Until a republican congress outlaws it nationwide along with gay marriage.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Politico: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows
- Thread starter Smokeymicpot
- Start date
Good thing it only takes a couple of hours each year and we lose absolutely nothing by doing it.
Vote, but also do other things.
It can't be abandoned tho. The system is in place to punish you if you disengage. You have to vote and push for change using any and all means necessary.
They don't want to win anything because both sides get richer and raise more money if they are constantly fighting. It's all a joke.
The draft, as leaked, is the majority opinion as it stands. This can change, of course.
It would be up to the states so it will be completely illegal in some and others will have more restrictions.
Well as you can see in this thread it's working quite well. Circular firing squad.
I'm not trying to hand wave it away, but it's hard to engage with your premise if you don't give a concrete example or concrete steps on what should be done in the US. I can't think of an example where an existing form of government was turned into a multiparty proportional system without violent revolt.
Is this a serious post?
You can't actually think this?
Is "they" every Democrat, or just Sean Maloney, or the entire DCCC, or what?
Thanks! Didn't get that from the Politico article.
So, when he says the issue should go back to the elected representatives, does he mean the federal government/congress (to find a 'better' reasoning for a federal abortion law) or does he argue specifically in favor of what you describe, laws on a state by state basis? The latter would be fucked up.
Yesterday morning, The Washington Post has an article saying that if Roe was overturned and Republicans won the House and Senate their top priority would be to pass a national heartbeat bill to ban abortion in all 50 states https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/05/02/abortion-ban-roe-supreme-court-mississippi/
We should have thought about this everytime we or someone we know hesitated to prevent a death cult from making it so we didn't have a choice. The is why "vote blue no matter who" will never be something to mock. You damn right you vote blue no matter who.
It doesn't have to be that kind of news propaganda.
We're already prone to infighting and I believe there are issues right now that we haven't solved that are ripe for making into wedge issues that will section off whole contingents of the American left. When they start really instigating those with bad actors I think there real risk we'll really come apart. We don't need to March to one drum, just split apart enough to weaken us into insufficiency.
Then again we're already insufficient. Guess we'll see
Chuck Schumer is a horrible senate leader and he should have never been put into the role. That's one of the first things that needs to change. Nancy also needs to go.
I hear what you're saying, but it also sort of feeds off the narrative that no matter what we do, we're fucked. Do nothing, see our rights eroded. Take action, see our rights stomped out.
We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Either way, we're screwed, which I think is exactly what the right wants us to think.
Marriage is purely a state issue, not a federal one.
On that front, at least, the filibuster will prevent anything from happening (as long as McConnell is around, anyway).
Eventually, Republicans will get 60 votes they need. With all the gerrymandering and rigged system put in place, it's only a matter of time. Heck, it could even happen in combination of the midterms and 2024 election. This is gonna be chaotic.
If the ruling is that the states are allowed to set abortion rules, can't blue states then use that same ruling to allow abortion?
Tell me how many fundraiser emails you got in the past 12 hours.
I have a hard time viewing that as merely a propaganda thing when, as we've seen in this thread, people are enthusiastically lining up for infighting and circular firing squads. It's a problem that ails our entire society these days -- we'd rather beat up on each other and WIN than do the boring work of trying to improve things incrementally. I blame social media more than I blame traditional media outlets for that.
Which I expect will happen. Even if this is the final decision, this draft opinion is nakedly political in ways that I don't think certain conservative judges would approve of.
Stop victim blaming yourself and everyone else for our oppression. Mass movements and revolutions don't need decades to develop.
Well then let's try to prevent it for as long as possible.
Again, voting takes a few hours per year. That's it.
There is no gerrymandering in the Senate, every state gets two votes. Just FYI.
?
Fundraising is important to combat this stuff. You don't have to like it, but it is. I don't get why you're acting like it's some evidence of evil intent.
What's wrong with that?
You always have the option to...not give money.
Another misconception about how politics works when it comes to Dems is that people buy into the Republican framing that Democrats are the party of the rich coastal elites.
9 times out of 10 Democrats are fucking broke.
If they weren't taking these obvious opportunities to fundraise and build an opposition, then we'd be criticizing them for that.
You get what I'm saying though right? They will lean on that like never before and it's going to be a hell of a time.
At some point we need to take responsibility for ourselves. It is what it is.
Fuck you, it's not my fault I grew up afraid of being murdered by Republicans because I'm a gay Texan.
The majority of the Democratic Party. There are people who truly do care but they are made out to be jokes and "too far left"
The majority of the Democratic Party cares about their next fundraiser a lot more than anything else.
You don't have to agree. This is just how it appears to me. Bububut decorum wink wink
>Democrats should ditch the "when they go low we go high" and take advantage of our broken political system just like the GOP does
>Democrats shouldn't aggressively fundraise because it's tacky and tasteless
Choose one.
Surely people aren't going to stand for this shit if it comes through? Surely this will push people to bring the rage? Saying this isn't a federal issue is straight bullshit! This is the sort of thing you mobilize immediately on and bring the pain
Voting, takes an hour maybe two: Can't be bothered!
Organizing, weaponizing, and risking your life for a violent uprising: You can count on me for that!
By my understanding the ruling does not say that states can set abortion laws but rather that there is no fundamental right to abortion and because of that a federal ban would be possible.
Absolutely, but I think that that, too, has its limits, especially when considering how non-representative DC and the Northeast corridor of cities is. Discontent can get squashed in Nevada at the same time it's erupting in New York and DC.
And maybe our portion of the work is to disarm our own pointless in-fighting on ERA.
Not a fan of Schumer at all but Pelosi is extremely effective in her role. She got a public option passed, for instance. I see no reason she needs to go.
Saying voting is useless when it's the exact thing that got us into this situation….
Big Daddy Cool Diesel should start giving out Powerbombs who disagree.
Gerrymandering essentially occurs on a national level with the Senate, though - having non-equal representation via giving 'more' power to states with less population.
Who then get to decide who gets seated for the Supreme Court.
This is pretty misinformed. As someone who works in nonprofit fundraising that crosses over in political spheres, this isn't the majority at all. It is some, but it isn't "most."
I'd add in voting suppression to tilt thin margin states.
Wouldn't the other justices already be aware of the general arguments that Alito would make in his majority opinion? Like I'm just trying to imagine a scenario where like Gorsuch reads this and is shocked by arguments being made and changes his mind. It would seem bizarre that he wouldn't already be aware.
When you give politicians money, you're more often than not giving it, by means of the donation, to FB, Google, or some third party strategy firm.
I don't know, it's been working out for republicans pretty fucking well.
"It's not about how we can improve or possibly ever do anything differently, and it never will be! VOTE."
