Is court packing on the table? What barriers prevent that other than the Biden admin not wanting to? If it's just that, could this put enough pressure on Biden to change policy there?
If you can pack the court you can legislate instead, court packing is a solution to a court interfering with an administrations current activities more than with longstanding laws if you have the Senate and house.
Congress can remove issues from SCOTUS's jurisdiction, iirc.
Congress cannot remove final appellate jurisdiction from SCOTUS. They can modify some original jurisdiction that is not specifically mentioned. These are, like minor legal things in the scope of discussing what SCOTUS can do and has more to do with from where the cases come that SCOTUS must take up. Like. If a state sues another state then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. They hear the case first. I think that congress could make a new court in order to hear those cases. But SCOTUS would have final appellate jurisdiction over those cases regardless. And congress cannot change that.
The "jurisdiction" in the constitution is not "whether or not they have authority to rule on it at all" but "whether or not they have the authority to hear a case on the issue first".
I read earlier (I think in an NYT article) that 25 of the 50 states would likely ban abortion if/when this decision is made? That's... worse than the number I expected.
It should not shock you. There is a reason we only have 50 democratic senators right now.
I feel pretty confident now that SCOTUS as an institution is something that needs to stop existing. It's purely to maintain minoritarian rule. They annoit themselves kings of what is True and Just and wield that power how they see fit no matter the logic or law used or its ramifications. Interning Japanese is OK cause we say so, enslaving black people is OK cause we say so. Congress overstepped on X,Y,Z cause we say so. This constitutional amendment isn't real cause we say so. It's all complete fucking horseshit and always has been.
I keep thinking back to 2018 when a professor in grad school said unironically that [the Trump admin] is not the worst in our history and that things are pretty good across the board. That the 1960s (and 1860s) were far worse for this country. And I keep thinking about that, and the 4 years since, and think "yeah, really? you still think that now given the trajectory we're on?" Absurd. Like, what split the country apart for the civil war? Arguably the Dred Scott v. Sandford case SCOTUS ruled on.
All I think of is Yeats, a falconer, and a rough beast.
SCOTUS cannot be removed. There must be a SCOTUS to hear legal appeals. Even the UK has a highest court. Regardless of whether or not parliament can overturn them.
A legislature that can overturn SCOTUS does not change the calculus here since we have a SCOTUS that is shitty for the same reason that we have to deal with bad Senates. And the only way a legislature that can overturn SCOTUS would exist is without a written constitution. (as, fundamentally, there must be some body which determines what is and isn't constitutional)
If there was no SCOTUS abortion would have been banned in 2016 (and earlier frankly).
The President said he was "not prepared" to make a judgment on whether the Senate should remove the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade, as some lawmakers -- like Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont -- have called for.
which in my experience always means "I'm not saying anything yet but I might say something later".
Which is basically what you expect. The decision hasn't been handed down yet and the Senate are a bunch of touchy idiots about their independence at the best of times and Biden is a former senator to boot. We're basically at the "I sure hope SCOTUS doesn't do this and maybe Congress does it's fucking job" stage of the executive v legislative song and dance.
Biden is perpetually behind where we need to be on Senate procedure though. I don’t actually believe he will support eliminating the filibuster. Hopefully I eat crow on this but Joe Biden is like the physical manifestation of “mah norms”.
If he actually does support eliminating the filibuster for this, the time to come out about it was long before this decision leaked!
Manchin and Sinema don't so it doesn't matter a warm bucket of piss what Biden thinks.
Like they didn't budge for voting rights, they certainly won't change for women's rights which as noted above Manchin talks out of both sides of his mouth on.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Manchin and Sinema don't so it doesn't matter a warm bucket of piss what Biden thinks.
