Roe vs. Wade overturned

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
DC needs statehood immediately. If Republicans take over the House and Senate and White House, they will undoubtedly pass laws banning abortion in the nation’s capital.

People who cannot vote for members of Congress would have even MORE of their rights taken away by members of Congress.

Get rid of the filibuster, and get us our statehood now. In 2016, only 4% of us voted for Trump and now we risk losing our rights to 3 of his Supreme Court justices? Hell no.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Posts
6,612
Reaction score
13,752
Location
Not HERE.
How about that, Joe.


Because it's Joe...
giphy.gif
 

Roller

Elite Member
Posts
1,479
Reaction score
2,890
Not enough young people vote. That’s what this comes down to. You can blame the Democratic politicians if you want. And maybe they need to be blamed for not doing better with pushing young people to turn out.

If young people voted at the same rates as old people, Democrats would have supermajorities. How do we know? Look at Obama - young people turned out for Obama, and we got 60 D senators. Democrats need a candidate that will energize young people to vote. OR young people could just get out there and do it.
I don't know that capturing the young vote will guarantee victory by Democrats, but many of their current office-holders won't garner enough support from that important demographic, especially at the national level. Biden should not run in '24, nor should Harris, and Sanders is too old. The names of a few governors and senators who haven't run for president have been floated, though I don't see an obvious choice. Regardless, the longer Biden continues to say he'll try again and doesn't step aside, the harder it will be.
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Posts
6,612
Reaction score
13,752
Location
Not HERE.
He can join Susan Collins in clutching their pearls.

Whaaaaat? You mean judges from the Federalist society voted to overturn Roe v Wade? This is SHOCKING!!!!

I just read to confirm what I thought - 6 of 9 justices all hail from this extreme right society. That is fucking crazy-ass shit. Talk about the real-world Illuminati....

Susan Collins shouldn't ever be mentioned anymore, unless it's a story about how she got lost on the way to falling into a sinkhole and no one knows where she is.
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540338547370205185/

HeartyDearBeaver-max-1mb.gif

I posted that to make myself feel better, I love that movie.
 
Last edited:

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Posts
6,612
Reaction score
13,752
Location
Not HERE.
I don't know that capturing the young vote will guarantee victory by Democrats, but many of their current office-holders won't garner enough support from that important demographic, especially at the national level. Biden should not run in '24, nor should Harris, and Sanders is too old. The names of a few governors and senators who haven't run for president have been floated, though I don't see an obvious choice. Regardless, the longer Biden continues to say he'll try again and doesn't step aside, the harder it will be.
The problem with that logic / thinking is that the sad reality your list of who should NOT run, would NEVER end. There's always going to be a reason why someone shouldn't run, as we saw just in the variety of candidates who ran against Biden in the primary. It isn't possible to rally all the disparate interests in the dem party, which is why focusing on running against someone who has demonstrated they would be worse for the country worked.

Until there are other party options, I'm afraid we are going to be back to running the choice that has the best chance to defeat the authoritarian of choice from the republican party.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
I don't know that capturing the young vote will guarantee victory by Democrats, but many of their current office-holders won't garner enough support from that important demographic, especially at the national level. Biden should not run in '24, nor should Harris, and Sanders is too old. The names of a few governors and senators who haven't run for president have been floated, though I don't see an obvious choice. Regardless, the longer Biden continues to say he'll try again and doesn't step aside, the harder it will be.

1656095545816.jpeg


It would absolutely flip everything to Democratic control. Is it likely to happen? No; young people either don’t care, or they’re in college and registered to vote in their home state and didn’t get an absentee ballot, or they are working 2 jobs and don’t see a way to vote in their busy schedules (even though they could make time for it).

If any politician found a way to get support of young people, and then get that 18-29 line up to the 65+ line, they’d win it all easily.

Obama was the best at this that I can recall in my lifetime. I think Robert Kennedy had a similar draw. We need somebody who can do the same, and soon.
 

mollyc

seeker of light
Site Donor
Posts
1,237
Reaction score
4,088
Main Camera
Fujifilm
We need someone neutral. Actually we need a lot of neutral someones. The polarity at the ends of each group is what is killing this country. Who stands for all the normal people? And I don't mean hetero white people as "normal." I mean normal as in people who want an equal chance as everyone else and who can live their lives as they want without unnecessary government mandates and interference.
 

Roller

Elite Member
Posts
1,479
Reaction score
2,890
The problem with that logic / thinking is that the sad reality your list of who should NOT run, would NEVER end. There's always going to be a reason why someone shouldn't run, as we saw just in the variety of candidates who ran against Biden in the primary. It isn't possible to rally all the disparate interests in the dem party, which is why focusing on running against someone who has demonstrated they would be worse for the country worked.

