5 ms·

When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This wa

When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This was not the only opportunity in the last 50 years. It’s not JUST about means, motive, opportunity. There has to be the desire to spend the political capital. I think it’s interesting no one in 50 years with all the majority make ups have put the effort in. I don’t speculate a reason other than it seems more expensive than the media might have me believe?

colinmhayes 4y ago
What do you mean he never tried? How do you know that? Obama never had the votes to overcome the filibuster for abortion rights, he was struggling to even get the ACA passed. Why publicly focus on legislation that's impossible to pass, especially when it's already the law of the land?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  >"especially when it's already the law of the land?" I believe Roe was the precedent of the land and not something explicitly codified into federal law.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Supreme court rulings are law in this country because of Marbury v. Madison. You can try to claim precedent and law are somehow different, I think you'd have an incredibly hard time convincing most people.
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      Marbury v Madison established judicial review, meaning that the courts can strike down unconstitutional law. It does not give the courts legislative ability. Maybe you're using a fuzzier definition of "law", but there was never any federal legislation that guaranteed access to abortion. That is what we need.
      - nobody9999 4y ago
        You are apparently unfamiliar with the legal systems in the US (the federal system and 49 states), which are Common Law[0] systems (Louisiana uses a French style "Civil Law" system): "In law, common law, also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law, is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.[2][3][4] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
        pie_flavor 4y ago
        If you scroll to the US section of the article you linked, you will see that the federal government does not have a common-law system.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Huh that is surprising! "There is no federal general common law" Though it does kind of make sense, after all it's the United States of America, not the United People's of America, or the United Local Jurisdictions of America. The States can have rights that supersedes the people apparently.
        nobody9999 4y ago
        >Huh that is surprising! "There is no federal general common law" My reading of the particular passage[0] in the Wikipedia article is that while Federal courts are no longer independent sources of common law, they operate along with other systems that are, and often impact the common law of the several states with rulings that set the limits of Federal, State and individual power. As such, the reality is a bit more complicated, N.B.: IANAL and this is not legal advice. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federal_courts_(1789_and_1938) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_feder...
- jrsj 4y ago
  The filibuster is basically an imaginary rule that can be changed or modified by a simple majority at any time. It’s irrelevant.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Not when legislators refuse to overturn it. That's obviously an issue too, but it's not really related to the problem here, which is that the two party system causes many people to have their opinions unrepresented.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      It's a lot like fiat currency, it has respect of "all". Parties know if they kill the filibuster, the next time that the pendulum swings back everything they did will get thrown on the trash heap.
      - jrsj 4y ago
        There is an element of truth to this but we’ve seen the filibuster selectively weakened to accomplish a specific goal under Mitch McConnell as well as Harry Reid before him. Its been done by both just within the last 2 presidencies, and there’s no good reason to assume your opponent won’t be the one to do it first when it suits them.
- somecontext 4y ago
  During the 111th Congress, from the appointment of Al Franken until the death of Ted Kennedy, as well as during the term of his appointed successor Paul G. Kirk, the Democratic party held 58 seats in the Senate and caucused together with 2 more senators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress "gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote." https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.h... "providing Democrats with something they had long hoped for: 60 votes, and thus at least the symbolic ability to overcome filibusters."
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    There were conservative democrats such as Manchin and leiberman who beleived their constituents weren't in favor of abortion rights. A straight party line vote on abortion rights wasn't going to happen. There were also republicans in more urban states that knew the majority of their constituents favored abortion, but because they were worried about being primaried they wouldn't vote for abortion rights.
    - selectodude 4y ago
      Do people not remember that Joe Lieberman single-handedly torpedoed the public option? He's a liberal in the same way that my dog is a cat.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    Sure but the possibility of getting dem senators from red states to vote for abortion was extremely, extremely unlikely. Republicans tend to stick together but Democrats do not on these slim "majorities". Check out Manchin and Senema, they are essentially moderate republicans despite their party affiliation. They are heavily sponsored by right wing corps and PACS.
api 4y ago
> When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This was not the only opportunity in the last 50 years. The cynic in me thinks that neither party wants this issue to go away because it fills voting booths. Democrats have had multiple chances to codify it and didn't even try. They could also get some buy-in from on-the-fence people and maybe even a few very centrist Republicans in bluish states with a compromise that codifies protection for abortions in the first trimester but nope. If Republicans really were serious about adoption as an alternative they'd make reforming and funding adoption and foster care a huge priority. They'd also entertain medicare coverage for uninsured women giving birth even if it's to be given up for adoption so as to remove the financial incentive for abortion. But nope. Why solve a problem or find a viable compromise when the controversy gets you elected? Culture war controversies also distract from incompetence and corruption.
- manfre 4y ago
  > Democrats have had multiple chances to codify it and didn't even try This is a big flaw in your thinking. The republicans typically vote as a cohesive group of lemmings. Their leadership signals how they should vote and they follow. The democrats act more an independent collective of votes that happen to align on many issues, but not all.
  - api 4y ago
    Have they ever even tried? Even with a compromise bill?
  - tekknik 4y ago
    If you crack open any historical votes you would clearly see this is a lie.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    > The republicans typically vote as a cohesive group of lemmings. Can you really not see it in yourself when you post things like this?
- 4y ago
rhino369 4y ago
Codifying Roe is double sided sword. If Congress has the power to legalize abortion (under some commerce clause interpretation), it likely has the power to ban abortion nationwide.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  That's what I've been telling my friends about killing the filibuster. It may be the only thing stopping a blanket federal ban in 2024 when Republicans re-elect Trump (or Trump lite, Desantis)
xadhominemx 4y ago
No one put the effort it because it would be completely meaningless. The same Supreme Court that upheld the Mississippi law would obviously toss out any federal “codification”
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  No they wouldn't. They didn't say anything about this being only a states rights thing, otherwise they would say things like the civil rights laws that were passed in the 60s were unconstitutional, and they have said nothing of that nature (yet).
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Ruling that the constitution does not grant the right to abortion is also saying that legislating abortion is not an enumerated power. That means that any federal law that bans/bans banning abortion would be unconstitutional unless you come up with a commerce clause reason. Hard to see that flying with this court, so it seems to be up to the states now.
- thathndude 4y ago
  I encourage you to read the concurring opinions. One justice concurs to explicitly point out that this decision does not make abortion illegal, but merely returns it to the legislative process.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    He means the state level legislative process.
  - xadhominemx 4y ago
    Yes, exactly my point
    - 4khilles 4y ago
      No, it's the opposite of your point.

