5 ms·

> Likewise in affirmative action. You just listed three things where the supposedly arch conservative Supreme Court is simply making our law the same as France.

> Likewise in affirmative action. You just listed three things where the supposedly arch conservative Supreme Court is simply making our law the same as France. The reason abortion is not legal until 22 weeks in France is because the Netherlands allows it, and our left-and-center governments don't want to spend the political capital on it. Same stupid reason why Democrats haven't passed a bill since Roe vs Wade. That said, I would not want to be a Republican right now, giving people something stupid that they want is the best way to get to stupid-ass results.

rayiner 4y ago
How do you figure this is bad for republicans? Most people are squishy on abortion. They support some level of abortion, but mostly in the first trimester or for life of mother or birth defects. All of which are consistent with the Mississippi law that the Supreme Court upheld. Roe guarantees elective abortions to the end of the second trimester with few restrictions, and is well to the left of what the public supports: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-.... Generally, when the current law is detached from public opinion, the party that seeks to change the law should stand to benefit from it. Of course liberals will use their vast media and cultural power to dupe people into thinking the Supreme Court just banned abortion. But most people will notice that the Supreme Court didn’t do that when blue states inevitably adopt liberal abortion laws as a reaction. And most of the people who will be really worked up about it will live in blue states that will quickly enact abortion until birth. I suspect most other states will pick some 13-15 week middle ground. I can see Republicans fumbling the ball by trying to ban abortion nationwide. But I can also see a bunch of white liberals reacting to this by shouting “celebrate your abortion” and turning off the mostly Hispanic 3 out of 10 Democrats who identify as “Pro Life,” as well as a bunch of squishy moderates.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  Apologies, but you are completely detached from political reality. Right now, multiple states have passed legislation banning all abortion, period, no exceptions. Texas’s legislation that SCOTUS refused to halt has made it legally perilous to move out of state to get an abortion. And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. They’re not gonna leave it to the states.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    >And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. Did you read what Alito wrote? He's explicitly stating he doesn't want SCOTUS ruling on the legality of abortion. How, precisely, would SCOTUS "ban abortion" in this scenario?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      They'll be glad to uphold a Federal ban passed by an upcoming Republican Congress and White House.
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        And they'd just as likely uphold a Federal protection of abortion if an upcoming Democrat Congress and White House passed one. What's your point?
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Why would you think this court makeup would uphold a Federal abortion protection? They largely won’t even uphold the VRA.
        xyzzyz 4y ago
        How did this court makeup rule in the Bostock case?
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        This court didn’t, unless I missed some news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s miraculous resurrection.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Bostock was 6-3, with Gorsuch and Robert’s joining the majority. Even swapping RBG for Barret, Bostock still would have come out the same way. Also note that only Alito and Thomas wrote in criticism of Obergefell to concur in the denial of cert for the Kim Davis case. I know you think conservatives are just as results oriented as liberals, but that’s not true. No liberal Justice will ever go wobbly on a liberal social issue. It’s always a conservative justice that breaks the party line on cases like Bostock (O’Conner, Kennedy, Roberts, and now Gorsuch). Roe is uniquely at risk because it embraces the liberal notion of Supreme Court as national moral tribunal in its purest form. Even liberals struggle to defend the decision on its on merits. Tim Carney has collected an entire list of quotes from prominent liberal academics criticizing Roe https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/there-is-no-valid-defense-of-roe-thats-why-that-side-resorts-to-threats https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restori... > One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe. Decisions like Oberrgefell and Bostock are on far firmer legal footing.

rayiner 4y ago

How do you figure this is bad for republicans? Most people are squishy on abortion. They support some level of abortion, but mostly in the first trimester or for life of mother or birth defects. All of which are consistent with the Mississippi law that the Supreme Court upheld. Roe guarantees elective abortions to the end of the second trimester with few restrictions, and is well to the left of what the public supports: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730183531/poll-majority-want-.... Generally, when the current law is detached from public opinion, the party that seeks to change the law should stand to benefit from it. Of course liberals will use their vast media and cultural power to dupe people into thinking the Supreme Court just banned abortion. But most people will notice that the Supreme Court didn’t do that when blue states inevitably adopt liberal abortion laws as a reaction. And most of the people who will be really worked up about it will live in blue states that will quickly enact abortion until birth. I suspect most other states will pick some 13-15 week middle ground. I can see Republicans fumbling the ball by trying to ban abortion nationwide. But I can also see a bunch of white liberals reacting to this by shouting “celebrate your abortion” and turning off the mostly Hispanic 3 out of 10 Democrats who identify as “Pro Life,” as well as a bunch of squishy moderates.

KerrAvon 4y ago
Apologies, but you are completely detached from political reality. Right now, multiple states have passed legislation banning all abortion, period, no exceptions. Texas’s legislation that SCOTUS refused to halt has made it legally perilous to move out of state to get an abortion. And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. They’re not gonna leave it to the states.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  >And do you thinkt he cons on the SCOTUS are satisfied with this? They’ll be glad to ban abortion nationwide completely. Did you read what Alito wrote? He's explicitly stating he doesn't want SCOTUS ruling on the legality of abortion. How, precisely, would SCOTUS "ban abortion" in this scenario?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    They'll be glad to uphold a Federal ban passed by an upcoming Republican Congress and White House.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      And they'd just as likely uphold a Federal protection of abortion if an upcoming Democrat Congress and White House passed one. What's your point?
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Why would you think this court makeup would uphold a Federal abortion protection? They largely won’t even uphold the VRA.
        xyzzyz 4y ago
        How did this court makeup rule in the Bostock case?
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        This court didn’t, unless I missed some news about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s miraculous resurrection.
        rayiner 4y ago
        Bostock was 6-3, with Gorsuch and Robert’s joining the majority. Even swapping RBG for Barret, Bostock still would have come out the same way. Also note that only Alito and Thomas wrote in criticism of Obergefell to concur in the denial of cert for the Kim Davis case. I know you think conservatives are just as results oriented as liberals, but that’s not true. No liberal Justice will ever go wobbly on a liberal social issue. It’s always a conservative justice that breaks the party line on cases like Bostock (O’Conner, Kennedy, Roberts, and now Gorsuch). Roe is uniquely at risk because it embraces the liberal notion of Supreme Court as national moral tribunal in its purest form. Even liberals struggle to defend the decision on its on merits. Tim Carney has collected an entire list of quotes from prominent liberal academics criticizing Roe https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/there-is-no-valid-defense-of-roe-thats-why-that-side-resorts-to-threats https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/restori... > One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe. Decisions like Oberrgefell and Bostock are on far firmer legal footing.