American Politics

[xi0]

Why not have actual abortion legislation?

Wow, what an interesting question... I wonder what Democrats have to say about that one...

--- Double Post Merged, May 3, 2022, Original Post Date: May 3, 2022 ---

Also worth noting, a leak of a SCOTUS opinion is fairly remarkable as well... I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing before.

Yeah, it's humorous to see the regular neo-fascist mouthpieces clutching their pearls over "institutional integrity" when these same folks had no issue whipping conspiracy theorists into a frenzy over the last election and then making excuses for everything that happened afterwards.

--- Double Post Merged, May 3, 2022 ---

If it happens, more americans travel to mexico to get abortions.

It being overturned will mean it'll be illegal in most red states, not everywhere. And there will absolutely still be doctors doing it in secret, "illegally", and paying the criminal price for it as a result. Because that is what these fucking reactionary freaks want, to paint the norms and reproductive rights of the last 50+ years as moral degeneracy. It's in the playbook, it's nothing new.

 

[xi0]

Nvm that though, I forgot it's our fault... we just didn't fucking vote hard enough for Mommy Hillary... well, next time maybe

 

[kkck]

Wow, what an interesting question... I wonder what Democrats have to say about that one...

--- Double Post Merged, May 3, 2022, Original Post Date: May 3, 2022 ---

Yeah, it's humorous to see the regular neo-fascist mouthpieces clutching their pearls over "institutional integrity" when these same folks had no issue whipping conspiracy theorists into a frenzy over the last election and then making excuses for everything that happened afterwards.

--- Double Post Merged, May 3, 2022 ---

It being overturned will mean it'll be illegal in most red states, not everywhere. And there will absolutely still be doctors doing it in secret, "illegally", and paying the criminal price for it as a result. Because that is what these fucking reactionary freaks want, to paint the norms and reproductive rights of the last 50+ years as moral degeneracy. It's in the playbook, it's nothing new.

Lol. But yeah, I don't remember any attempt on the democrat end to create laws that make any amount of sense. I figured that maybe in my ignorance I just didn't understand roe v wade but I still keep reading about this and abortions and it still reads like nonsense. In any case, if I am getting this right then even if roe v wade wasn't overturned you'd still need no less than a constitutional amendment to make abortions into an actual right to which you could attach laws...

It is... Though in between laughs it feels like the union is collapsing.

 

[xi0]

Lol. But yeah, I don't remember any attempt on the democrat end to create laws that make any amount of sense. I figured that maybe in my ignorance I just didn't understand roe v wade but I still keep reading about this and abortions and it still reads like nonsense. In any case, if I am getting this right then even if roe v wade wasn't overturned you'd still need no less than a constitutional amendment to make abortions into an actual right to which you could attach laws...

It is... Though in between laughs it feels like the union is collapsing.

It's fine, there's no reason to expect much from political parties. But Democrats are just particularly exceptional at malfeasance and then victim-blaming when they lose and it gets pointed out. This decision having the far-sweeping ramifications it could have isn't because of decades of inaction and passing the buck, it's because people didn't vote hard enough for an unpopular, bloodthirsty ghoul like Hillary Clinton. You already see neolibs doing this all over twitter.

An amendment like that would only be necessary if it was defeated in court but still preferred by the legislation and executive.

 

[kkck]

It's fine, there's no reason to expect much from political parties. But Democrats are just particularly exceptional at malfeasance and then victim-blaming when they lose and it gets pointed out. This decision having the far-sweeping ramifications it could have isn't because of decades of inaction and passing the buck, it's because people didn't vote hard enough for an unpopular, bloodthirsty ghoul like Hillary Clinton. You already see neolibs doing this all over twitter.

An amendment like that would only be necessary if it was defeated in court but still preferred by the legislation and executive.

I suppose democrats will vote for trump to save abortions now? But yeah, it's becoming more and more clear how inept and toothless democrats are. Though I disagree about the amendment bit. The SCOTUS cannot create or erase rights, that's beyond the scope of their function. Rights are created exclusively by amendments to the constitution. Roe v wade, to the limited capacity I understand this, sort of made the case that because of privacy by extension people had a right to have abortions. Even though the actual constitution doesn't actually mention abortion anywhere. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that but it's pretty clear that going forward, and regardless of whether the SCOTUS ultimately repeals roe v wade, if the democratic party actually cares about this it should add to its platform a constitutional amendment to add and specify abortions.

 

[xi0]

Even though the actual constitution doesn't actually mention abortion anywhere.

There are plenty of laws whose contents/subjects aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, Alito mentioning that is as traditionalist-brained as you can possibly get. Why does that line of thinking not apply to any other civil rights issue? That sort of argument was mentioned nowhere by him in the Citizens United case.... curious!

