Because it's legislation. Which means it has to pass in the Senate and the House. They don't have the House.
Senate has voted to confirm Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
We don't know if this is a pyrrhic victory. When all courts are packed with right wing hacks, who stay there for a long time, it could have long lasting effects on people's point of view. I can easily see how the conservatives could win again next mid-term.
You think the Supreme Court is an imaginary rule? I legitimately do not understand what you're trying to say
Will look forward to you and Republicans eating crow if the dems win the Senate. It'll happen.
Because the GOP can do something like lower the vote threshold for a cloture vote on a Supreme Court nominee from 60 to a simple majority, Democrats should be able to ignore a Supreme Court decision that de facto abolishes abortion.
Sort of like how that one county clerk refused to issue marriage licences to same sex couples after the Obergefell decision.
Ah, that makes sense. I guess it just takes a simple majority? It is kind of incredible expanding the Supreme Court hasn't even been attempted since FDR was in office.
I think a lot of the potentially disastrous rulings would hurt red states. I really don't think abortion will be outlawed in, say, California, because I think if RvW is overturned, it will be a state's right issue. So that just means people in Alabama or Idaho or wherever would ultimately pay the price. Just like CA could enact some sort of statewide healthcare system if ACA is struck down.
Last edited:
Getting rid of Roe vs. Wade wouldn't "abolish" abortion in the US. Getting rid of Roe vs. Wade just opens the door for state-level laws that completely outlaw abortion. The situations are completely and wildly different from gay marriage. Even after Roe vs. Wade falls abortions will still be available in blue states and probably some purple/red states. It's the red states that will abolish abortion within their own borders. And at this time there just isn't really any option on the table for forcing those states to allow abortions. The mechanics simply don't exist. You'd have to send in the National Guard or something. That isn't nearly as easy as some evil jackass refusing to issue marriage licenses.
The sensible folks I follow on Twitter who are usually there to reduce my panic are themselves panicking tonight. I ain't having it.
Agreed.
While I definitely don't agree that all is lost and I think there can be a way forward, albeit it requires voter participation and being informed, and getting more.younger and progressive, I'm perfectly fine with others voicing their opinions of "doom" because it's not entirely an implausible situation. It's so hard to have any sort of discussion when so many people aren't even allowed to say how they feel. Discussion is always stifled here.
Maybe Dems get term limits in place, but that does nothing to stop the immensely negative rulings that will come in the interim. I honestly don't see any possibility that the Dems will pack the courts either - just feels like clinging to a false hope at that point.
While it's not a guarantee, given Biden's recent comments, a Senate flip and Presidential win, plus the pent up need to fix everything broken over the last four years has me at least oghtly hopeful that the pressure will be on Biden to go beyond "forming a committee". Especially if we see how these next few rulings shake out. Kavanaughs discussion that came out today already shows how he views absentee ballots. ACA views soon and many others. A big conservative push in all these cases will really put the pressure on Joe if he wins.
No one is against having more women in the Supreme Court. We're against having THAT woman in the Supreme Court and any other women (and men) like her.
Even term limits is somewhat useless in a way, while the Presidency's a tossup or leaning towards Democratic control I'm sure the Senate will more often than not lean towards Republicans being in control, if they flat out won't even have hearings on Democratic Judicial picks anymore in the Senate and they're going to control the Senate more often than not than either the Republican Party itself needs to be destroyed or we need to do something that'd require a constitutional amendment.
Not that I'm against packing the courts, I think we should go for broke and do as much good stuff as possible and force the Republicans to repeal all of it. Republicans will get control again so either we pack it and go ham or we don't bother packing at all and do nothing but I think if we choose the latter just as I'd like to strangle the GOP by making it easier for people to vote and increasing democratic participation the GOP will go the opposite and strangle us by making it harder to participate in the democratic process. So it literally is a life or death situation.
I hope the Dems put their money where their mouth is and pack the courts AND put term limits on justices. The only regret will probably be the fact that fuck face McConnell probably won't be alive long enough to see all of his evil bullshit overturned and undone.