Like they didn't budge for voting rights, they certainly won't change for women's rights which as noted above Manchin talks out of both sides of his mouth on.
is there literally any circumstance in which it might be okay for Democratic leadership to just advocate for the Good Thing with no equivocation
Biden is perpetually behind where we need to be on Senate procedure though. I don’t actually believe he will support eliminating the filibuster. Hopefully I eat crow on this but Joe Biden is like the physical manifestation of “mah norms”.
If he actually does support eliminating the filibuster for this, the time to come out about it was long before this decision leaked!
Pretty sure he is already on record asking the senate to carve out filibuster protections for voting rights legislation. That went nowhere because he doesn’t have the votes.
How is this any different?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+11
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
One of the chief powers POTUS has is being the bully pulpit
It’s why Trump, for all of his malignant incompetence, was effective - he understood the platform he had by virtue of his position
Even if it goes nowhere Biden signaling he would support any measure to enshrine a woman’s right to choose would be more useful than whatever this is
Is there a case that the Supreme Court is hearing on right now over abortion? Or was this plans that got released for a case they haven't heard yet? Or unrelated to a case at all?
Wouldn't it be under executive purview to "suggest"/push the relevant regulatory bodies to deschedule and make OTC various birth control or abortifacients?
Is there a case that the Supreme Court is hearing on right now over abortion? Or was this plans that got released for a case they haven't heard yet? Or unrelated to a case at all?
It's in reference to a pending court case yes. Irc over a Mississippi law
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Is there a case that the Supreme Court is hearing on right now over abortion? Or was this plans that got released for a case they haven't heard yet? Or unrelated to a case at all?
It's in reference to a pending court case yes. Irc over a Mississippi law
Dobbs is the name of the case. It was initially w case on the “mere” question of viability as the constitutionally relevant test for the right to an abortion. Then RBG died and Trump/McConnell rammed through Amy Coney Barrett, and Mississippi lunged for the opportunity to overturn Roe and Casey in its entirety.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Is court packing on the table? What barriers prevent that other than the Biden admin not wanting to? If it's just that, could this put enough pressure on Biden to change policy there?
If you can pack the court you can legislate instead, court packing is a solution to a court interfering with an administrations current activities more than with longstanding laws if you have the Senate and house.
Congress can remove issues from SCOTUS's jurisdiction, iirc.
Congress cannot remove final appellate jurisdiction from SCOTUS. They can modify some original jurisdiction that is not specifically mentioned. These are, like minor legal things in the scope of discussing what SCOTUS can do and has more to do with from where the cases come that SCOTUS must take up. Like. If a state sues another state then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. They hear the case first. I think that congress could make a new court in order to hear those cases. But SCOTUS would have final appellate jurisdiction over those cases regardless. And congress cannot change that.
The "jurisdiction" in the constitution is not "whether or not they have authority to rule on it at all" but "whether or not they have the authority to hear a case on the issue first".
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+6
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Can, hypothetically, Biden sign an executive order here?
A simple yes or no is fine, unless like Hakkes has a lot of knowledge on it.
If so, what would be the result?
No.
This is a supreme court decision being overturned by the supreme court themselves. What they give, they can take away. Attempts to overturn this decision via executive Order fail in favor of the courts due to separation of powers.
It wouldn't be effective anyways, since this merely orders that laws on the books stand, not any real action on the federal governments part. If the court ordered the Federal government to enforce those laws, he could refuse to do so, but even that is suspect. IANAL, but once this rulling comes down; Roe v Wade is dead and Biden is stuck on the sidelines.
And Gay rights will follow.
No. But not entirely because of how it is described here.
Roe recognized a constitutional right. The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to interpret the constitution. If the Supreme Court overrules a prior decision, that’s constitutional law now.
The President is the head of the executive branch. He is empowered within the limits of the constitution and authority granted by acts of congress to direct that branch. The President’s authority to issue executive orders derives from statute and as the chief executive to manage and direct that branch, and only that branch. The law-like impact of presidential executive orders are due only to the modern administrative state built out by delegations of authority from congress to the executive branch, and not because of any constitutional rights that SCOTUS recognizes or, in this case, suffocates with a pillow. EOs, moreover, are themselves reviewable by SCOTUS, which interprets the constitutional and statutory limits on the president’s authority to do this kind of unilateral action.
