news Supreme Court to Strike Down Roe v. Wade

[Horizon Flame]

1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said:

By pro-choice Democrats. They have control of the Senate, but what good is that control, really? They're showing themselves incapable of doing anything with it.

You need 60 votes. What is your point? Give up? Why are you blaming them when it isn’t their fault. They can’t do anything because they don’t have enough seats and Republicans wouldn’t vote for it. This includes Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski because state rights. The House passed it with no problem. 

[ClashAndBurn]

12 minutes ago, Horizon Flame said:

You need 60 votes. What is your point? Give up? Why are you blaming them when it isn’t their fault. They can’t do anything because they don’t have enough seats and Republicans wouldn’t vote for it. This includes Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski because state rights. The House passed it with no problem. 

They wouldn't need 60 votes if they weren't unwilling to do away with the filibuster. But Joe Manchin and Sinema certainly aren't the only ones who don't want that to happen either. At least eight other Democrats, probably more, are hiding behind them. Even Joe Biden himself wants to keep the filibuster because he's a man of the Senate who believes in norms and guard-rails even though... said norms and guard-rails are only good for Republicans making sure that paralysis keeps Dems from doing anything popular.

 

That 60 vote threshold is absolutely going away the moment Republicans get a trifecta, and they will institute a federal ban once that happens. It's also just as likely they won't even need to, considering they're favored to get a filibuster-proof majority along with the Presidency in 2024.

[chessguy99]

13 minutes ago, Horizon Flame said:

You need 60 votes. What is your point? Give up? Why are you blaming them when it isn’t their fault. They can’t do anything because they don’t have enough seats and Republicans wouldn’t vote for it. This includes Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski because state rights. The House passed it with no problem. 

They had the Presidency, the House and a super majority in the Senate in the first two years of Obama's first term. But, they didn't push it. Obama wanted to, but the Democratic leadership just thought Roe was safe, and they could the "we must elect Democrats to protect Roe" argument to drive turnout in national elections.

[chessguy99]

6 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

They wouldn't need 60 votes if they weren't unwilling to do away with the filibuster. But Joe Manchin and Sinema certainly aren't the only ones who don't want that to happen either. At least eight other Democrats, probably more, are hiding behind them. Even Joe Biden himself wants to keep the filibuster because he's a man of the Senate who believes in norms and guard-rails even though... said norms and guard-rails are only good for Republicans making sure that paralysis keeps Dems from doing anything popular.

 

That 60 vote threshold is absolutely going away the moment Republicans get a trifecta, and they will institute a federal ban once that happens. It's also just as likely they won't even need to, considering they're favored to get a filibuster-proof majority along with the Presidency in 2024.

You can't do away with the filibuster, because it then becomes a driving force in Republican turnout in national elections. They will repeal it every time they retake power. The only way to ensure it stays is by constitutional amendment, which will not happen any time soon.

[ClashAndBurn]

13 minutes ago, chessguy99 said:

You can't do away with the filibuster, because it then becomes a driving force in Republican turnout in national elections. They will repeal it every time they retake power. The only way to ensure it stays is by constitutional amendment, which will not happen any time soon.

Meaning never. There are enough solid Republican states that there will never be enough Democratic Senators to draft an amendment.

 

They won't do away with the filibuster for this either, I know. They also mathematically don't have a path to 60 votes ever again. So to that end, really the only path is for Liberals to hold the court in 30-40 years, and maybe the decision will reverse itself. At which point, thousands of women will have died from complications in child birth. All due to Hillary Clinton surrendering the Supreme Court by running for president and being an unlikable loser. All due to RBG being a selfish ***** and keeping her seat warm until she got replaced by a pro-life activist.

[discotitzz]

14 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

All due to Hillary Clinton surrendering the Supreme Court by running for president and being an unlikable loser. All due to RBG being a selfish ***** and keeping her seat warm until she got replaced by a pro-life activist.

[Robert]

As a non-American, can someone explain how this can happen when dems have both the presidency and Senate. Is the Supreme Court really that powerful? The fact US is going so backwards they’re removing human rights laws from the 1970s feels insane and worrying for the world.

[Chemist]

 

This is such a grim chart.  It shows that:

• There is a huge racial inequality in the US which it's proof of systemic racism
• Maternal healthcare in the US is quite inferior compared to other developed countries

[Bears01]

5 hours ago, Robert said:

As a non-American, can someone explain how this can happen when dems have both the presidency and Senate. Is the Supreme Court really that powerful? The fact US is going so backwards they’re removing human rights laws from the 1970s feels insane and worrying for the world.

