As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Supreme Court is Planning to Overturn Roe v Wade

2456741

Posts

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    annulling what I would assume is tens of thousands of marriages sounds like an insane nightmare from a legal and economic standpoint.

    You think this SCOTUS cares about ramifications? They have not yet.

    I mean shit Clarence would sign on to annul his own interacial marriage.

    Alito literally says they don't care about what happens after their decisions.

    “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly." (p.65)

    Did he performatively wash his hands in a bowl after?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    MagellFencingsaxDark_SideRichyzagdrobThawmusButtersjungleroomxLikeaBoshMartini_PhilosopherLord_AsmodeusRingoJohnny ChopsockyA Kobold's KoboldtynicboogedybooCidTheSquidDibbitmarajiMan in the MistsAegeriKetarHacksawspool32MatevHavelock2.0OlivawJazzElvenshaeDoctor DetroitKayne Red RobeAntinumericNiryaMunkus BeaverRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    Stare decisis is specifically about predicting how.much upheaval will occur. It isn't like they couldnt get a brief from I dunno, the fucking Health department for the parties affected

    The Court isnt even considering itself a branch of government then, just a powerful unaccountable institution for undemocratic conservatism.

    Tumin on
    FencingsaxBigJoeMRingoCidTheSquidMan in the MistsMatevHavelock2.0OlivawJazzElvenshaeBullheadRaiju
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Wow that's pretty blatant horse shit from the GOP. "That dastardly sotomayor released this she's a traitor she should be removed." So now we know the next drum they'll beat so they can have a 7-2 court.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    ThawmusFencingsaxIncenjucarjungleroomxLikeaBoshMartini_PhilosopherLord_AsmodeusRingoSleepStabbity StyleA Kobold's KoboldQuidMan in the MistsAegerimarajiMatevHavelock2.0OlivawJazzBullheadRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • Knight_Knight_ Dead Dead Dead Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    i tend to agree that this is almost certainly a leak from a clerk on the extreme right to lock in the decision.

    this decision being leaked 2 months ahead of the decision does nothing for the 3 liberal justices, and if they were going to leak it, why would they wait 3 months to do so.

    but the right can still use it as a useful distraction from the actual monstrous ruling.

    Knight_ on
    aeNqQM9.jpg
    DoodmannTetraNitroCubaneStyrofoam SammichFencingsaxSleeptynicmarajiKetBraHacksawMatevmxmarksOlivawJazzElvenshaeVeagleBucketman
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    annulling what I would assume is tens of thousands of marriages sounds like an insane nightmare from a legal and economic standpoint.

    You think this SCOTUS cares about ramifications? They have not yet.

    I mean shit Clarence would sign on to annul his own interacial marriage.

    Alito literally says they don't care about what happens after their decisions.

    “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly." (p.65)

    In fact he even cited that women can just drop babies off at local fire stations in support of his opinion. He doesn't give a crap what happens to all those children.

    Commander ZoomshrykeFencingsaxmarajiMatevOlivawElvenshaeRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    Start dropping off dolls at the Supreme Court steps I guess

    DoodmannCommander ZoomKaputaFencingsaxMan in the MistsElvenshaeRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    I’ve said it in the other threads I’ll say it here.

    We need a long and sustained protest movement that makes 2020’s summer of protest pale in comparison. And it cannot stop until the government codifies not just Roe, but the very right to privacy that the conservative movement is targeting with Griswold, as well as demanding an expansion of hte Supreme Court to fully, fully nullify the power of the conservative bench.

    No Justice, No Peace.

    Lanz on
    ThawmusMagellExtreaminatusZibblsnrtA Dabble Of TheloniusBloodsheedShadowfireSolarKristmas KthulhuA Kobold's KoboldCidTheSquidMan in the MistsmRahmaniStarZapperMatevmxmarksOlivawJazzBandableBucketmanLabelGnome-Interruptus
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    i tend to agree that this is almost certainly a leak from a clerk on the extreme right to lock in the decision.

    this decision being leaked 2 months ahead of the decision does nothing for the 3 liberal justices, and if they were going to leak it, why would they wait 3 months to do so.

    but they can still use it as a useful distraction from the actual monstrous ruling.

    I don't think we have nearly the information to make a good guess either way.