colinmhayes 4y ago

What do you mean he never tried? How do you know that? Obama never had the votes to overcome the filibuster for abortion rights, he was struggling to even get the ACA passed. Why publicly focus on legislation that's impossible to pass, especially when it's already the law of the land?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BitwiseFool 4y ago
>"especially when it's already the law of the land?" I believe Roe was the precedent of the land and not something explicitly codified into federal law.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Supreme court rulings are law in this country because of Marbury v. Madison. You can try to claim precedent and law are somehow different, I think you'd have an incredibly hard time convincing most people.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    Marbury v Madison established judicial review, meaning that the courts can strike down unconstitutional law. It does not give the courts legislative ability. Maybe you're using a fuzzier definition of "law", but there was never any federal legislation that guaranteed access to abortion. That is what we need.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      You are apparently unfamiliar with the legal systems in the US (the federal system and 49 states), which are Common Law[0] systems (Louisiana uses a French style "Civil Law" system): "In law, common law, also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law, is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.[2][3][4] The defining characteristic of “common law” is that it arises as precedent. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, a common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts, and synthesizes the principles of those past cases as applicable to the current facts." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
      - pie_flavor 4y ago
        If you scroll to the US section of the article you linked, you will see that the federal government does not have a common-law system.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        Huh that is surprising! "There is no federal general common law" Though it does kind of make sense, after all it's the United States of America, not the United People's of America, or the United Local Jurisdictions of America. The States can have rights that supersedes the people apparently.
        nobody9999 4y ago
        >Huh that is surprising! "There is no federal general common law" My reading of the particular passage[0] in the Wikipedia article is that while Federal courts are no longer independent sources of common law, they operate along with other systems that are, and often impact the common law of the several states with rulings that set the limits of Federal, State and individual power. As such, the reality is a bit more complicated, N.B.: IANAL and this is not legal advice. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_federal_courts_(1789_and_1938) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#United_States_feder...
jrsj 4y ago
The filibuster is basically an imaginary rule that can be changed or modified by a simple majority at any time. It’s irrelevant.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Not when legislators refuse to overturn it. That's obviously an issue too, but it's not really related to the problem here, which is that the two party system causes many people to have their opinions unrepresented.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    It's a lot like fiat currency, it has respect of "all". Parties know if they kill the filibuster, the next time that the pendulum swings back everything they did will get thrown on the trash heap.
    - jrsj 4y ago
      There is an element of truth to this but we’ve seen the filibuster selectively weakened to accomplish a specific goal under Mitch McConnell as well as Harry Reid before him. Its been done by both just within the last 2 presidencies, and there’s no good reason to assume your opponent won’t be the one to do it first when it suits them.
somecontext 4y ago
During the 111th Congress, from the appointment of Al Franken until the death of Ted Kennedy, as well as during the term of his appointed successor Paul G. Kirk, the Democratic party held 58 seats in the Senate and caucused together with 2 more senators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress "gave the Senate Democratic caucus sixty votes, enough to defeat a filibuster in a party-line vote." https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/us/politics/01minnesota.h... "providing Democrats with something they had long hoped for: 60 votes, and thus at least the symbolic ability to overcome filibusters."
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  There were conservative democrats such as Manchin and leiberman who beleived their constituents weren't in favor of abortion rights. A straight party line vote on abortion rights wasn't going to happen. There were also republicans in more urban states that knew the majority of their constituents favored abortion, but because they were worried about being primaried they wouldn't vote for abortion rights.
  - selectodude 4y ago
    Do people not remember that Joe Lieberman single-handedly torpedoed the public option? He's a liberal in the same way that my dog is a cat.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  Sure but the possibility of getting dem senators from red states to vote for abortion was extremely, extremely unlikely. Republicans tend to stick together but Democrats do not on these slim "majorities". Check out Manchin and Senema, they are essentially moderate republicans despite their party affiliation. They are heavily sponsored by right wing corps and PACS.

