6 ms·

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 t

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...
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        It wouldn't make sense the other way around, since whenever individual rights contradict that of the State's, the federal court(s) would effectively undo the basis of their sovereignty.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      > It does not give the courts legislative ability. But it does. Our common law system treats judicial rulings as law. There is nothing stopping the supreme court from ruling on literally anything they like. They could make cars illegal in the next session if they wanted.
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.

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...
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        It wouldn't make sense the other way around, since whenever individual rights contradict that of the State's, the federal court(s) would effectively undo the basis of their sovereignty.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    > It does not give the courts legislative ability. But it does. Our common law system treats judicial rulings as law. There is nothing stopping the supreme court from ruling on literally anything they like. They could make cars illegal in the next session if they wanted.

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.