Does the President have limited administrative authority to mitigate the impact of a wholesale overturning of Roe? Probably. There’s probably some combination of Medicare provisions and Other health regulations that can stretch pretty far. There, too, is a high likelihood that SCOTUS will pass on any executive action and strike it down. Or maybe it won’t even need to, because EOs are easy to undo by the next President without breaking a sweat.
And since Roberts has been kicked to the curb, don’t hold your breath for another DACA repeal case based on reliance interests.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+9
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Wouldn't it be under executive purview to "suggest"/push the relevant regulatory bodies to deschedule and make OTC various birth control or abortifacients?
Yes. But it would take a very long time. Regulations like these would need to go through a lengthy process and will invariably be legally challenged, if the rule making isn’t already reversed by a Republican administration.
Biden is perpetually behind where we need to be on Senate procedure though. I don’t actually believe he will support eliminating the filibuster. Hopefully I eat crow on this but Joe Biden is like the physical manifestation of “mah norms”.
If he actually does support eliminating the filibuster for this, the time to come out about it was long before this decision leaked!
Pretty sure he is already on record asking the senate to carve out filibuster protections for voting rights legislation. That went nowhere because he doesn’t have the votes.
In his 2007 book, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics," Biden said he had "stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than thirty years." He wrote that he personally opposes abortion, "but I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society."
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
In his 2007 book, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics," Biden said he had "stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than thirty years." He wrote that he personally opposes abortion, "but I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society."
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
I dunno, I don’t find “I agree with my enemies but oppose them on a technicality” very persuasive
Leaking it now acclimates the public to the decision. There will be no fury by the time the midterms roll around - it's all getting spent now, and people will be burnt out. More than that, it absolutely locks in all of the conservative justices. They cannot and will not break lock step with Alito. They'd fear appearing to "sway to public opinion".
The GOP also doesn't have to worry about election results anymore, but that's a different thread.
It’s helpful to remember that these people aren’t geniuses, any more than the average Democratic politician. They shoot themselves in the foot at least as often as other political movements, they just get to play on easy mode because they represent hundreds of years (more, really) of entrenched power and take advantage of the fact that it’s significantly easier to manipulate people than it is to help them.
The calculation that people won’t give a shit come November might look rather asinine by then. I don’t know a way to say this that doesn’t feel ghoulish, but that’s 4-5 months of probable horror stories as women with no access to abortion are forced to make whatever choices are available to them. Any one of which could, potentially, blow this entire multi-decade effort into ashes.
Every effort should be made to prevent those horror stories, obviously, but as written, this ruling likely makes it impossible to prevent them all, and nobody should be squeamish about pointing out the blood on the GOP’s hands.
I’m not personally counting on any of that working, mind you, but as I said in another thread, I do think these fucks blowing themselves up is one of the only means of making actual progress in this country, and this is bringing fire damned close to the dynamite.
In his 2007 book, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics," Biden said he had "stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than thirty years." He wrote that he personally opposes abortion, "but I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society."
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
I dunno, I don’t find “I agree with my enemies but oppose them on a technicality” very persuasive
I agree, I'm just bringing citations on Joe Biden directly stating that position. Biden's heart and faith say "abortion is bad", which does not inspire confidence that this is the man to defend access to it as desperately as it needs defending.
In his 2007 book, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics," Biden said he had "stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than thirty years." He wrote that he personally opposes abortion, "but I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society."
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
Yeah and he got denied communion a few years ago over it. The "making shit up" part applies to the idea that Biden's position here has anything to do with that position. It doesn't. You don't try to revert a bunch of anti-abortion measures or issue the statements he did or order a bunch of pro-choice stuff or try to remove the Hyde amendment if you're some secret traitor like Sammich is implying.