    Could be someone who just got their hands on it for whatever reason or this is the first opportunity they have had to obtain / leak a copy. Or it could be a test balloon / victory lap by a right winger.

    Or alternately it could be a right winger leaking it to lock it in, because if they soften any of the provisions or try and waffle / compromise they are going to look like they betrayed the expectations they set in this draft and were cowards who wouldn't go all the way.

    But there's a ton of different possible speculation that mostly is a shrug for how / why it got out until more information is available. The bad thing is this is a working draft and I guess its confirmed Alito is writing the decision?

    Dark_SideCommander ZoomshrykeFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusGundiNobeardElvenshaeDoctor DetroitRaijuGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Magell wrote: »
    Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.

    If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.

    I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.

    In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.

    PreacherCouscousFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusSleepQanamilrndmheromarajispool32mRahmaniTorgaironHavelock2.0JazzElvenshaeDac
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Magell wrote: »
    Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.

    If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.

    I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.

    In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.

    Yeah like if anything recently people have called "social" issues distractions.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Phoenix-DMan in the Mistsspool32CelestialBadgerHavelock2.0
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    shryke wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Magell wrote: »
    Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.

    If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.

    I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.

    In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.

    I will say, that I heard a lot of evangelicals who justified voting for Trump purely on abortion bans. But the truth is they would have voted for him anyway. Someone hauled a literal golden statue of Trump into a CPAC convention and not a single one of these deeply religious folks made a stink about the violation of a frankly, pretty damn clear bible commandment.

    Dark_Side on
    shrykeCommander ZoomFencingsaxAngelHedgieLikeaBoshDoodmannZonugalShadowhopeMartini_PhilosopherLord_AsmodeusRingoSleepQanamilStabbity StyleShadowfireKristmas KthulhuA Kobold's KoboldboogedybooKipling217CidTheSquidAegerimarajiasofyeunMan in the MistsMatevNobeardCelestialBadgerHavelock2.0OlivawJazzElvenshaeDoctor DetroitKayne Red RobeBullheadjimb213AntinumericHacksawSmrtnikNiryaRaijuFoolOnTheHillBucketmanLabelGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    annulling what I would assume is tens of thousands of marriages sounds like an insane nightmare from a legal and economic standpoint.

    You think this SCOTUS cares about ramifications? They have not yet.

    I mean shit Clarence would sign on to annul his own interacial marriage.

    Any that do care don't matter anymore anyway. The craziest fuckers are in the driver's seat now and they aren't gonna settle for half-measures if they can get away with it. They're gonna get everything they can out of this court and let the chips fall where they may.

    TuminPreacherDark_SideCommander ZoomTetraNitroCubaneFencingsaxZonugalMartini_PhilosopherLord_AsmodeusRingoA Kobold's KoboldmarajiMan in the MistsNobeardOlivawJazzElvenshaeRaiju
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Zavian wrote: »
    I wonder what the long term affects of this decision would be; I would imagine rather disastrous as funding for foster care, child care, public education, child poverty, etc. is already stretched to the limits. it's a very depressing prospect

    Well, they are explicitly going after LGBT right to exist next

    Yeah thats totally the thing people are missing as well. Alito called out obergefel and lawrence as things they are totally willing to wipe out. That isn’t some theoretical musing, those cases will be overturned as soon as someone can find a test case.

    Those cases both rest on the foundation Roe built.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Its funny we were worried the US would fall into dictatorship, but like if SCOTUS gets to unilaterally decide laws and previous case history doesn't matter based on "we're in charge fuck you" doesn't that effectively make them our dictators? They've said election laws are fine because it benefits their party and keeps them specifically in power and indeed lets them build a bigger power base.

    At what point does this get brought up that we have one branch of government that usurped the other two's authority?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    DoodmannRingoA Dabble Of TheloniusTicaldfjamCidTheSquidMan in the MistsHavelock2.0JazzBullheadAntinumericRaijuBucketman
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    Whoever leaked this did a great thing, the only aspect of this horrorshow that I like is my mental image of Alito and the rest throwing a temper tantrum about the leak. Hope they get away with it and end up the next Chief Justice or something.

    Ideally the Democrats could stop this, but Manchin at the very least is not remotely likely to entertain breaking the filibuster for it, right?