I didn't say they created or erase rights, my point is that a federal law could be passed that is obviously legally binding and the courts would need to hear a case or offer a legal judgment in regards to it to affect it's legal standing (which is obviously a real possibility if they're overturning a ruling from 50 years ago). Then a constitutional amendment via super-majority would be the only recourse IIRC.

 

[M3J]

man, fuck the politicians for taking rights after rights away

 

[kkck]

There are plenty of laws whose contents/subjects aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, Alito mentioning that is as traditionalist-brained as you can possibly get. Why does that line of thinking not apply to any other civil rights issue? That sort of argument was mentioned nowhere by him in the Citizens United case.... curious!

I didn't say they created or erase rights, my point is that a federal law could be passed that is obviously legally binding and the courts would need to hear a case or offer a legal judgment in regards to it to affect it's legal standing (which is obviously a real possibility if they're overturning a ruling from 50 years ago). Then a constitutional amendment via super-majority would be the only recourse IIRC.

I don't think you need to go all traditionalist to make the case that it's reasonable for the constitution to say stuff. I don't doubt the hypocrisy... Heck, literally every conservative justice was asked about where they stood on roe v wade and they still took it down the first chance they got. But at least going forward I think it makes sense to aim for rights to be specifically written in there.

But... that's basically what happened with roe v wade right? 50 years back the case determined that due to privacy (somehow) it was constitutional for people to have abortions. Now the current court, if I am reading the opinion right and they go through with it, is going to make the case that RvW was to begin with a bunch of incoherent, overreaching babbling nonsense and a mistake of historic proportions. Let alone the opinion that pretty much amounts to roe v wade violating state rights.

 

[xi0]

I don't think you need to go all traditionalist to make the case that it's reasonable for the constitution to say stuff. I don't doubt the hypocrisy... Heck, literally every conservative justice was asked about where they stood on roe v wade and they still took it down the first chance they got. But at least going forward I think it makes sense to aim for rights to be specifically written in there.

But... that's basically what happened with roe v wade right? 50 years back the case determined that due to privacy (somehow) it was constitutional for people to have abortions. Now the current court, if I am reading the opinion right and they go through with it, is going to make the case that RvW was to begin with a bunch of incoherent, overreaching babbling nonsense and a mistake of historic proportions. Let alone the opinion that pretty much amounts to roe v wade violating state rights.

Traditionalist is in reference to how Justices interpret how the constitution applies to modern legal issues that lack in specificity. So the argument that abortion isn't mentioned in it could apply to essentially anything that isn't explicitly stated. Yet these same people do not use this train of thought for other things, especially something like Citizens United. They only treat the Constitution as a "living document" at their (and capital's) convenience.

That would be nice, but the ability to amend the constitution isn't designed for that intention, at least not for it to happen in any reasonable or rational period of time.

It was determined via the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, the decision is about medical privacy. That the government can have no say in someone's choice to have an abortion, as long as it followed certain rules and procedures. This same clause has been used to strike down laws against same sex intercourse.

 

[shionoro]

To be fair, russia losing this conflict outright won't necessarily prevent it from happening again. Or at least I don't see how this would be a guarantee of such a thing. Will putin stay in power in this scenario? Does he get replaced by someone worst? Will russia continue to regard ukraine as part of the russian world? How will defeat affect russia's "security concerns"? In the extraordinary scenario of an ukranian victory I don't think any of these questions has a clear answer.

When I say losing, I mean that Russia has to admit defeat and pull out of Ukraine completely. I think in that case, Putin would have to go, too, but not because the west forces him but because he loses grip on russia.
While Putin then might get replaced with someone worse, the Embargo will prevent Russia from regaining its military strength. They cannot recover easily from losing all these soldiers and equipment.

The nukes would keep being a problem, but the capabilities of the russian military would be severely limited. Furthermore, after this clusterfuck, there is a push in eastern europe for nato and EU. If that is successful, Russia does not have any real targets to attack anymore.

Even for the most ideologically brainwashed societies, there is a time for reality to sink in. When there is no russian Donbass, no russian Odessa but many dead russian soldiers in a month, in two month, and the russian wealth spirals further down, i do not think support for this war will go on for very long.

It is one thing to be pro war when it is a special operation that only your russian supersoldiers do, kill some nazis in kyiv and come back home. It is another thing when more and more young russian men from middle class families get drafted without any apparent success.

In my opinion, every even small russian success prolongs the war while a series of defeats shorten it. It is true that russian civilians are a problem, because they are afraid of russia losing and what will happen then. I agree that the west needs to do more to directly speak to russian people and make it clear that sanctions will fall and aid will come should russia withdraw.
But that can only happen after there is no russian soldier left in Ukraine, and to me, ukraine winning means russia withdrawing out of all of ukraine.