Just like from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas :(
Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision in 1973.
Progress exists, but I admit, sometimes it's hard to see it when you see things like that.
User Thread-Banned: Ignoring Thread Reply Banner; Relitigating the last Election
The irony I'm witnessing right now is that people that are blaming dems for this (and I'm not specifically talking about this thread or any individual in it), are, in my experience, the exact people who could have prevented it from happening.
She's a straight up nut job and a long time member of a cult. If the Dems dont pack the courts then they are completely and utterly spineless.
Legally there is literally no way to do that.
Elections have consequences.
They denied the vote in judiciary a quorum, which by the rules of the Senate means the vote shouldn't have happened. But Republicans just decided to ignore the rules. Aside from a physical fight, that was about the limits of their nuclear options as the minority party.
(On that subject, expect Republicans to start assaulting Democrats on the floor some time in the next 2 years.)
People in various communities I'm in, including In Real Life in my very neighborhood, city, and state, that protest voted (third party, write-in, undervoting, etc) in 2016. Many of whom are advocating protest voting right now, in 2020.
God it's disgusting the way social media is filled with alt right garbage celebrating "the end of baby killing in the US" and claiming the left being against her confirmation is proof feminism is a joke. Ever since this orange turd was elected these people have been everywhere getting louder and more confident and it makes me fucking sick.
Democrats had no other legal ways to block the confirmation to go through
the data does not support the idea that protest votes would have gotten Clinton elected. Quit blaming everyone else for the failures of these people.
Untrue. Stein's vote alone in WI/MI/PA covers the gap.
Most of our presidential elections are decided by a razor thin margin, a tiny fraction of a percent, of the actual electorate due to the Electoral College.
You can't help but admire the republican ruthlessness when it comes to big stuff like this. Can you imagine democrats being this unapologetic about forcing and cheating their way to power, especially when they know the majority are on their side?
again, I contest this. But whatever. The reality is that this IS a democracy with more than two parties, and people have a right to vote however they choose. It is not the voter's responsibility to support a candidate they disagree with on fundamental issues. Many of you don't like to hear it, but it's what it is.
edit: like, fuck, people act like almost everyone eligible to vote came out to the polls and that Stein voters stole it from Clinton. MOST people didn't vote. Who knows why, but most likely because they didn't see a point or because it was made too difficult and Clinton/Gore weren't inspiring enough to motivate people to put in the effort. Y'all are pissed at maybe 2% of the electorate who actually came out and participated in democracy as intended because they didn't vote your way. It's total bullshit. Vilify third party voters all you want, but there are thousands of other people who could have voted your way but didn't.
Edit 2: and when the bans start coming down in here for relitigating old elections, they won't be aimed at you or anyone else attacking third party voters. It's all under the pretense of protecting people from stressors, but only if they toe the line. I had a full blown panic attack that left me incapacitated today, and I have successfully avoided anything that bad for almost fifteen years now. And this kind of shit is what triggers it—trying to stand up and voice what you think is right but constantly being made out to be a villain because you're not jumping with joy at the opportunity to support more corporate candidates
Last edited:
You forgot homophobic and toxic to women's rights, too.
She used "sexual preference." That's fucking dangerous right there.
the sad truth is we vote for people but get outcomes that last beyond their terms in office
And in a democracy the voters have to own these outcomes since their votes contribute to them.
This is true. And it should go both ways. Sadly, this line of thought is typically used to justify voting in the lesser of two evils then ignoring the perpetuation of class warfare and literal open warfare, the continued destruction of the environment, the continued support for policies that funnel wealth upward, etc. I'm not okay with this, and so I have elected to no longer vote for it. What pisses me off is that this is treated as the equivalent of voting for Republicans when it is not. It isn't my fault that democrats are insufficiently principled.
edit: and AGAIN I feel the need to throw my voting history out like I have to justify myself, but I voted for Clinton AND Kerry AND Obama twice. I would have voted for Gore if I had been old enough. God help me, I've even been a good little democrat and voted for fucking Joe Manchin because I was told we needed him as a Democrat vote even if he is for all intents and purposes a full fledged Republican. It's not like I haven't held my nose again and again and again for these people. Meanwhile my community continues to fall to pieces, jobs are vanishing, I'm drowning in student loan debt for attending fucking modest state schools to become a nurse, and I can't even afford healthcare for my family. What good have these votes done for me or those close to me?