    Kaputa on
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Its funny we were worried the US would fall into dictatorship, but like if SCOTUS gets to unilaterally decide laws and previous case history doesn't matter based on "we're in charge fuck you" doesn't that effectively make them our dictators? They've said election laws are fine because it benefits their party and keeps them specifically in power and indeed lets them build a bigger power base.

    At what point does this get brought up that we have one branch of government that usurped the other two's authority?

    I mean yeah..IMO Alito has clearly anointed himself a king.

    PreacherIncenjucarRingoElvenshaeKayne Red RobeBucketman
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Its funny we were worried the US would fall into dictatorship, but like if SCOTUS gets to unilaterally decide laws and previous case history doesn't matter based on "we're in charge fuck you" doesn't that effectively make them our dictators? They've said election laws are fine because it benefits their party and keeps them specifically in power and indeed lets them build a bigger power base.

    At what point does this get brought up that we have one branch of government that usurped the other two's authority?

    Whenever the media and the rest of the DC bubble can get over clutching their pearls at the idea of someone saying that out loud.

    Maybe this will be the moment. It's certainly the most likely shot. But I'm still pretty skeptical.

    PreacherThawmusCommander ZoomBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    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?

    Ringo
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    Preacher wrote: »
    Its funny we were worried the US would fall into dictatorship, but like if SCOTUS gets to unilaterally decide laws and previous case history doesn't matter based on "we're in charge fuck you" doesn't that effectively make them our dictators? They've said election laws are fine because it benefits their party and keeps them specifically in power and indeed lets them build a bigger power base.

    At what point does this get brought up that we have one branch of government that usurped the other two's authority?


    I’ve been saying for months now the goal is, effectively, NeoConfederate in nature; the restoration of antebellum order and norms.

    It won’t be a centralized dictatorship; they’re too scattered and self-interested for that. The NeoConfederate ideal is effectively an aristocratic rule over society by white, wealthy men, such as the culture of the Antebellum South

    They wold have our Cavalier “Betters” lord over us as we prostrate before their rightful place in society.

    Lanz on
    spool32CelestialBadgerMatevHavelock2.0ElvenshaeRaiju
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    Tumin on
    DoodmannRingospool32ElvenshaeRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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?

    The Senate is the bigger barrier to preventing court packing.

    You need all 50 D Senators to agree to killing the filibuster and then agreeing to packing the court. Only after that does Biden nominating some peeps become the hold up.

    shryke on
    FencingsaxCommander ZoomMarathonkimeShadowfirerndmheromarajiasofyeunMr RayJazzElvenshaeSmrtnikRaijuBucketmanLabelGnome-Interruptus
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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?

    Insufficient votes.

    ThawmuskimeElvenshaeDacRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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?

    The senate is the barrier. Like Manchin and Sinema will not sign on to it. Its not the Biden admin. I mean shit Sinema and Manchin wouldn't even sign on to voting rights.

    But again ultimately whatever the executive or legislative decries can be stopped by SCOTUS they effectively are THE power in the US.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    shrykeFencingsaxMarathonMan in the MistsJazzElvenshaeRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    PreacherThawmusKnight_DoctorArchLord_Asmodeuskimesilence1186SyphonBlueMan in the MistsJazzElvenshaeRaijuBucketmanLabel
  • ThawmusThawmus +Jackface Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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?

    It's always on the table but it requires magic spells of compulsion to be cast and I don't know how they work. Or where to find them. Or how to do magic.

    steam_sig.png
    Twitch: Thawmus83
    Youtube: Thawmus
    ElvenshaeRaiju
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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?

    Biden's hands are basically tied because Manchin/Sinema wouldn't allow the filibuster to die, and I doubt this news changes any of that. It could maybe change things for Sinema, since the court just blatantly stated her identity/sexual preference is in their sights. But I imagine she figures they'd never come for someone like her.

    And Biden hasn't really telegraphed any interest in dealing with the problems of the court; he made a half assed group project to "advise" him on the court which amounted to a milquetoast report that said practically nothing, and advocated for some small, tepid changes. And they've been dead silent on every violation the court has made since, including sitting on the TX abortion law which cuts directly at the heart of American judicial philosophy and stare decisis, and comically slanted opinions on election cases, repeated violations of the shadow docket. And now this.

    Dark_Side on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    If Congress had passed a law regarding abortion they could just strip jurisdiction. Since they never did, it's up to the states if SCOTUS reverses a right it created.