At worst it's the same institutional reluctance that too many Senators shared until very recently. Just as likely likely it's not wanting to commit to anything because there are 50 cats that would need to be herder in order to pull that off and he cannot annoy any of those people.
In his 2007 book, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics," Biden said he had "stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than thirty years." He wrote that he personally opposes abortion, "but I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society."
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
I dunno, I don’t find “I agree with my enemies but oppose them on a technicality” very persuasive
Legality is not a technicality. That’s why it’s called pro-choice. He can disapprove and it won’t matter, because what the law permits, and what it protects, is independent of his disapproval.
What the law protected until the final opinion is entered, anyway.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+22
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
In his 2007 book, "Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics," Biden said he had "stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than thirty years." He wrote that he personally opposes abortion, "but I don't think I have the right to impose my view – on something I accept as a matter of faith – on the rest of society."
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
I dunno, I don’t find “I agree with my enemies but oppose them on a technicality” very persuasive
I agree, I'm just bringing citations on Joe Biden directly stating that position. Biden's heart and faith say "abortion is bad", which does not inspire confidence that this is the man to defend access to it as desperately as it needs defending.
Biden showed recently at the press dinner he still has the ability to be an absolute bastard to people he doesn't like, and I'm kind of sick of him not doing it. Even ultra-slick Obama let the cat out of the bag several times and said what everyone else in the room was thinking.
After four years of absolute horrors, what we needed was someone who was resolute and sharp, not someone who is so obviously trying to ride some kind of middle ground according to poll numbers where nothing gets done. We needed someone who occasionally says dumb shit... but in an effort to do something positive, or speak a truth, not saying some dumb shit like he has been. Despite not being big on his politics, he made it clear through all his years in politics that he could at least be that kind of blunt instrument to stop the rightward neoconfederate shift. What the fuck happened?
Our Supreme Court is removing basic human rights from half of its citizens and will cause thousands of deaths, just like it did before, and all we get from the most powerful man in the world is this grandfatherly "Let's see what happens."
If only Biden would tut-tut we would get what we want, today?
He can give the leak time to breathe and let the justices self own a little bit. Maybe give them 72 hours to gaffe.
If he does nothing, it's better than saying something that sucks the air out of the story.
I would appreciate him giving the appearance he gives a shit, or even any kind of emotion, instead of coldly calculated, approved, groomed, and focus-tested answers to do the least amount possible.
If only Biden would tut-tut we would get what we want, today?
He can give the leak time to breathe and let the justices self own a little bit. Maybe give them 72 hours to gaffe.
If he does nothing, it's better than saying something that sucks the air out of the story.
I would appreciate him giving the appearance he gives a shit, or even any kind of emotion, instead of coldly calculated, approved, groomed, and focus-tested answers to do the least amount possible.
Democrat politicians do that because Democrat voters eat them alive for any words out of place.
Biden was notorious for gaffes or unpracticed words: he had to cut that shit out for Democrats to vote for him as president.
+5
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
If only Biden would tut-tut we would get what we want, today?
He can give the leak time to breathe and let the justices self own a little bit. Maybe give them 72 hours to gaffe.
If he does nothing, it's better than saying something that sucks the air out of the story.
I would appreciate him giving the appearance he gives a shit, or even any kind of emotion, instead of coldly calculated, approved, groomed, and focus-tested answers to do the least amount possible.
Democrat politicians do that because Democrat voters eat them alive for any words out of place.
Biden was notorious for gaffes or unpracticed words: he had to cut that shit out for Democrats to vote for him as president.
What was the last human rights violation, by our judiciary, this massive? We can compare democratic presidential reactions.
jungleroomx on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Like, I want to be clear
This is a human rights violation by a weaponized religious sect inflicted through a purposely sabotaged justice system comprised of some of the worst and most unqualified judges this nation has ever seen.