Last edited:
I've got more law experience than her, and I've only played Ace attorney. She couldn't be more unqualified for this position.
The way to change this isn't through third-party votes in presidential years, though. It's through grassroots organizing for third-party candidates at other levels of government (including local & state governments) to create a political power base for non-D/R parties and a pool of candidates with political recognition. If a party can't win at the state and local level anywhere, it has no real candidates in the national election.
so I'm not saying "you have to vote Democrat," but I am saying "it takes a lot of work to make a vote outside the two-party power structure actually contribute positively to outcomes."
Setting aside the endless arguments about the what ifs for how the Democratic nominee could have won the election, how voter ID laws significantly impacted the election in key states and other factors, people are unsurprisingly angry due to how consequential the 2016 election will be unless SCOTUS is expanded. And frankly, they can be mad at more than one group of voters or, in the case of non-voters, the people that stayed home in 2016. That aside, this this "voting against the system" thing is nonsense since 3rd party candidates have never been viable in American politics on the federal level and that you are throwing away your vote.
The closest example I can think of a 3rd party doing well is in 1912 with Teddy taking home more votes than the incumbent president Taft, and that's if you forget that Roosevelt was a two-term president (and lost due to splitting the vote with Taft leaving Wilson to win the electoral college in a landslide) who only reason ran as a third-party candidate was because he lost the GOP nomination during that election cycle.
You can vote however you want and no party is owed your vote, but don't pretend like "voting for your conscious" is doing anything to affect the system you're protesting. If you want to change things, you do so at the grassroot level and through direct action. Work your way up from the local, to the state, and then federal level. That's part of why the Bull Moose Party fell apart after 1912; a complete lack of local organization contributed to a swift death for the party.
Also change the voting system to a PR system. FPTP is antidemocratic trash, even worse under the EC that America employs.
One can do both of these things. But on principle, I can't vote for these people anymore. I just can't. I'm not sorry even. I've fought for the right democrats where I could and will continue to do so, but I absolutely defy Blue No Matter Who thinking.
Setting aside the endless arguments about the what ifs for how the Democratic nominee could have won the election, how voter ID laws significantly impacted the election in key states and other factors, people are unsurprisingly angry due to how consequential the 2016 election will be unless SCOTUS is expanded. And frankly, they can be mad at more than one group of voters or, in the case of non-voters, the people that stayed home in 2016. That aside, this this "voting against the system" thing is nonsense since 3rd party candidates have never been viable in American politics on the federal level and that you are throwing away your vote.
The closest example I can think of a 3rd party doing well is in 1912 with Teddy taking home more votes than the incumbent president Taft, and that's if you forget that Roosevelt was a two-term president (and lost due to splitting the vote with Taft leaving Wilson to win the electoral college in a landslide) who only reason ran as a third-party candidate was because he lost the GOP nomination during that election cycle.
You can vote however you want and no party is owed your vote, but don't pretend like "voting for your conscious" is doing anything to affect the system you're protesting. If you want to change things, you do so at the grassroot level and through direct action. Work your way up from the local, to the state, and then federal level.
Also change the voting system to a PR system. FPTP is antidemocratic trash, even worse under the EC that America employs.
never once pretended that it was going to change anything. But my vote means something to me. It's mine to distribute and even throw away as I wish. You can think that's foolish, but it's where I remain.
If people want actual third party candidates the electoral college has to go. You can't have viable third or fourth parties when there is no path to the presidency for them.
Now I can see if Texas flips consistently in the next one to two generations, the Republicans could stop defending it and instead get on board with getting rid of it. Because in that case their path to the White House is incredibly hard.