api 4y ago

> When Obama was running in 2008 he claimed to want to codify Roe as law his first day as office, and was elected with a super majority. Never once tried. This was not the only opportunity in the last 50 years. The cynic in me thinks that neither party wants this issue to go away because it fills voting booths. Democrats have had multiple chances to codify it and didn't even try. They could also get some buy-in from on-the-fence people and maybe even a few very centrist Republicans in bluish states with a compromise that codifies protection for abortions in the first trimester but nope. If Republicans really were serious about adoption as an alternative they'd make reforming and funding adoption and foster care a huge priority. They'd also entertain medicare coverage for uninsured women giving birth even if it's to be given up for adoption so as to remove the financial incentive for abortion. But nope. Why solve a problem or find a viable compromise when the controversy gets you elected? Culture war controversies also distract from incompetence and corruption.

manfre 4y ago
> Democrats have had multiple chances to codify it and didn't even try This is a big flaw in your thinking. The republicans typically vote as a cohesive group of lemmings. Their leadership signals how they should vote and they follow. The democrats act more an independent collective of votes that happen to align on many issues, but not all.
- api 4y ago
  Have they ever even tried? Even with a compromise bill?
- tekknik 4y ago
  If you crack open any historical votes you would clearly see this is a lie.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  > The republicans typically vote as a cohesive group of lemmings. Can you really not see it in yourself when you post things like this?
4y ago

rhino369 4y ago

Codifying Roe is double sided sword. If Congress has the power to legalize abortion (under some commerce clause interpretation), it likely has the power to ban abortion nationwide.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
That's what I've been telling my friends about killing the filibuster. It may be the only thing stopping a blanket federal ban in 2024 when Republicans re-elect Trump (or Trump lite, Desantis)

xadhominemx 4y ago

No one put the effort it because it would be completely meaningless. The same Supreme Court that upheld the Mississippi law would obviously toss out any federal “codification”

stjohnswarts 4y ago
No they wouldn't. They didn't say anything about this being only a states rights thing, otherwise they would say things like the civil rights laws that were passed in the 60s were unconstitutional, and they have said nothing of that nature (yet).
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Ruling that the constitution does not grant the right to abortion is also saying that legislating abortion is not an enumerated power. That means that any federal law that bans/bans banning abortion would be unconstitutional unless you come up with a commerce clause reason. Hard to see that flying with this court, so it seems to be up to the states now.
thathndude 4y ago
I encourage you to read the concurring opinions. One justice concurs to explicitly point out that this decision does not make abortion illegal, but merely returns it to the legislative process.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  He means the state level legislative process.
- xadhominemx 4y ago
  Yes, exactly my point
  - 4khilles 4y ago
    No, it's the opposite of your point.