Until there are other party options, I'm afraid we are going to be back to running the choice that has the best chance to defeat the authoritarian of choice from the republican party.
Of course we need someone who has a good chance of beating Trump, DeSantis, or whoever runs on the Republican ticket, but I don't think it should be Biden, Harris, or Sanders. However, the process of identifying who it will be needs to begin now, and Biden should open the door to that. If he's concerned that declaring he won't run would be the same as saying his presidency failed, it can happen in the background, though it would be difficult to keep under wraps.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Site Donor
Posts
7,606
Reaction score
11,893
Stepping back from the emotion of it for a bit.

SUPREME COURT TO CONGRESS: We’re not here to legislate. That’s your job.

CONGRESS TO SUPREME COURT: OK. OK. Just one question. What does legislate mean? We asked around and nobody seems to know. Does it involve fund raising? That’s pretty much all we do.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
Stepping back from the emotion of it for a bit.

SUPREME COURT TO CONGRESS: We’re not here to legislate. That’s your job.

CONGRESS TO SUPREME COURT: OK. OK. Just one question. What does legislate mean? We asked around and nobody seems to know. Does it involve fund raising? That’s pretty much all we do.
They said that in the abortion decision. But when it came to gun rights and voting rights, they changed the laws of Congress (and state legislatures) to suit their personal views, overriding the will of the people.

Again, every bit of “judicial philosophy” from this court is a straight-up lie. Please tell me what their philosophy is. States’ rights? Textual originalism? They literally contradicted THEMSELVES in a span of 24 hours with the gun ruling and the abortion ruling. They’re all over the map and they only care about pushing the extreme ideology of the Federalist society.

Pack the court. Institute term limits.
 

ronntaylor

Elite Member
Posts
1,361
Reaction score
2,537
"It would be best for the country if I retired now, but I really want to do it during Hillary Clinton's presidency because that would be historically special (unlike a black president I guess)"

-Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The dark irony of what historically special event was actually accomplished partially due to this decision is painful.
I remember some Dems were mad about calls for RBG to retire once Pres. Obama won a 2nd term. I thought she should have announced her retirement after his 2nd inauguration. So many screamed "What about Kennedy?" Kennedy wasn't beset with severe health issues. Kennedy wasn't slipping. And I have no doubt that she was slipping by then. I was surprised that she made it towards the very end of Mango's term. And immediately knew the consequences of her death just seven weeks before the election. I wonder if the court had been 5-4, conservatives over liberals, if CJ Roberts would have ruled with the conservative bloc to eviscerate Roe. Guess it doesn't matter.

At this point the RW court has announced its intentions: rolling back rights for disfavored groups and even large segments of society. Today it's women and their bodily autonomy. Soon it will be queer folk and their right to privacy, and marriage & civil equality. They'll continue to take away voting rights for Black and Brown folk. And once they come out and allow the banning of birth control and the further suppression of civil liberties it'll be too late. So many of us told folk that it was a dangerous game since Bill Clinton.

This shouldn't be a wake up call. Progressives/liberals/socialists/whatever have been hitting the snooze bar for far too long and now they're waking up realizing it's far too late to be just waking up. If they don't come out and keep the GQP from taking over, they deserve everything that's coming. There's no time to sugar coat or talk about what older folk and more moderate voters should have done/are doing. As was stated above, younger voters as a group are just as large as older voting groups. If they standby and allow their futures to be destroyed further, they are simply willing participants in their own destruction.

Stop the BS of supporting and enabling GQP candidates in primaries with expectations that they won't win the general against a decent Dem. There's no way to ensure that they'll lose against the Dem candidate in the general as so many GOP voters will vote simply for the "R" next to the candidate. And too many of them are like-minded. Focus on getting the best Dem to win primaries. And if your preferred doesn't win, support the eventual Dem and hold them accountable. No more time, energy and money for quixotic races. We are not going to win governorships and senate seats in overwhelmingly hostile territory. Focus on US House races, local races and those races where there is a good chance in a purple area. Booker is never going to win in Kentucky. Beto is still a very long shot in Texas.

And fucking stop with the nonsense that "Dems don't do nuffin' for us" bullshit. The Dem-lead House passes legislation and then 48/50 or 49/50 Dem Senators vote to also pass, but Sinema and/or Manchin kill it. That fucking doesn't equal "The Dems." Not by a long-shot: 2% or 4% against 96% or 98%.
 