I would appreciate it if our president would react to this as such, even just a little bit.
One of the chief powers POTUS has is being the bully pulpit
It’s why Trump, for all of his malignant incompetence, was effective - he understood the platform he had by virtue of his position
Even if it goes nowhere Biden signaling he would support any measure to enshrine a woman’s right to choose would be more useful than whatever this is
Trump wasn't effective at all. His agenda went nowhere and the trifecta he helped the GOP win is something like the most ineffective congress in recent history. McConnell basically nodded his head at Trump and then did whatever he was gonna do anyway while being annoyed at Trump's neverending parade of fiascos.
The "bully pulpit" is hugely overrated and Congress can and frequently will just make wanking motions at the President if he tries to push them around and then do whatever they feel like. It's a giant pain in the ass really and a dumb way to divide up government powers but it's how the US runs (or doesn't). Convincing the idiots that make up a good chunk of the Senate to actually do something is going to be difficult unfortunately.
"biden can't do anything" is not the compelling argument for being chill about the circumstances some people seem to think it is
I don't think I've seen anyone claim you should "be chill" about the situation because Biden can't do much about it. Rather the point is that the President has very limited means of doing stuff here. That you should be looking to other people with much more power over the situation if you want something to be done.
Specifically I would say the people who can stop this horror show are Senators.
Trump wasn't effective at all. His agenda went nowhere and the trifecta he helped the GOP win is something like the most ineffective congress in recent history. McConnell basically nodded his head and Trump and then did whatever he was gonna do anyway while being annoyed at Trump's neverending parade of fiascos.
In fairness Trump was completely incapable of even outlining any kind of specific plan, which made him the worst President at this in history. He didn't even know exactly what he wanted and it wasn't clear he wanted anything other than looking good.
rahkeesh2000 on
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Posts
Congress cannot remove final appellate jurisdiction from SCOTUS. They can modify some original jurisdiction that is not specifically mentioned. These are, like minor legal things in the scope of discussing what SCOTUS can do and has more to do with from where the cases come that SCOTUS must take up. Like. If a state sues another state then SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. They hear the case first. I think that congress could make a new court in order to hear those cases. But SCOTUS would have final appellate jurisdiction over those cases regardless. And congress cannot change that.
The "jurisdiction" in the constitution is not "whether or not they have authority to rule on it at all" but "whether or not they have the authority to hear a case on the issue first".
@Tumin
It should not shock you. There is a reason we only have 50 democratic senators right now.
SCOTUS cannot be removed. There must be a SCOTUS to hear legal appeals. Even the UK has a highest court. Regardless of whether or not parliament can overturn them.
A legislature that can overturn SCOTUS does not change the calculus here since we have a SCOTUS that is shitty for the same reason that we have to deal with bad Senates. And the only way a legislature that can overturn SCOTUS would exist is without a written constitution. (as, fundamentally, there must be some body which determines what is and isn't constitutional)
If there was no SCOTUS abortion would have been banned in 2016 (and earlier frankly).
This what "I dont like it personally but I support it legally" looks like.
The specific quote is: which in my experience always means "I'm not saying anything yet but I might say something later".
Which is basically what you expect. The decision hasn't been handed down yet and the Senate are a bunch of touchy idiots about their independence at the best of times and Biden is a former senator to boot. We're basically at the "I sure hope SCOTUS doesn't do this and maybe Congress does it's fucking job" stage of the executive v legislative song and dance.
If he actually does support eliminating the filibuster for this, the time to come out about it was long before this decision leaked!
Like they didn't budge for voting rights, they certainly won't change for women's rights which as noted above Manchin talks out of both sides of his mouth on.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I see we're back to making shit up again.
is there literally any circumstance in which it might be okay for Democratic leadership to just advocate for the Good Thing with no equivocation
Pretty sure he is already on record asking the senate to carve out filibuster protections for voting rights legislation. That went nowhere because he doesn’t have the votes.