 

[kkck]

When I say losing, I mean that Russia has to admit defeat and pull out of Ukraine completely. I think in that case, Putin would have to go, too, but not because the west forces him but because he loses grip on russia.
While Putin then might get replaced with someone worse, the Embargo will prevent Russia from regaining its military strength. They cannot recover easily from losing all these soldiers and equipment.

The nukes would keep being a problem, but the capabilities of the russian military would be severely limited. Furthermore, after this clusterfuck, there is a push in eastern europe for nato and EU. If that is successful, Russia does not have any real targets to attack anymore.

Even for the most ideologically brainwashed societies, there is a time for reality to sink in. When there is no russian Donbass, no russian Odessa but many dead russian soldiers in a month, in two month, and the russian wealth spirals further down, i do not think support for this war will go on for very long.

It is one thing to be pro war when it is a special operation that only your russian supersoldiers do, kill some nazis in kyiv and come back home. It is another thing when more and more young russian men from middle class families get drafted without any apparent success.

In my opinion, every even small russian success prolongs the war while a series of defeats shorten it. It is true that russian civilians are a problem, because they are afraid of russia losing and what will happen then. I agree that the west needs to do more to directly speak to russian people and make it clear that sanctions will fall and aid will come should russia withdraw.
But that can only happen after there is no russian soldier left in Ukraine, and to me, ukraine winning means russia withdrawing out of all of ukraine.

That scenario definitely seems like a gigantic stretch. Russia has already adjusted it's objectives, at least apparently. Barring things getting substantially more catastrophic for russia somehow it sounds pretty unlikely they won't be able to get something out of this and pretend its what they wanted all along.

Putin seems hellbent on continuing the war. If reports are accurate (which they have been so far) putin is preparing to declare war on may 9th.

 

[shionoro]

That scenario definitely seems like a gigantic stretch. Russia has already adjusted it's objectives, at least apparently. Barring things getting substantially more catastrophic for russia somehow it sounds pretty unlikely they won't be able to get something out of this and pretend its what they wanted all along.

Putin seems hellbent on continuing the war. If reports are accurate (which they have been so far) putin is preparing to declare war on may 9th.

That is quite possible, but it is also not unlikely putin will not be able to reclaim donbass. Because, what does war mean rn? It means a bunch of inexperienced boys swarming ukraine, many of them unwilling to fight, while the current attacking force is already worn out.
The west is giving more aid by the day. If Russia cannot make gains quickly, i dont think they can make gains at all.

Ukraine is holding its own without the western high tech having arrived yet.We will see what happens once they have actual artillery.

If Putin is not able to at least get Donbass, no amount of propaganda is going to be enough when it is clear just how many russian boys died. Especially not while there is a severe economic downfall. And right now, it does not look like the Russians are making gains, even before Ukraine gets substantial aid.

 

[kkck]

Traditionalist is in reference to how Justices interpret how the constitution applies to modern legal issues that lack in specificity. So the argument that abortion isn't mentioned in it could apply to essentially anything that isn't explicitly stated. Yet these same people do not use this train of thought for other things, especially something like Citizens United. They only treat the Constitution as a "living document" at their (and capital's) convenience.

That would be nice, but the ability to amend the constitution isn't designed for that intention, at least not for it to happen in any reasonable or rational period of time.

It was determined via the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, the decision is about medical privacy. That the government can have no say in someone's choice to have an abortion, as long as it followed certain rules and procedures. This same clause has been used to strike down laws against same sex intercourse.

As I said, I don't doubt the hypocrisy behind this. It's super evident and for everyone to see. I know what traditionalism refers to within a constitutional context. And I find the view indefensible and stupid... I don't think lawyers are necessarily even qualified to understand what people from hundreds of years ago intended when writing stuff. That's the work of historians, not lawyers...

Isn't it more of an issue of where the public at large stands on the issue? The process itself might be long and difficult but it'd be doable if support was adequate. Of course, most people in the US support abortion to some capacity but within that you have fairly varied views. And the ones that get pushed the most are probably from the extremes... On the right zero abortions under any circumstances (which IMO falls into the cruel and usual category) and on the left wanting abortions to be seen as something as ordinary as removing an appendix or something (a view which I personally find jarring). Meanwhile to most people abortions probably fall somewhere in the spectrum of a necessary evil.

And... that's kinda the problem? The court just kinda lumped them in there even though before that that was never much of a thing. Let alone that abortions back then would have far less support than now at least. Even if there are some rights that are implied, I would argue that getting shit in writing is probably a good move to begin with. In any case, if roe v wade gets shut down then going forward the only path will likely be an actual amendment.