SuperMatt

Site Master
Posts
7,862
Reaction score
15,004
I remember some Dems were mad about calls for RBG to retire once Pres. Obama won a 2nd term. I thought she should have announced her retirement after his 2nd inauguration. So many screamed "What about Kennedy?" Kennedy wasn't beset with severe health issues. Kennedy wasn't slipping. And I have no doubt that she was slipping by then. I was surprised that she made it towards the very end of Mango's term. And immediately knew the consequences of her death just seven weeks before the election. I wonder if the court had been 5-4, conservatives over liberals, if CJ Roberts would have ruled with the conservative bloc to eviscerate Roe. Guess it doesn't matter.

At this point the RW court has announced its intentions: rolling back rights for disfavored groups and even large segments of society. Today it's women and their bodily autonomy. Soon it will be queer folk and their right to privacy, and marriage & civil equality. They'll continue to take away voting rights for Black and Brown folk. And once they come out and allow the banning of birth control and the further suppression of civil liberties it'll be too late. So many of us told folk that it was a dangerous game since Bill Clinton.

This shouldn't be a wake up call. Progressives/liberals/socialists/whatever have been hitting the snooze bar for far too long and now they're waking up realizing it's far too late to be just waking up. If they don't come out and keep the GQP from taking over, they deserve everything that's coming. There's no time to sugar coat or talk about what older folk and more moderate voters should have done/are doing. As was stated above, younger voters as a group are just as large as older voting groups. If they standby and allow their futures to be destroyed further, they are simply willing participants in their own destruction.

Stop the BS of supporting and enabling GQP candidates in primaries with expectations that they won't win the general against a decent Dem. There's no way to ensure that they'll lose against the Dem candidate in the general as so many GOP voters will vote simply for the "R" next to the candidate. And too many of them are like-minded. Focus on getting the best Dem to win primaries. And if your preferred doesn't win, support the eventual Dem and hold them accountable. No more time, energy and money for quixotic races. We are not going to win governorships and senate seats in overwhelmingly hostile territory. Focus on US House races, local races and those races where there is a good chance in a purple area. Booker is never going to win in Kentucky. Beto is still a very long shot in Texas.

And fucking stop with the nonsense that "Dems don't do nuffin' for us" bullshit. The Dem-lead House passes legislation and then 48/50 or 49/50 Dem Senators vote to also pass, but Sinema and/or Manchin kill it. That fucking doesn't equal "The Dems." Not by a long-shot: 2% or 4% against 96% or 98%.
People blame “the Dems” even though Dems support what they want almost all of the time. Reality - there are not ENOUGH Dems. And that is on the voters.

If we kept 60 Dem senators from 2009 until now? We’d have the most liberal Supreme Court of all time, healthcare would most likely be universal. We’d have gotten aggressive with environmental laws. We would never have torn kids from their parents at the border, we would have done something after Sandy Hook, etc, etc, etc.

In the 2 years from 2009-2010, a lot of good things got done. But voters patted themselves on the back instead of going back out to vote in 2010, and that’s when the Tea Party nuts took over.

You have to vote. Every single time. I already knew who was most likely gonna win the primaries in DC this week. I voted anyway. If you don’t vote, there are millions of grumpy old racist men that vote every single time. They will win; and you’ll get another dose of Trump, or maybe even somebody worse.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Site Donor
Posts
5,302
Reaction score
5,262
Location
The Misty Mountains
They said that in the abortion decision. But when it came to gun rights and voting rights, they changed the laws of Congress (and state legislatures) to suit their personal views, overriding the will of the people.

Again, every bit of “judicial philosophy” from this court is a straight-up lie. Please tell me what their philosophy is. States’ rights? Textual originalism? They literally contradicted THEMSELVES in a span of 24 hours with the gun ruling and the abortion ruling. They’re all over the map and they only care about pushing the extreme ideology of the Federalist society.

Pack the court. Institute term limits.
Gotta control Congress first to do that, yet unless a miracle, I’m planning on the GOP to regain control of Congress at the end of this year. This is the tend that would need to be broken. We’ll soon see.
 

Herdfan

Resident Redneck
Posts
4,832
Reaction score
3,717
The problem with that logic / thinking is that the sad reality your list of who should NOT run, would NEVER end. There's always going to be a reason why someone shouldn't run, as we saw just in the variety of candidates who ran against Biden in the primary. It isn't possible to rally all the disparate interests in the dem party, which is why focusing on running against someone who has demonstrated they would be worse for the country worked.

Until there are other party options, I'm afraid we are going to be back to running the choice that has the best chance to defeat the authoritarian of choice from the republican party.