How is this any different?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
It’s why Trump, for all of his malignant incompetence, was effective - he understood the platform he had by virtue of his position
Even if it goes nowhere Biden signaling he would support any measure to enshrine a woman’s right to choose would be more useful than whatever this is
Or the ones with lethally wrong instructions and how to do said DIY
It's in reference to a pending court case yes. Irc over a Mississippi law
Dobbs is the name of the case. It was initially w case on the “mere” question of viability as the constitutionally relevant test for the right to an abortion. Then RBG died and Trump/McConnell rammed through Amy Coney Barrett, and Mississippi lunged for the opportunity to overturn Roe and Casey in its entirety.
NNID: Hakkekage
We can go beyond it. Obama made effective use of it, too.
I’m tired of the milksop middle ground nobody pleaser act from this president.
This is incorrect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping
Article III, Sec 2, cl 2
NNID: Hakkekage
No. But not entirely because of how it is described here.
Roe recognized a constitutional right. The Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to interpret the constitution. If the Supreme Court overrules a prior decision, that’s constitutional law now.
The President is the head of the executive branch. He is empowered within the limits of the constitution and authority granted by acts of congress to direct that branch. The President’s authority to issue executive orders derives from statute and as the chief executive to manage and direct that branch, and only that branch. The law-like impact of presidential executive orders are due only to the modern administrative state built out by delegations of authority from congress to the executive branch, and not because of any constitutional rights that SCOTUS recognizes or, in this case, suffocates with a pillow. EOs, moreover, are themselves reviewable by SCOTUS, which interprets the constitutional and statutory limits on the president’s authority to do this kind of unilateral action.
Does the President have limited administrative authority to mitigate the impact of a wholesale overturning of Roe? Probably. There’s probably some combination of Medicare provisions and Other health regulations that can stretch pretty far. There, too, is a high likelihood that SCOTUS will pass on any executive action and strike it down. Or maybe it won’t even need to, because EOs are easy to undo by the next President without breaking a sweat.
And since Roberts has been kicked to the curb, don’t hold your breath for another DACA repeal case based on reliance interests.
NNID: Hakkekage
Yes. But it would take a very long time. Regulations like these would need to go through a lengthy process and will invariably be legally challenged, if the rule making isn’t already reversed by a Republican administration.
NNID: Hakkekage
I am so exhausted of the filibuster argument.
From this USA Today article:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/29/joe-biden-denied-communion/2494025001/
You can find many more citations of this section of his own words in his own book. To my knowledge, he has not reversed that stance. He personally opposes abortion, does not think anyone should choose it, but he has come over to the opinion that it should still be an option from a legal perspective.
I dunno, I don’t find “I agree with my enemies but oppose them on a technicality” very persuasive
It’s helpful to remember that these people aren’t geniuses, any more than the average Democratic politician. They shoot themselves in the foot at least as often as other political movements, they just get to play on easy mode because they represent hundreds of years (more, really) of entrenched power and take advantage of the fact that it’s significantly easier to manipulate people than it is to help them.
The calculation that people won’t give a shit come November might look rather asinine by then. I don’t know a way to say this that doesn’t feel ghoulish, but that’s 4-5 months of probable horror stories as women with no access to abortion are forced to make whatever choices are available to them. Any one of which could, potentially, blow this entire multi-decade effort into ashes.
Every effort should be made to prevent those horror stories, obviously, but as written, this ruling likely makes it impossible to prevent them all, and nobody should be squeamish about pointing out the blood on the GOP’s hands.
I’m not personally counting on any of that working, mind you, but as I said in another thread, I do think these fucks blowing themselves up is one of the only means of making actual progress in this country, and this is bringing fire damned close to the dynamite.
I agree, I'm just bringing citations on Joe Biden directly stating that position. Biden's heart and faith say "abortion is bad", which does not inspire confidence that this is the man to defend access to it as desperately as it needs defending.
