American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[Haganham]

It's not well under Biden now, but was better under Obama and better still, under Trump. To think that too many people traded that for turning away from Trump because of nonsense over mean tweets or being incompetent on COVID.

Trumps economy was based on Obamas policies. Once his own were implemented it started to fail - before covid.
In a way, covid was a gift from heaven for him - something to blame for the failure aside from himself. Some speculate that he let it get out of hand on purpose for that reason.

The US was in better economic shape under Trump, despite Covid then it is under Biden now. RDI peaked between Feb and May of 2021. Yes economic policies can take time for effects to fully pan out, But for your claim you would need to believe that Trump's policies did nothing until just after Biden repealed them all and then all took effect at once. By that reasoning we never should have repealed them, so we could still enjoy "Obama's economy".

[Ifreann]

What a bunch of malarkey.

So if someones daughter dies from an ectopic pregnancy they will simply go oh well and not be livid about it in addition to being devastated with grief knowing it could have been prevented?

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

[Neutraligon]

So if someones daughter dies from an ectopic pregnancy they will simply go oh well and not be livid about it in addition to being devastated with grief knowing it could have been prevented?

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

Lumen has already shown they do not care about human life. Covid thread should have been enough for that...but they also support Thanos, which...kinda explains the Covid thing come to think about it.

[Haganham]

So if someones daughter dies from an ectopic pregnancy they will simply go oh well and not be livid about it in addition to being devastated with grief knowing it could have been prevented?

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

[Neutraligon]

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

You think they could have gotten 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote for it?

[Ifreann]

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

Very obviously the people with the power to do that have never wanted to.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

Do you always pretend that the US Constitution is the most easily amendable one ever?
I mean jfc to de jure outlaw chattel slavery in the Constitution took a literally bloody civil war.

[Vassenor]

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

Remember, things do not have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to be protected by it.

[Neutraligon]

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

Remember, things do not have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to be protected by it.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case anymore.

[Vassenor]

Remember, things do not have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to be protected by it.

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case anymore.

OK, it's fine to restrict free speech on the internet since the internet is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Has anyone heard of 2000 Mules? Apparently the Trump crowd believes that it will expose voter fraud.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Has anyone heard of 2000 Mules? Apparently the Trump crowd believes that it will expose voter fraud.

do we rlly care what a bunch of people professing to the American version of Talibanism believes?

[Neutraligon]

Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case anymore.

OK, it's fine to restrict free speech on the internet since the internet is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution.

??? Is this supposed to be an argument?

[The Jamesian Republic]

Has anyone heard of 2000 Mules? Apparently the Trump crowd believes that it will expose voter fraud.

do we rlly care what a bunch of people professing to the American version of Talibanism believes?

I spend too much time tracking QANON on R/Qult Headquarters.

[Tarsonis]

What a bunch of malarkey.

Do you think women will just stand by and allow their bodily sovereignty to be taken from them?

Woman are second class citizens who don't have the right to discuss their own bodies and healthcare with their doctors -- while misogynistic assholes who continually vote down all the social safety nets for impoverished women with unwanted children feel superior for sticking it to the whores.

Oh cut the bullshit. Women are just as divided on this issue as men are:

43% of women identify as pro-life.
20% of women want abortion banned completely,
45% or women say it should only be legal in certain circumstances.

Stop acting like this is an all women against the evil patriarchy issue, it's utterly nonsense.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abo ... ender.aspx

[Haganham]

Remember, things do not have to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to be protected by it.

Yes. there are three standards:
Enumeration, that is, explicit inclusion in the text IE: the right to bear arms, right to a jury, ect
Prerequisites from other rights: IE; the right to a presumption of innocence, which is required for a person to receive due process.
Traditionally recognized rights, that is, rights that society has traditionally recognized to exist, which do not need to be mentioned in the bill of rights, since it is explicitly not exhaustive: IE the right to emigrate, the right to marital privacy
The latter two being so called unenumerated rights.

There is no question that abort is neither a enumerated right, it appears nowhere in the text, nor is is a traditionally recognized right, it has been subject to regulation throughout the nations history(indeed the court recognized this it's decision)
Roe V Wade hinges on the claim that a right to abortion is necessary under a right to privacy; shaky ground, as there is no clear connection between abortion and privacy and abortion had been regulated throught history with no question of it's being criminalized violating a right to privacy. That is before getting into the issue that the court didn't just infer a right to abortion, but and entire regulatory mechnicsm to go along with it. They had, I think, a very good standard, too bad they created it with the legislature's ink.
It was only a matter of time before it got reversed.

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

You think they could have gotten 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote for it?

You don't need to. You can do it by referendum as well. There's also, critically, no time limit. That means you don't actually need to get most states to agree at any one time. You can simply ratify the amendment as the opportunity arises, or you can create opportunities by campaigning in states one by one to maximize turnout.