The problem is they were all the same basic candidate so it was harder for a single one of them to gain any traction. Biden was the only true moderate in the race.

Same thing happened in the 2016 GOP primary - there was Trump and a bunch of very similar candidates.

Gotta control Congress first to do that, yet unless a miracle, I’m planning on the GOP to regain control of Congress at the end of this year. This is the tend that would need t be broken. We’ll soon see.

I'll agree with half that. Unless something major happens, the House is a foregone conclusion. Not sure about the Senate though. Some tough races for both sides and they could be decided by a few thousand votes.
 

Chew Toy McCoy

Pleb
Site Donor
Posts
7,606
Reaction score
11,893
People blame “the Dems” even though Dems support what they want almost all of the time. Reality - there are not ENOUGH Dems. And that is on the voters.

If we kept 60 Dem senators from 2009 until now? We’d have the most liberal Supreme Court of all time, healthcare would most likely be universal. We’d have gotten aggressive with environmental laws. We would never have torn kids from their parents at the border, we would have done something after Sandy Hook, etc, etc, etc.

In the 2 years from 2009-2010, a lot of good things got done. But voters patted themselves on the back instead of going back out to vote in 2010, and that’s when the Tea Party nuts took over.

You have to vote. Every single time. I already knew who was most likely gonna win the primaries in DC this week. I voted anyway. If you don’t vote, there are millions of grumpy old racist men that vote every single time. They will win; and you’ll get another dose of Trump, or maybe even somebody worse.

I think a major source of frustration when you live in a blue state is you have to almost rely entirely on swing states to make the difference. As a California resident, what am I supposed to do about the voters in Michigan?
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Posts
6,612
Reaction score
13,752
Location
Not HERE.
Of course we need someone who has a good chance of beating Trump, DeSantis, or whoever runs on the Republican ticket, but I don't think it should be Biden, Harris, or Sanders. However, the process of identifying who it will be needs to begin now, and Biden should open the door to that. If he's concerned that declaring he won't run would be the same as saying his presidency failed, it can happen in the background, though it would be difficult to keep under wraps.
What I am saying though is imagine hypothetically that Biden did step aside.

Who's your choice?

Whoever that choice maybe, there will be a hundred people who will have an issue with your choice.

If Biden remains the alternative that unites as much of the party against whoever the 'r' want to use to roll back freedoms, that may still be our only option. If that option turns enough voters away, we will get the monster the voters fear so much. We can bicker as much as we want about who isn't progressive enough, is too conservative, too centrist, whatever. Yes, it's unfair. Dems have to continually give up on their priorities, but when the only other party is fanatical in it's quest to literally rule there's little choice.
 

Huntn

Whatwerewe talk'n about?
Site Donor
Posts
5,302
Reaction score
5,262
Location
The Misty Mountains
I heard this theory recently. It’s such a hot button platform staple for Republicans that they wouldn’t want it to go away. It’s one of the few remaining “party of” statements they can make with any semblance of integrity. The pro fetus appearance holds a lot of voter value for them. But if Trump gets a second term I’m sure he’ll smash that one into the dirt too, along with all the other traditional Republican values he pisses on.
But now that it is over turned, let’s see how energized the centrist- left wing and citizens at large, becomes or if they even give a shit. :unsure:
 

JayMysteri0

What the F?!!!
Posts
6,612
Reaction score
13,752
Location
Not HERE.
The problem is they were all the same basic candidate so it was harder for a single one of them to gain any traction. Biden was the only true moderate in the race.

Same thing happened in the 2016 GOP primary - there was Trump and a bunch of very similar candidates.

There is no traction anymore in these polarized times. There's extremists and NOT extremists. The choices are does the country want the extremists or not.

No. It was NOT even close to the same thing. The candidates were not like 45, 45 was an exception that enough of an extremist base thought would be "fun" to put in office because he's different.

He was different alright. Hard to remember the last coup American citizens staged on it's own gov't because of a fair election they didn't win.
 

shadow puppet

Certifiable
Posts
1,381
Reaction score
2,686
Location
4th padded cell on the right
Funny (not) how this worked out.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1540412834789658625/

Oh and women who use period tracking apps, they're coming for you here as well. "Data from period tracking apps are now subject to subpoenas from deranged Republican prosecutors. Delete them, tell your friends and family to delete them."
 

Herdfan

Resident Redneck
Posts
4,832
Reaction score
3,717
I think a major source of frustration when you live in a blue state is you have to almost rely entirely on swing states to make the difference. As a California resident, what am I supposed to do about the voters in Michigan?

Living in a Red state is the same thing. ;)
 
Top Bottom
1 2