    Packing the courts is one solution but there are others you could use first to put the Court on a political back foot.

    If the Senate wont do anything you cant do any of them, though.

    Tumin on
    rahkeesh2000Gnome-Interruptus
  • GilgaronGilgaron Registered User regular
    Maybe Collins and Murkowski would actually join in with the D's and do something instead of pretending to, but that would be pretty shocking.

    Phoenix-DMagellFencingsaxTuminshrykenever dieRingoAimStabbity StyleA Kobold's KoboldNobodyForarronzoAegeriMan in the Mistsmarajispool32MatevHavelock2.0thatassemblyguyOlivawJazzElvenshaeMorganVSmrtnikMunkus BeaverNiryaRaijuBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    shryke wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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?

    The Senate is the bigger barrier to preventing court packing.

    You need all 50 D Senators to agree to killing the filibuster and then agreeing to packing the court. Only after that does Biden nominating some peeps become the hold up.
    Thanks, I forgot whether congress or the president had that power.

    So then this is going to happen unless the populace rises up and starts rioting/striking/boycotting etc. Or Manchin and Sinema agree to kill the filibuster. Neither of those options seems likely but the latter honestly seems less likely, so I guess it's time for the former?

    Kaputa on
    TuminCommander ZoomRingowobblyheadedbobMatevElvenshae
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    If Congress had passed a law regarding abortion they could just strip jurisdiction. Since they never did, it's up to the states if SCOTUS reverses a right it created.

    Packing the courts is one solution but there are others you could use first to put the Court on a political back foot.

    This ignores what SCOTUS did with the VRA. They literally said "congress passed a law badly so it doesn't count anymore racism is over."

    SCOTUS has jurisdiction on literally everything, a power they granted themselves.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Commander ZoomshrykeZibblsnrtMartini_PhilosopherKnight_AimA Kobold's KoboldLilnoobsTicaldfjamOghulkMan in the MistsYamiB.MorganVDacRaijuBandableLabel
  • XantomasXantomas Registered User regular
    I expect that the incoming Republican Congress will launch an impeachment of Sotomayor for being a radical leftist leaky leaker, even if she didn't do it.

    jungleroomxmarajiSmrtnikRaijuGnome-Interruptus
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    Honestly at this point if Biden nominated some justices to unpack the McConnell / Trump court and they had the 50 to dismiss the filibuster and appoint them they would actually end up seated.

    I am positive Cruz or one of the other scummy fuckers would sue and find some hack judge to issue an injunction, and then SCOTUS would have a 6-3 decision that Biden isn't permitted to change the court makeup for whatever reason.

    HOPEFULLY cooler minds would prevail at some point in there but fuck if I'd want to count on it.

    PreachershrykeRaijuBucketman
  • TuminTumin Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    Preacher wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    If Congress had passed a law regarding abortion they could just strip jurisdiction. Since they never did, it's up to the states if SCOTUS reverses a right it created.

    Packing the courts is one solution but there are others you could use first to put the Court on a political back foot.

    This ignores what SCOTUS did with the VRA. They literally said "congress passed a law badly so it doesn't count anymore racism is over."

    SCOTUS has jurisdiction on literally everything, a power they granted themselves.

    If this is your thesis, why would court packing succeed? "We dont agree that you can do this".

    I mean maybe the weeds of "what use of power to cow SCOTUS by Congress would be best politically and effectively" are moot given that Congress wont wield it, either way.

    Tumin on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    If Congress had passed a law regarding abortion they could just strip jurisdiction. Since they never did, it's up to the states if SCOTUS reverses a right it created.

    Packing the courts is one solution but there are others you could use first to put the Court on a political back foot.

    This ignores what SCOTUS did with the VRA. They literally said "congress passed a law badly so it doesn't count anymore racism is over."

    SCOTUS has jurisdiction on literally everything, a power they granted themselves.

    If this is your thesis, why would court packing succeed? "We dont agree that you can do this".

    I mean maybe the weeds of "what use of power by Congress would be best politically and effectively" are moot given that Congress wont wield it, either way.

    I'm not saying it would! I mean I theorized earlier we're in a dictatorship no one is acknowledging because SCOTUS can effectively invalidate any law they disagree with. The only power the other branches have is to ignore SCOTUS and make the cold war constitutional crisis hot.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    TuminCommander Zoom
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Magell wrote: »
    Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.