Very obviously the people with the power to do that have never wanted to.

This is the real reason. Abortion is too useful as a tool to get out the vote. If it was protected then you'd be expected to do more then appoint a person to the court if the opportunity arises. I don't think it's a coincidence that it was reversed now.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

there is no method of amending the US Constitution that involves a referendum lmao

[Moscareinas]

You say this, and yet you furiously argue against any suggestion for preventing that situation beyond waiting until 2023 and hoping that there are enough pro-choice Democrats. When the Supreme Court overturns Roe and Casey, abortion will be banned, and people will die. There's no way to stop that that doesn't threaten the status quo of the system. What do you think people should prioritise? Saving lives or preserving the independence of the Supreme Court? Upholding the law or upholding basic human rights?

Y'all had 60 years to amend the constitution to protect abortion.

yes, and the equal rights amendment would pass muster this side of 1979

[The Jamesian Republic]

there is no method of amending the US Constitution that involves a referendum lmao

That should be how it’s done. Alas it’s not.

[San Lumen]

there is no method of amending the US Constitution that involves a referendum lmao

That should be how it’s done. Alas it’s not.

You’d need to amend the constitution for that.

[Moscareinas]

That should be how it’s done. Alas it’s not.

You’d need to amend the constitution for that.

you'd need to get 38 states to agree, and if it fails to pass muster, oh well, guess we'll do without

this, after all, is democracya game

[Moscareinas]

i mean, supremes go beat the shit out of obergefell before reversing its decision not even a decade ago -- maybe thomas even gets cocky and pisses on a few other previously unmentioned rulings for good measure, just to rub the urea in

maybe a bill to codify obergefell passes congress, gets signed, and -- miracle of miracles! -- isn't shot down by any courts or curbstomped by state legislatures out to write up their own bills stating "this bill follows the TRUE constitution, which says as such: fuck the gays -- and oh, if you try to amend this, not only won't you be allowed to, we'll fucking liquidate you, your spouse, your kids, everyone!"

but then, hoohah! instead of getting plastered all over the date of its passing, same as with the rest of the amendments before the prohibition amendment, it instead follows the eighteenth amendment and all other amendments since -- and since all of the united states is but a series of republican masochists begging to be pussywhipped by their favorite strongman, not only does it share the fate of the equal rights amendment, it fares even worse!

new yorker gays rejoice, for their compatriots in other states won't get to enjoy the rights their very democratic state has given them, almost by default! hahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Senkaku]

Do you think women will just stand by and allow their bodily sovereignty to be taken from them?

Oh cut the bullshit. Women are just as divided on this issue as men are:

43% of women identify as pro-life.
20% of women want abortion banned completely,
45% or women say it should only be legal in certain circumstances.

Stop acting like this is an all women against the evil patriarchy issue, it's utterly nonsense.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abo ... ender.aspx

...what I'm reading here is that 88% of women would be against a complete ban? Try all you like to fudge the numbers, but polling consistently shows huge majorities of Americans wanted to keep Roe around and don't want to ban abortion.

[Senkaku]

i mean, supremes go beat the shit out of obergefell before reversing its decision not even a decade ago -- maybe thomas even gets cocky and pisses on a few other previously unmentioned rulings for good measure, just to rub the urea in

maybe a bill to codify obergefell passes congress, gets signed, and -- miracle of miracles! -- isn't shot down by any courts or curbstomped by state legislatures out to write up their own bills stating "this bill follows the TRUE constitution, which says as such: fuck the gays -- and oh, if you try to amend this, not only won't you be allowed to, we'll fucking liquidate you, your spouse, your kids, everyone!"

but then, hoohah! instead of getting plastered all over the date of its passing, same as with the rest of the amendments before the prohibition amendment, it instead follows the eighteenth amendment and all other amendments since -- and since all of the united states is but a series of republican masochists begging to be pussywhipped by their favorite strongman, not only does it share the fate of the equal rights amendment, it fares even worse!

new yorker gays rejoice, for their compatriots in other states won't get to enjoy the rights their very democratic state has given them, almost by default! hahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you high?

[Tarsonis]

Oh cut the bullshit. Women are just as divided on this issue as men are:

43% of women identify as pro-life.
20% of women want abortion banned completely,
45% or women say it should only be legal in certain circumstances.

Stop acting like this is an all women against the evil patriarchy issue, it's utterly nonsense.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abo ... ender.aspx

...what I'm reading here is that 88% of women would be against a complete ban? Try all you like to fudge the numbers, but polling consistently shows huge majorities of Americans wanted to keep Roe around and don't want to ban abortion.

nevermind the fact anybody's desire to keep roe has fuck all to do with whether roe should be kept, you're the one fudging numbers.