 

[xi0]

Isn't it more of an issue of where the public at large stands on the issue? The process itself might be long and difficult but it'd be doable if support was adequate. Of course, most people in the US support abortion to some capacity but within that you have fairly varied views. And the ones that get pushed the most are probably from the extremes... On the right zero abortions under any circumstances (which IMO falls into the cruel and usual category) and on the left wanting abortions to be seen as something as ordinary as removing an appendix or something (a view which I personally find jarring). Meanwhile to most people abortions probably fall somewhere in the spectrum of a necessary evil.

The public at large wanting (or not wanting) something is kind of the crux of the issue here. That's not necessarily relevant as far as how righteous or just a cause is. But I don't really know what the alternative would be to this kind of incrementalism, but I do know that the system reinforces it.

The varied views are accounted for already given how abortion is handled differing depending on the state, which is something allowed by Roe v Wade being a legal precedent and not federal law.

And... that's kinda the problem? The court just kinda lumped them in there even though before that that was never much of a thing. Let alone that abortions back then would have far less support than now at least. Even if there are some rights that are implied, I would argue that getting shit in writing is probably a good move to begin with. In any case, if roe v wade gets shut down then going forward the only path will likely be an actual amendment.

It was constitutional interpretation, something which is a necessary thing when not talking about broader freedoms like those regarding speech and property. But it's 50 years since Roe v Wade and 30 years since Planned Parenthood v Casey. This is ONLY being addressed now because of the makeup of the court thanks to Trump. And yet the GOP is very quick to complain about judicial activism.

To make it legal everywhere? Perhaps, but I don't think it needs to get to that point if Biden or any Democrat stops being pussies and packs the court.

 

[shionoro]

Basically, we are at a point right now where the Russian offensive is fizzling out and Ukraine goes on the offensive themselves.

To make it legal everywhere? Perhaps, but I don't think it needs to get to that point if Biden or any Democrat stops being pussies and packs the court.

But how would they go forward with that exactly? Do you mean using it as election promise that they want to pack the court of they get more seats in midterms or s th?

 

[xi0]

But how would they go forward with that exactly? Do you mean using it as election promise that they want to pack the court of they get more seats in midterms or s th?

I don't really care for election promises as those don't often materialize. The simple fact is Trump has done irreparable damage to the balance of the court, so the Democrats needed to address this by adding more seats. Let the Republicans bitch and moan, they would have been for the same exact thing if Clinton had been elected and only nominated liberal picks.

 

[kkck]

The public at large wanting (or not wanting) something is kind of the crux of the issue here. That's not necessarily relevant as far as how righteous or just a cause is. But I don't really know what the alternative would be to this kind of incrementalism, but I do know that the system reinforces it.

The varied views are accounted for already given how abortion is handled differing depending on the state, which is something allowed by Roe v Wade being a legal precedent and not federal law.



It was constitutional interpretation, something which is a necessary thing when not talking about broader freedoms like those regarding speech and property. But it's 50 years since Roe v Wade and 30 years since Planned Parenthood v Casey. This is ONLY being addressed now because of the makeup of the court thanks to Trump. And yet the GOP is very quick to complain about judicial activism.

To make it legal everywhere? Perhaps, but I don't think it needs to get to that point if Biden or any Democrat stops being pussies and packs the court.

Here's a thought: What's the next step for republicans now that roe v wade is potentially repealed? Making abortions unconstitutional (and screw state rights of course). No idea of how they'd go about it but it seems like the natural next step. And they have the right court for it. An amendment to the constitution for this is pretty improbable but setting a precedent...

 

[xi0]

Here's a thought: What's the next step for republicans now that roe v wade is potentially repealed? Making abortions unconstitutional (and screw state rights of course). No idea of how they'd go about it but it seems like the natural next step. And they have the right court for it. An amendment to the constitution for this is pretty improbable but setting a precedent...

Well, just listen to Neofascists like Matt Walsh if you're that curious. They want to criminalize abortion and put people in jail for it.

 

[M3J]

I think they even plan on criminalizing miscarriages and whatnot, things that end fetuses but not through the fault of the moms. It's pretty cruel and shitty, the hypocrites were even thinking about having these moms be thrown in jail or put to death. The Dems are seriously doing major damage to their chances by not doing more to protect women's rights, like not codifying Roe v Wade despite having the power to do so in the 40 years or so that it's existed.

 

[kkck]

Well, just listen to Neofascists like Matt Walsh if you're that curious. They want to criminalize abortion and put people in jail for it.

That's not exactly new though. Nor even slightly controversial in conservative circles. Now, without roe v wade and a non packed court that would be all too willing for it.. they just need the right case to mount the right precedent.