Current Events > Supreme Court to strike down Roe v. Wade, according to leaked draft opinion

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kuuko posted...

I'm surprised to see the sentiment being taken away from this that voting doesn't matter and it's all pointless. That's the exact opposite sentiment you should take away. Democratic voters' reluctance to vote when it matters keeps biting them, while Republican voters solidly show up to the polls every election. That reluctance is in part why Clinton just barely lost in 2016. There are other reasons she lost too, believe me. But in an alternate reality where Democrats solidly vote and Clinton wins, then Clinton chooses a judge to replace Scalia, a judge to replace Kennedy (most likely), and either Clinton or Biden chooses a judge to replace Ginsburg. Alongside Democrats replacing Breyer as Biden did. In that reality it's a very strong 6-3 majority of young Democratic judges in the SC and we'd be debating whether or not Republicans would ever take back the court in the next few decades. The important takeaway is how important every election at every level is, if you care about something like pro-choice or anything else.

People vote Democrat, and Democrats do nothing to prevent shit like this from happening when they hold power.

Voting doesn't matter. It won't matter until we get rid of the electora college and until we eliminate gerrymandering.

How do you go back on something like this?

This timeline is fucked beyond repair.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

People vote Democrat, and Democrats do nothing to prevent shit like this from happening when they hold power.

Voting doesn't matter. It won't matter until we get rid of the electora college and until we eliminate gerrymandering.

Objectively Democrats would have a majority in the Supreme Court right now if Clinton won in 2016 so objectively it does matter.

Returning_CEmen posted...

How do you go back on something like this?

You don't, which is what the Right wants.

I was never one of the people saying "they'll never do it" and being apathetic about voting, but I didn't actually think they'd do it. Figured it was one of those things they'd endlessly dangle in front of their inbred base.

help me understand just to make sure; what does "Draft opinion" mean?

does that mean it's been deliberated and decided already, they just haven't formalized it yet? or is it overturned as of one hour ago

When the legal system fails to deliver justice, thats when vigilante justice thrives.

PatrickMahomes posted...

help me understand just to make sure; what does "Draft opinion" mean?

does that mean it's been deliberated and decided already, they just haven't formalized it yet? or is it overturned as of one hour ago

The first of those. It's a rough draft, subject to change.

Geriatric Outdated Party.

PatrickMahomes posted...

help me understand just to make sure; what does "Draft opinion" mean?

does that mean it's been deliberated and decided already, they just haven't formalized it yet? or is it overturned as of one hour ago

I think the former.

As for the decision itself, it think it will cost the GOP in November. Restarting the fight for women's rights in an election year is a very stupid and bad idea.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Republicans and their moronic base who can't think for themselves

Takuya Lee posted...

I think the former.

As for the decision itself, it think it will cost the GOP in November. Restarting the fight for women's rights in an election year is a very stupid and bad idea.

You think too highly of this country IMO

PatrickMahomes posted...

help me understand just to make sure; what does "Draft opinion" mean?

does that mean it's been deliberated and decided already, they just haven't formalized it yet? or is it overturned as of one hour ago

The first. Also, just so you understand the significance. This literally NEVER happens. Opinions don't get leaked. Heads are going to roll hard for this.

Kuuko posted...

I'm surprised to see the sentiment being taken away from this that voting doesn't matter and it's all pointless. That's the exact opposite sentiment you should take away. Democratic voters' reluctance to vote when it matters keeps biting them, while Republican voters solidly show up to the polls every election. That reluctance is in part why Clinton just barely lost in 2016. There are other reasons she lost too, believe me. But in an alternate reality where Democrats solidly vote and Clinton wins, then Clinton chooses a judge to replace Scalia, a judge to replace Kennedy (most likely), and either Clinton or Biden chooses a judge to replace Ginsburg. Alongside Democrats replacing Breyer as Biden did. In that reality it's a very strong 6-3 majority of young Democratic judges in the SC and we'd be debating whether or not Republicans would ever take back the court in the next few decades. The important takeaway is how important every election at every level is, if you care about something like pro-choice or anything else.