For Democrats to codify this into law, they need 60 votes in the senate. They have 50 seats, and 2 anti abortion Dems in the senate. There’s a thing called “a filibuster” which requires 60 votes for laws to pass in the senate. The House is different, you need 218 votes in the House. To abolish the filibuster, a majority in the senate have to vote for abolishing it, but there’s (at least) 2 dem senators who said they will never vote to abolish the filibuster. 
 

But yes, unfortunately the Supreme Court is that powerful. The Supreme Court is the one that decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Republicans are strongly anti abortion, and Trump was able to get 3 Supreme Court justices on the bench, giving them a 6-3 majority. 
 

Now, certain states (like California, Illinois, New York, Nevada, Oregon etc) codified Roe vs Wade into law, so their state won’t be affected if and when this ruling becomes official. But other states (like Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, etc) have trigger laws, where once this ruling is made, the right to an abortion becomes illegal 

[Horizon Flame]

14 hours ago, chessguy99 said:

They had the Presidency, the House and a super majority in the Senate in the first two years of Obama's first term. But, they didn't push it. Obama wanted to, but the Democratic leadership just thought Roe was safe, and they could the "we must elect Democrats to protect Roe" argument to drive turnout in national elections.

Wrong and the president isn’t king. We must protect Roe had to do with the Supreme Court and everyone who said this was right. The Senate is where legislation goes to die. It was always going to be hard to get anything passed there. Protecting the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments is what was needed. 
 

This all comes down to the Supreme Court thanks to Trump. And no, adding seats isn’t a good idea. Republicans would do the same thing and we’d end up with 900 justices. It would never end. 
 

Democrats can only get elected in many red states by being conservative Democrats. You have a better chance of getting some liberal legislation passed with them elected and in Congress than without. Without them, Republicans would end up with the majority and nothing would ever get done. This is simply reality. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Horizon Flame

[ClashAndBurn]

2 hours ago, Horizon Flame said:

Wrong and the president isn’t king. We must protect Roe had to do with the Supreme Court and everyone who said this was right. The Senate is where legislation goes to die. It was always going to be hard to get anything passed there. Protecting the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments is what was needed. 
 

This all comes down to the Supreme Court thanks to Trump. And no, adding seats isn’t a good idea. Republicans would do the same thing and we’d end up with 900 justices. It would never end. 
 

Democrats can only get elected in many red states by being conservative Democrats. You have a better chance of getting some liberal legislation passed with them elected and in Congress than without. Without them, Republicans would end up with the majority and nothing would ever get done. This is simply reality. 

Liberal legislation won’t be passed by conservative Democrats when they are the deciding votes. There is always a rotating villain. If not Joe Lieberman, then it’s Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema providing cover for conservative Dems from blue states like Fianne Feinstein. They only consent to voting to pass such things if the bill is going to pass anyway. We’ve discovered this time and again, when they took out the public option from the ACA and riddled it with poison pills like the Individual Mandate so that Republicans could always rail against it to come back into power and get rid of it later.

 

As things stand now, abortion rights are permanently dead in this country. Democrats don’t have the stomach or the will to do the only viable thing there is to do, and they don’t have enough Pro-Choice votes among themselves to do it anyway. Meanwhile the party leadership is busy endorsing and stumping for ultra-conservative, pro-life candidates like Henry Cuellar and Conor Lamb while virtue-signaling about how supportive of women they are.  

[Communion]

5 hours ago, Horizon Flame said:

Wrong and the president isn’t king. We must protect Roe had to do with the Supreme Court and everyone who said this was right. The Senate is where legislation goes to die. It was always going to be hard to get anything passed there. Protecting the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments is what was needed. 
 

This all comes down to the Supreme Court thanks to Trump. And no, adding seats isn’t a good idea. Republicans would do the same thing and we’d end up with 900 justices. It would never end. 
 

Democrats can only get elected in many red states by being conservative Democrats. You have a better chance of getting some liberal legislation passed with them elected and in Congress than without. Without them, Republicans would end up with the majority and nothing would ever get done. This is simply reality. 

Imagine still clinging to this neoliberal worldview despite the last 30 years of history proving your ideology ineffective. The only thing your worldview is good at is making the rich richer and blowing up brown people. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Communion

[Letemtalk]

So it turns out that the Supreme Court took the "domestic supply of infants" into account when making their decision.

 

source source2 source3

 

 

No wonder the US legal system is considered to be one of the worst in the developed world. If the Supreme court is meant to be the best of the best, imagine what trash the lower courts must be.

 

Good luck to all the America women in the Taliban states.

 

Before some people says that women can just go outside their state before an abortion, in most cases only rich (often white) women will have that option. For many poor people, getting time off work, flying long distances, paying for accommodation and all other expenses won't be an option.