    If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.

    I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.

    In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.

    They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.

    How do they all survive without Roe?

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
    Man in the MistsGnome-Interruptus
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Magell wrote: »
    Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.

    If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.

    I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.

    In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.

    I will say, that I heard a lot of evangelicals who justified voting for Trump purely on abortion bans. But the truth is they would have voted for him anyway. Someone hauled a literal golden statue of Trump into a CPAC convention and not a single one of these deeply religious folks made a stink about the violation of a frankly, pretty damn clear bible commandment.

    This is a pretty strange conclusion to make when they got exactly what they were bargaining for. They wanted hyper conservative justices, the narcissist candidate got them, and now Roe is being overturned. They weren't duped, they got the very pound of flesh they demanded.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
    TetraNitroCubanejmcdonaldMartini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomFencingsaxIncenjucarsilence1186boogedybooMan in the Mistsenc0reLucedesCrippl3NobeardMr RayMatevOlivawJazzElvenshaejimb213MorganVSmrtnikNiryaRaijuBucketman
  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    Tumin wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    If Congress had passed a law regarding abortion they could just strip jurisdiction. Since they never did, it's up to the states if SCOTUS reverses a right it created.

    Packing the courts is one solution but there are others you could use first to put the Court on a political back foot.

    This ignores what SCOTUS did with the VRA. They literally said "congress passed a law badly so it doesn't count anymore racism is over."

    SCOTUS has jurisdiction on literally everything, a power they granted themselves.

    If this is your thesis, why would court packing succeed? "We dont agree that you can do this".

    I mean maybe the weeds of "what use of power to cow SCOTUS by Congress would be best politically and effectively" are moot given that Congress wont wield it, either way.

    Packing is, at least initially, a tourniquet more than a systemic fix, but a larger court would also be less susceptible to the caprice of individual ideologues sitting on it (or to a president seeking to appoint a couple as vacancies arise).

    A Kobold's KoboldElvenshaeRaiju
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Magell wrote: »
    Even if the Democrats can't succeed in stopping this right now their response has to be loud and aggressive and they've got to keep pummeling at this because not only is women's reproductive rights an important issue in itself they are clearly using it as a building block to get rid of a lot of other rights that were hard fought for.

    If they can't succeed in a stay on this in any way and then lose the midterms this year, I genuinely do not believe the party survives this. They've been relying on Wade for 50 years to hold back a flood and the dam is breaking.

    I really don't think they've been relying on Roe v Wade to win them elections.

    In fact one of the biggest issues that's led to this moment is how little concern anyone but the right has shown about who controls the courts.

    They've been relying on Wade to keep abortion legal while they dabbled in other bullshit like what Pelosi is doing now in Texas. They relied on Planned Parenthood to make up for the Hyde Amendment and other shortcomings in US abortion policies. The reason they never had pro-choice as a litmus test for their centrist candidates is Roe. PP, NARAL, and dozens of other organizations that focus on reproductive rights raise money and campaign for Democratic candidates.

    How do they all survive without Roe?

    How don't they? Nothing you've said suggest the Democratic party is going to dissolve because the SCOTUS decides women have no rights. If anything, as with RBG's death, this will probably energize people and get them more politically active and involved.

    Fencingsax
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    shryke wrote: »
    Tumin wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    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.

    This court doesn't give a fuck and will flat out nullify laws passed by Congress.

    You need to pack the courts and get the Senate to actually work.

    He's saying there is no point (and you can't) pack the court if you can't pass laws that they will flat out nullifying. Packing the court is putting the cart before the horse, we have to fix the broken legislature first.

    Doodmann on
    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Help me Marie Kondo my life and buy my old stuff
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited May 3
    There is no one single solution to fix this, because it's a systemic problem. Meaning the system is the problem.

    DarkPrimus on
    usnTyq4.jpg
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    sanstodoDoodmannZibblsnrtMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxMcHogerBloodsheedA Kobold's KoboldMagellIncenjucarAegeriMan in the MistsDee KaeOlivawJazzElvenshaeBullheadjimb213VeagleHacksawNiryaRaijuBandablePenumbraBucketmanGnome-Interruptus
Sign In or Register to comment.