The Democrats have majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House right now. If they wanted to, they could put those to use to legalize abortion access nationwide. Also there are probably enough anti-choice Democrats to scuttle the effort, because it would mean to do purity-tests on non-progressives, and wouldn't it be silly, because certainly Roe v. Wade will *never* be overturned...I, err, I am just now hearing...
But, of course, they failed to do so every other chance they had to do this since 1973, why would they start doing something now?

Moreover, our very political system minimizes the importance of votes via gerrymandering: either via the biased drawing of House districts or already built-in, as in the Senate. Some states are so thoroughly gerrymandered it would take a supermajority of voters to kick out their Republican majorities!
So, no, I'm sorry, but voting hasn't solved this problem and it will almost certainly continue to not solve this problem. In all likelihood, it will only become less and less meaningful as the Republican supermajorities and the courts continue to undermine voting rights in carefree defiance of the popular will.

Takuya Lee posted...

I think the former.

As for the decision itself, it think it will cost the GOP in November. Restarting the fight for women's rights in an election year is a very stupid and bad idea.

You severely underestimate how dumb and indoctrinated most Republican voters are. White women are among the biggest supporters of the Republican Party

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Because there has been a segment of the population that has been pissed since the passage of the various civil rights legislation over the last 60 years and are hellbent on taking us backwards.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1277695835413925888
He can still fulfill this campaign promise.

Kuuko posted...

Objectively Democrats would have a majority in the Supreme Court right now if Clinton won in 2016 so objectively it does matter.

Obama campaigned on it and did nothing witha supermajority because "they would never go after abortion"

My opinions on the current state of the US can not be posted on most social media platforms.

But I echo the sentiment of anger and frustration shared by others.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

The Democrats have majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House right now. If they wanted to, they could put those to use to legalize abortion access nationwide.
But, of course, they failed to do so every other chance they had to do this since 1973, why would they start doing something now?

Moreover, our very political system minimizes the importance of votes via gerrymandering: either via the biased drawing of House districts or already built-in, as in the Senate. Some states are so thoroughly gerrymandered it would take a supermajority of voters to kick out their Republican majorities!
So, no, I'm sorry, but voting hasn't solved this problem and it will almost certainly continue to not solve this problem. In all likelihood, it will only become less and less meaningful as the Republican supermajorities and the courts continue to undermine voting rights in carefree defiance of the popular will.

The majority the Democrats have now is so paper-thin they can't even get Manchin and Sinema to vote on routine spending bills. If you want to cast your vote aside for that reason then go ahead because you've clearly barely thought it out either way.

Again, objectively the Supreme Court would not have ruled this right now in a parallel universe where Hillary Clinton wins in 2016. Objectively, the makeup of the court would then be completely backwards and Republicans' assault on women's rights would be beaten back by decades. If you hear that, comprehend that, and still think "but there's still no point in voting though" then I think there's obviously no point in discussing it more with you either.

Kuuko posted...

The majority the Democrats have now is so paper-thin they can't even get Manchin and Sinema to vote on routine spending bills. If you want to cast your vote aside for that reason then go ahead because you've clearly barely thought it out either way.

Again, objectively the Supreme Court would not have ruled this right now in a parallel universe where Hillary Clinton wins in 2016. Objectively, the makeup of the court would then be completely backwards. If you hear that, comprehend that, and still think "but there's no point" then I think there's obviously no point in discussing it more with you either.

Hillary won the popular vote. Democrats have overwhelmingly won the popular vote.

The issue is that it doesn't fucking matter because states that are full of empty land have more voting power than people.

Kuuko posted...

The majority the Democrats have now is so paper-thin they can't even get Manchin and Sinema to vote on routine spending bills. If you want to cast your vote aside for that reason then go ahead because you've clearly barely thought it out either way.

Again, objectively the Supreme Court would not have ruled this right now in a parallel universe where Hillary Clinton wins in 2016. Objectively, the makeup of the court would then be completely backwards. If you hear that, comprehend that, and still think "but there's no point" then I think there's obviously no point in discussing it more with you either.

We don't live in that universe, we live in the universe where the hubris of a bunch of overrated old women has driven us to ruin.
But, of course, Hillary actually won the popular vote, but, of course, getting more votes doesn't actually fucking matter!

