United States FLASH: U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG DEAD AT 87
- Thread starter LifeisTiresome
- Start date
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
I thinks it's a joke about Obama saying the same thing about doctors. Speaking of Doctors fun fact the Federal Government limits how many new doctors we can have per year at 110,000 which was considered somewhat low when they passed it in 1994. Yeesh no wonder the time of doctors is so valuable we literally don't have enough of them.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
No telling, but my general suspicion is "not very likely." It's pretty accepted now and mostly a scarecrow, nor is there any real reason to think the conservative justices would actually be inclined to do so. Democrats have been beating on the "Roe vs. Wade will be cancelled" drum for decades now, every SC appointment is a risk to Roe vs. Wade.
“Robert Bork’s America,” Kennedy declared on the Senate floor, “is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, [and] schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution...”
This was over Bork's appointment to the SC in 1987. The rhetoric has not changed, aside from wanting blacks to sit at segregated counters, that seems to be gaining traction on the blue side.
Note that even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned it would not make abortion illegal, it would just make it possible for states to pass laws on abortion according to their own voter's ideals. If your co-workers live in a relatively blue state there's unlikely to be any change if even Roe vs. Wade is overturned. Redder states are more likely to add limitations or outlaw it of course.
Abhishekm
Well-known member
Hey if the Democrats put it forward and the Republocans agree it atleast has a crack induced hallucination of a shot. Just so long as Republicans stick to "No Takebacks" it would even have a hope of sticking. Same with the Doctor limit and a lot of other things. Call their bluff and if they actually go through with it take them for all you can get. Might as well because really what else is Congress doing?
Last edited:
The Republicans do seem to be getting very serious about setting things up to finally put a stake through its heart, but at best it's going to be several years before the SC gets a case that let's them reverse it.
Once thst happens, it becomes an issue for the states, and once that inevitably devolves into a huge mess, congress will step in, gammer our a compromise, and the legal status of abortion will ebb and flow for a bit until thing finally settle down.
When that happens, whicg is going to be like 10 years out at least, I think things are going to be way more restrictive than they are now (though compared to the US, just about any countries law is more restrictive), but not the "totally banned unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy" status that many people want.
Which funnily enough is how on average european nations tend to restrict abortion. So much for socialist paradise...
Knowledgeispower
Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Considering they have a low birth rate on average of course they'd restrict abortion it makes economic sense to
I don't understand the issue with it.
Just make it expensive and not covered by health care unless there is a valid reason
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
One of the arguments in Roe vs. Wade was the wealthy had easy access to abortion and the poor did not, though they aimed more at "Wealthy people go out of state or bribe doctors to do it on the sly, poor people can't." Legalizing abortion was thus a way to level the playing field. Making it too expensive for the poor would trip the same issues.
Doomsought
Well-known member
Honestly, putting "A woman's body stops at the placenta" into law should be a steak in the heart for it.
Like....I think people should have a legit reason to abort/
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Not really anything to do with the point I was making. The Supreme Court takes a dim view of the rich getting access to things that are illegal for the poor and that played into Roe vs. Wade.
That said going off that logic, Epstein's island would appear to establish under Roe vs. Wade precedence that slavery and pedophilic behavior should be legalized since the rich have access to it and the poor don't. The obvious superior option is hitting the rich with the Lawhammer for it but that doesn't happen often.
I'm more cynical.
This is the same sort of reaction that the Democrats had when Trump got into office. After Obama centralized even more power into his branch and did countless end-runs around Congress, the Progressives were perfectly fine with it. In fact, many of them cheered it on. And some I think, even bragged about it. Because they were stealing power away from their opponents and had assumed them defeated. When there was a drastic reversal and Trump won the election, all that power fell into Trump's hands.
This is the same sort of situation. The Progressives have for decades, put more and more power in SCOTUS to do an end-run around Congress. Abortion, gay rights--things I don't even really have a problem with, but I do have a problem in how they were obtained. And I told them, four years ago, that I was not comfortable with what happened with gay marriage rights. And the taste has soured considerably since then. It became rather apparent what happens when you accumulate power in one branch; it allows for quick, but temporary shifts in political gain.
This is a call by the left to limit long-term damage, I am sure. They realized that they'd put too much power into SCOTUS and now that it's going to fall firmly right instead of moderately left, they're shitting themselves. They removed the only means of having a say by dismantling the 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate. They were furious when they lost the chance to fully tip SCOTUS in 2016 and in 2020 many of them are absolutely horrified at the strategic position they find themselves in.
wellis
Active member
Some info on that term limit for Justices the Democrats are pushijg:
www.google.com
House Democrats to introduce bill setting 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices
House Democrats plan to introduce a bill next week that would limit US Supreme Court justices' lifetime appointments to 18 years, a largely symbolic response to the high-stakes battle in Congress over the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
www.google.com
Last edited:
Bold of you to assume a liberal won't stab the conservatives in the back.
"B-but the democrats said they would like us again if we do as they say!"
t.Repcuck.
The GOP, as it is, is dying. In hopefully 4 years, their voters will be leeched away by a new actually conservative subparty lead by President Trump.
The GOP as it was died with George W bush, he took out a nail and slamned it into the old GOP and killed it. The next 8 Obama years was the slow death scream and slow rebuilding of a new party. The last 4 years have been the painful birth of the new party and this election determins every thing.
Yeah we talked about the GOP civil war for years under Obama.
Personally, I like the GOP that came out of that better than the previous neocon party.
Then the Dems had their struggle, and look what came of that.
Now I'm comfortable voting republican.
political realinments some times a party needs to die before it can come back.