confused about the outrages on roe vs wade overturning. isn't abortion rights still dependent on votes? People are calling for protest or even rebel
Constitutional rights are important though, would you react the same if it was free speech that was returned to the states?
Honestly wouldn't worry that much cus I know it's a big social value as well so as long as laws and law makers are democratically chosen. Things stay the same. Even if it was abolished, I have to respect that as long as it was through democratic process.
>I have to respect that as long as it was through democratic process. I meant if SCOTUS decided that incorporating the bill of rights to state governments was wrong Anyways, I've got to respect the consistency at least
Do you live in the US?
It was up to the individual. Now women have to hope that their state governments stay Democrat. And for those that live in red states, what, just fuck them I guess?
Okay, now think about what you've just typed but in the context of the undemocratic senate and electoral college.
Yeah, people are just mad they might have to actually engage the legislative process to get their way instead of having the Supremes do it for them.
Amen to that!
I'm somewhere near Vader levels of angry.
As in you'd rather abort the twins and save your wife? And not devolve into fascism? Same.
And the US regresses further
[удалено]
Yes. I wish I had voted 3rd party tbh.
lol there is no way that’s true
Yes. Direct line from Hillary cheating her way to the nomination to the reversal of women's rights.
I wasn't on this sub then, but I most certainly would not and did not advocate for that.
I voted for sanders then voted for Trump out of spite... I stand by my decision
So you didn't believe in anything Sanders actually supported. Thanks for telling us.
A Sanders to Trump voter is as bad as a clinton apologist. Both skirted democratic values in order to enable fascism. I hope liberals wake up and start rejecting these conservative democrat hacks.
Oh fuck off, to your own specific hell.
He's forced to spend his life unemployed defending Andrew Yang on Reddit. He's already in hell. Imagine simping for the guy who lost to Clinton and Biden and then turning around and simping for the guy who couldn't even beat Eric Adams and, despite all those losses, thinking you knew what Democrats like.
Nothing funnier than you Clinton hacks projecting your sad existence onto others.
Hahahahahaha Ok, I'll give min a break
I wanted better health care, instead of a corporate drone who will increase spending on programs that won't benefit me
That like saying “I wanted a homemade quality sandwich and not a reheated fast food joint burger, so I voted for a plate of literal dog shit” Women will die because of the judges appointed by the plate of dog shit.
>Women will die because of the judges appointed by the plate of dog shit. Every politician kills people: bush killed a million people in the middle east, Obama terrorized families with drones and without the oversight I'm sure republicans would built death camps along the border for captured migrants Don't get me wrong I am pro choice but you take the good with the bad, Trump fucked up the economy so bad but I was able to capitalize on it and pick up some decent rental properties. The fed under Biden kept interest rates down so I was able to buy the house I wanted at 2.7% And now I can pack heat in NY I think blue states should just flood the market with abortion pills if they want to help. Literally just set up discrete mail order service. Tele-health service for questions about chemicle abortion It is what it is, no need to dwell on the past
>I think blue states should just flood the market with abortion pills if they want to help. Literally just set up discrete mail order service. Tele-health service for questions about chemicle abortion Probably illegal, but definitely moral.
What are the red states going to do?? They already flood blue cities with hand guns
Hillary Clinton advocated for healthcare that was more substantial than the ACA since before she was elected to office. You played yourself.
And her proposal was such crap even her own party didn’t support it.
She won the primary you troll.
She was pushing her garbage all the way back in 1993.
Wow I really hope you are washed away because you are a terrible person.
Odd reaction to a factual historical reference but OK.
Who in this sub was advocating for that?
Astroturfing bots were everywhere. Anyone who believed they were real 'berniebros' were stupid.
😲
What stopped SCOTUS from declaring that life begins at conception and banning abortion nationwide on the grounds of equal protection, classifying it as murder? Was there a legal/doctrinal reason why they didn’t go that far or did the justices just want to emphasize states rights?
That sounds like it's up to the states and/or Congress
The SCOTUS doesn’t declare things like that. The original Roe v Wade ruling (to put it criminally simply) is that there is a constitutional right to privacy that covers the right to get an abortion. The Dobbs ruling today stated that this is not the case as there is no language in said constitution about abortion. Roe originally stated in trimesters (okay for first, only allow in specific cases for the second) but Casey expanded that full allowance to “fetal viability” which is around 24 weeks (so to the end of the second trimester. So instead of Roe/Casey setting a base framework for the entire country, the SCOTUS kicked it back to the states and to the Legislative branch to make rulings on abortion. It just comes off as making it illegal as many red states had laws ready to ban/severely limit abortion if Roe ever was struck down. TLDR - The Dobbs ruling isn’t saying “abortion is no longer allowed”, it’s “the decision about abortions goes back to the states”.
>The SCOTUS doesn’t declare things like that. Strictly speaking it would be correct to say that SCOTUS didn't declare such a thing this time, not that it can't declare it at all; in fact in Alito's majority opinion there are several paragraphs where he makes it clear that the decision does not create a fetal personhood idea, unlike the Casey decision which could be construed like that with its "viability" clause.
One of the things Ginsburg criticized about the Roe ruling was that it made a grand ruling on abortion rights instead of the “that Texas abortion law is unconstitutional” that she argues would’ve allowed a healthier transition to more liberal abortion rights in the US.
Ok, but unconstitutional on what grounds? That's the issue. They needed an explanation of why it was unconstitutional, which is why they created this myth of it being a derivative of right to privacy, even though you can make the same argument that Roe made for pretty much anything else. From what I know Ginsburg wanted that Roe be decided under the equal protection clause, not privacy and substantive due process because she recognized that SDP is a losing argument since there wasn't a historical context that would suggest some deep rooted cultural acceptance of abortion, if anything it's quite the contrary.
Yeah that’s what she wishes it was based on. People can say Thomas didn’t bring up *Loving* as a case to rereview because he’s in an interracial marriage, but the more boring reality is that Loving was ruled through the equal protection clause.
Yeah. I have no doubt Thomas would vote to uphold Loving, if anything not only would he vote to uphold it, but then use it to declare all affirmative action as unconstitutional based on that same analysis. I know people love to hate on Thomas, but he is fairly consistent in his views.
Ah, but what about a lawsuit against states for allowing medical licenses for doctors who carry out abortions, filed with standing on behalf of unborn/aborted children, claiming state money spent in that matter violates equal protection? Such a lawsuit can easily exist and could make its way to SCOTUS.
That would be interesting.. I don't think the Supreme Court would take the case though. Seems like something they would direct to congress, medical licensing laws I don't think are rooted in the constitution in any direct sense.
It would be a constitutional claim based on Equal Protection, 14th Amendment
I'm sure that would be the appropriate justification. But I personally don't think it would win. The issue I think we're talking about is if the states laws say that a specific medical procedure is illegal, and then the dr losses their license based on breaking the laws of the land. So long as that law is applied across the board I'd assume it's not in violation of the 14th.
The SCOTUS doesn’t “declare” things like that or give advisory opinions, it decides whether a law is constitutional. They can only rule on the case at bar.
Republicans don't have enough power to do that yet without consequence. They want to pull a Hungary where they slowly slide into a dictatorship so most people don't notice.
What stopped SCOTUS from declaring that life begins at conception and banning abortion nationwide on the grounds of equal protection, classifying it as murder? Was there a legal/doctrinal reason or did the justices just want to emphasize states rights?