 

Edit: Some states might pass laws that will allow the father (and other family members) to sue the mother that gets an abortion, in some cases this will mean rapists will be suing their victims.

 

There are already similar laws in the process of being passed:

Quote

The proposed Idaho law allows the potential father, grandparents, siblings, aunts and uncles of a preborn child to sue an abortion provider for a minimum of $20,000 in damages within four years of the abortion.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/idaho-abortion-bill-family-members-sue-texas/

[Witch Privilege]

On 5/5/2022 at 6:50 PM, Communion said:

How can something have rights if it itself cannot survive on its own once removed from its host? 

Viability isn't even a concept derived re: sentience from those who support women's autonomy.

 

The vast majority of births before the 24-week mark (aka the end of the 2nd trimester as seen in your video) end in death due to unviable health issues because the fetus often simply has not developed to the point of being biologically self-sustaining, let alone sentient and actually a person.

 

If something cannot biologically survive on its own without being tethered physically to another physical being, the autonomy is then that of the pregnant person's, not that of the fetus who cannot survive and develop on its own. 

I love this explanation. It makes me think of a pimple. It's a living thing attached to a host, but I'm aborting it every time.

[CaptainMusic]

On 5/6/2022 at 2:34 AM, hardbrit said:

Women's rights.... What about the babies rights? Life is important.

 @ a bunch of cells that haven’t developed into anything meaningful yet having rights.

 

Pro-life people are so ******* stupid. 

[JustHoran]

[Horizon Flame]

 

[Miss Show Business]

On 5/5/2022 at 11:44 PM, ClashAndBurn said:

All due to Hillary Clinton surrendering the Supreme Court by running for president and being an unlikable loser. All due to RBG being a selfish ***** and keeping her seat warm until she got replaced by a pro-life activist.

Pure selfishness.  Imagine hammering the nail in the coffin of abortion rights, and possibly LGBT rights and more, all because "I jUsT dIdNt LiKe hEr!!!"  MORE than enough of us were telling you everything that would happen if you didn't vote and if you didn't convince everybody you knew to vote the same. F**k, HILLARY CLINTON herself was f***ing telling you. We TOLD YOU a conservative majority SCOTUS would happen. WE TOLD YOU abortion rights, LGBT equality, voting rights, etc would be on the chopping block. Y'all said "don't threaten me with the supreme court!"  and here we are! "She was too unlikeable" is NOT an excuse when you consider all of the horrible precedents set by the previous administration. It is NOT an excuse when literally MILLIONS of us were ******* BEGGING y'all not to **** this up. And you did. Now, because of all of the terrible precedents set by the last administration, we're regressing into a fascist, authoritarian, nationalist nightmare. Thanks!

[Communion]

5 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

"She was too unlikeable" is NOT an excuse 

Friendly reminder to all reading:

 

 

Women's lives are in danger cause Clinton wanted to party with Beyonce and Jay-Z in Ohio instead of visit a swing state. 

[Sanctuary]

It's very bizarre to me that I've only heard about this in online circles, and it's been almost a week. Literally nobody around me irl, even left-leaning people, have even acknowledged that this is a thing that's happening. To be fair, North Texas has a lot of "I dOn'T tAlK aBoUt PoLiTiCs" enlightened centrist energy. I hate it here 

I have nothing more to add, just venting

[ClashAndBurn]

6 hours ago, Miss Show Business said:

Pure selfishness.  Imagine hammering the nail in the coffin of abortion rights, and possibly LGBT rights and more, all because "I jUsT dIdNt LiKe hEr!!!"  MORE than enough of us were telling you everything that would happen if you didn't vote and if you didn't convince everybody you knew to vote the same. F**k, HILLARY CLINTON herself was f***ing telling you. We TOLD YOU a conservative majority SCOTUS would happen. WE TOLD YOU abortion rights, LGBT equality, voting rights, etc would be on the chopping block. Y'all said "don't threaten me with the supreme court!"  and here we are! "She was too unlikeable" is NOT an excuse when you consider all of the horrible precedents set by the previous administration. It is NOT an excuse when literally MILLIONS of us were ******* BEGGING y'all not to **** this up. And you did. Now, because of all of the terrible precedents set by the last administration, we're regressing into a fascist, authoritarian, nationalist nightmare. Thanks!

I literally voted for the stupid *****. She lost my state by five points, so it didn’t even matter whether I did or didn’t. If she wasn’t such an awful human being, maybe she would have won. But instead, you get to play the blame game and accuse VOTERS WHO VOTED FOR HER of being at fault instead of the prideful idiot who selected a pro-life running mate and made the active choice to not campaign in Wisconsin.