Intro2Logic posted...

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1277695835413925888
He can still fulfill this campaign promise.

Not unless the Democrats win the midterms in a big way. Get a supermajority and pass all the shit we need

Intro2Logic posted...

He can still fulfill this campaign promise.

Have Queen Sinema and Emperor Manchin given their approval?

The problem is that left-wing parties are always afraid of pissing off conservative and on the fence voters while conservative parties do not give a shit at all.

This is a universal problem among basically any two party system across the world right now. Conservatives have a pretty inherent advantage by pushing for the status quo to older people who are typically afraid of change. They fear monger, deflect and do a much better job at sneaking things through that most people would disagree with if they knew all of the details on what they're actually doing. In fact that's a major reason they are so angry about this leak. They aren't used to their actual opinions and goals being seen this clearly.

The replies to this Fox News guy's tweet are maybe a window into a certain worldview at the moment:
https://twitter.com/kevincorke/status/1521299636929114122

TheHoldSteady posted...

Not unless the Democrats win the midterms in a big way. Get a supermajority and pass all the shit we need

lol at the thought of democrats actually doing anything at all

Intro2Logic posted...

The replies to this Fox News guy's tweet are maybe a window into a certain worldview at the moment:
https://twitter.com/kevincorke/status/1521299636929114122

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/0/AAeQkrAADMT8.jpg
jesus

Punished_Blinx posted...

pushing for the status quo to older people who are typically afraid of change.

Roe v. Wade is the status quo; getting rid of it is a massive change. That's not what conservatism is about.

Christ...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/6/3/AAPNOcAADMT_.jpg

Intro2Logic posted...

Roe v. Wade is the status quo; getting rid of it is a massive change. That's not what conservatism is about.

It's also about regressing things further back behind the modern status quo. Which is what this is. Religious fundamentalism is a large aspect of most conservative politics.

YellowSUV posted...

The Ghost Stories dub predicated this over 15 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOpTPsHq1eE

Holy shit

Intro2Logic posted...

Roe v. Wade is the status quo; getting rid of it is a massive change. That's not what conservatism is about.

Conservatism isn't about preserving the status quo, it's about preserving hierarchy

So I'm not an expert on politics, but with this sham of a supreme court would it even be possible to pass a law legalizing abortion nationwide?

DarthAragorn posted...

The thing is it's not actually about states' rights.

I know it's actually dumb to engage right-wing rhetoric, it's just such a massively flawed argument that I can't help myself.

What the fuck is happening to this country? My fucking GOD

DarthAragorn posted...

So I'm not an expert on politics, but with this sham of a supreme court would it even be possible to pass a law legalizing abortion nationwide?

It's possible in theory, but practically it's probably not going to happen until democrats get a big enough super majority that the pro-life democrats voting against the measure won't tank it.

So it probably won't happen.

CableZL posted...

It's possible in theory, but practically it's probably not going to happen until democrats get a big enough super majority that the pro-life democrats voting against the measure won't tank it.

So it probably won't happen.

No, I mean wouldn't the supreme court have to approve it AFTER it being passed in the senate?

A loooooot of Republicans are pissed as hell about this leak. Being leaked like this creates the potential for a different course.

This leaker is more a hero and a whistle-blower

Rathinor posted...

A loooooot of Republicans are pissed as hell about this leak. Being leaked like this creates the potential for a different course.

This leaker is more a hero and a whistle-blower

Shame not a single one of them has any morals, or they'd be more pissed about the content than the leak

America is literally a third world country lol

Wait so why are republicans allowed to have secret opinions that directly affect the legal system?

Time for civil war

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Wait so why are republicans allowed to have secret opinions that directly affect the legal system?

A lot of the secrecy surrounding the Supreme Court is nonsense, but drafts are just initial versions of what eventually become rulings with the force of law.

Returning_CEmen posted...

How do you go back on something like this?

You let republicans have any power

These five conservative justices and all of the republican congressmen can fuck off into the absolute deepest fires of Hell.

So much for brinkmanship. That just gets you pushed off the edge.