Yeah and he got denied communion a few years ago over it. The "making shit up" part applies to the idea that Biden's position here has anything to do with that position. It doesn't. You don't try to revert a bunch of anti-abortion measures or issue the statements he did or order a bunch of pro-choice stuff or try to remove the Hyde amendment if you're some secret traitor like Sammich is implying.
At worst it's the same institutional reluctance that too many Senators shared until very recently. Just as likely likely it's not wanting to commit to anything because there are 50 cats that would need to be herder in order to pull that off and he cannot annoy any of those people.
Actually believing in freedom of choice isn't a technicality. Opposing abortion but believing it should be legal is very firmly a pro-choice position.
Legality is not a technicality. That’s why it’s called pro-choice. He can disapprove and it won’t matter, because what the law permits, and what it protects, is independent of his disapproval.
What the law protected until the final opinion is entered, anyway.
NNID: Hakkekage
Biden showed recently at the press dinner he still has the ability to be an absolute bastard to people he doesn't like, and I'm kind of sick of him not doing it. Even ultra-slick Obama let the cat out of the bag several times and said what everyone else in the room was thinking.
After four years of absolute horrors, what we needed was someone who was resolute and sharp, not someone who is so obviously trying to ride some kind of middle ground according to poll numbers where nothing gets done. We needed someone who occasionally says dumb shit... but in an effort to do something positive, or speak a truth, not saying some dumb shit like he has been. Despite not being big on his politics, he made it clear through all his years in politics that he could at least be that kind of blunt instrument to stop the rightward neoconfederate shift. What the fuck happened?
Our Supreme Court is removing basic human rights from half of its citizens and will cause thousands of deaths, just like it did before, and all we get from the most powerful man in the world is this grandfatherly "Let's see what happens."
He can give the leak time to breathe and let the justices self own a little bit. Maybe give them 72 hours to gaffe.
If he does nothing, it's better than saying something that sucks the air out of the story.
It isnt like there are no expert knife wielders on the left ready to shred the right over this, and can do it better than Biden with less face to lose
I would appreciate him giving the appearance he gives a shit, or even any kind of emotion, instead of coldly calculated, approved, groomed, and focus-tested answers to do the least amount possible.
Democrat politicians do that because Democrat voters eat them alive for any words out of place.
Biden was notorious for gaffes or unpracticed words: he had to cut that shit out for Democrats to vote for him as president.
What was the last human rights violation, by our judiciary, this massive? We can compare democratic presidential reactions.
This is a human rights violation by a weaponized religious sect inflicted through a purposely sabotaged justice system comprised of some of the worst and most unqualified judges this nation has ever seen.
I would appreciate it if our president would react to this as such, even just a little bit.
It's hard to be surprised he is taking a quiet, "wait for official ruling" approach???
Harris is being more full throated about things, and she might as well be Biden.
Trump wasn't effective at all. His agenda went nowhere and the trifecta he helped the GOP win is something like the most ineffective congress in recent history. McConnell basically nodded his head at Trump and then did whatever he was gonna do anyway while being annoyed at Trump's neverending parade of fiascos.
The "bully pulpit" is hugely overrated and Congress can and frequently will just make wanking motions at the President if he tries to push them around and then do whatever they feel like. It's a giant pain in the ass really and a dumb way to divide up government powers but it's how the US runs (or doesn't). Convincing the idiots that make up a good chunk of the Senate to actually do something is going to be difficult unfortunately.
I don't think I've seen anyone claim you should "be chill" about the situation because Biden can't do much about it. Rather the point is that the President has very limited means of doing stuff here. That you should be looking to other people with much more power over the situation if you want something to be done.
Specifically I would say the people who can stop this horror show are Senators.
In fairness Trump was completely incapable of even outlining any kind of specific plan, which made him the worst President at this in history. He didn't even know exactly what he wanted and it wasn't clear he wanted anything other than looking good.
Yes, she's giving the impression this matters.