FB friend:
The US Supreme Court and its decisions
- Thread starter Patch
- Start date
A full third of the Supreme Court was appointed by someone who lost the popular vote, and even so, he only got to appoint three because another evil bastard managed to enforce a blatantly unjust double standard in the process.
The Dems will always find a way to lose with one hand tied behind their backs.
I seem to recall a recurring chorus of "Abortion is just a wedge issue the Republicans repeatedly hold over voters' heads as incentive to vote for them; they'd never actually outlaw it" on this very forum. In fact, I feel like it was still being repeated as recently as a year ago.
Maybe it was projection all along, since "holding issues over voters' heads to get votes, only to sit around and do nothing" is clearly more the Democrats' playbook.
Maybe it was projection all along, since "holding issues over voters' heads to get votes, only to sit around and do nothing" is clearly more the Democrats' playbook.
Yeah, that was me too. I was cynical enough to believe that the Republican establishment would never move that needle, but they aren't really the ones calling the shots anymore. The Mitch McConnells of the world don't give a jive about abortion or fetal personhood. Neither does Trump for that matter.
But the monster they've created does.
Honestly, if there's a silver lining to this whole thing, it may be that it galvanizes centrists and independents to vote left in the midterms when they would have otherwise voted for Republicans or not voted at all. I won't hold my breath, though.
But the monster they've created does.
Honestly, if there's a silver lining to this whole thing, it may be that it galvanizes centrists and independents to vote left in the midterms when they would have otherwise voted for Republicans or not voted at all. I won't hold my breath, though.
Last edited:
Abortion Rights are really something that should have been cemented into place long before now as an actual part of the constitution. The original decision was always on shakey logic after all and was doomed to be torn apart the first time R had the majority in SCOTUS. Unfortunately that chance came and went in '93.
To be fair: they spent HALF A CENTURY not moving on abortion when they had all the means and ability to actually do it.
Please also note that "codifying" is just a cope. Even if 51 Senators would ever vote for a Roe law, the law would be just as subject to judicial review as any other, and it would wind up in the same SCOTUS. The only way to circumvent SCOTUS is by passing a pro-choice Constitutional amendment, which would require 67 Senators and.... yeah.
Your hyperbolic, and frankly dishonest, reading of the conversation is unhelpful - and that's the kindest response I can offer.
Let's start with your comment: "Nobody cares enough to do anything"
Of course they do, a lot of people do. We're discussing what can be done right now.
"& it wouldn't even matter if they did."
That remains to be seen, discussing things in terms of what challenges are in front of us is important so you can plan for them. This response is just pure fatalism. "Everything's ruined, we should die." And as someone dealing with suicidal thoughts, not healthy, you should see a therapist.
"Gee, that's SURE to bring out the votes that'll fix things this time!"
Again I don't think anyone here is even advocating that 'voting fixes everything' - beyond that you're arguing about messaging and what will bring in the voters, which is not the conversation we're having. Your entire point is simply fatalistic pining, it actively accomplishes less than any other comment in this thread.
Last edited:
The Dems simply lack the sort of political organization and coordination and resources that the GOP has in term of media control/party control/political operatives. Dems are constantly imo being outmaneuvered due to the latter. What the GOP has accomplished was many years in the making.
The Democrats are too fractured and too divided along multiple lines that it makes it impossible to coordinate. Many on the Left would probably be appalled if a billionaire like Bloomberg started exerting total control and coordinating all the Dems behind closed door. Yet this precisely has happened with the Republicans with their billionaires and it has worked well for them
The problem with applying the GOP "solution" to the dems is that there are no progressive billionaires. Apparently once you get 8 figures or more in your bank account, it triggers mental illness along the lines of psychopathy, narcissism, and unfettered greed.
We're a big tent party that has made room for anti-choice members among our ranks. And thus you can't act shocked that our Senators from West Virginia (Manchin) and Arizona (Sinema) are both barely Democrats. The answer is to have a 55 or so seats in the Senate so that 51 of them can vote to abolish the filibuster. But we're gonna have to vote to get that.
Consider the following:
1) What is the opportunity cost of voting? A few hours every 2 years? Is there any harm in casting a vote, or is the worst case neutral i.e. "it does nothing"?
2) If you could spend a minimal effort and resources to take an action with a 0.01% chance of success, but said success would give a great result, would you still do so? Or would you just look at the odds and not even take the chance?
3) Consider climate change reforms. Opponents will say that some of them will have no effect, even though they also might improve things slightly, and say that because it may do nothing, it's pointless. Sound familiar?
Voting may do nothing, true, but as long as there is at least a small chance of success, and you don't give up anything by trying, why not spin the wheel?
1) What is the opportunity cost of voting? A few hours every 2 years? Is there any harm in casting a vote, or is the worst case neutral i.e. "it does nothing"?
2) If you could spend a minimal effort and resources to take an action with a 0.01% chance of success, but said success would give a great result, would you still do so? Or would you just look at the odds and not even take the chance?
3) Consider climate change reforms. Opponents will say that some of them will have no effect, even though they also might improve things slightly, and say that because it may do nothing, it's pointless. Sound familiar?
Voting may do nothing, true, but as long as there is at least a small chance of success, and you don't give up anything by trying, why not spin the wheel?
One of the subtler problems with our society is the need for instant gratification. When people say "Voting doesn't work!", what they mean is "ME voting didn't get ME what I wanted immediately, so why bother?"
Voting is the solution to our society's problems...but your vote alone is not. Studies still show only about 62% of eligible voters voted in 2020, and that's the highest turnout in 60 years. Nearly a third of our population doesn't think voting matters. Saying "Why bother?" and joining them only makes things worse, only encourages political parties to further engage with the extremists at the far ends of the spectrum who always vote and will never agree. Our current political climate exists as a direct result of parties realizing "swing voters" had just stopped voting, so why try to appeal to the middle ground anymore?
Our society will be fixed when enough people start voting that political parties have to engage with viewpoints outside their extremist pluralities to stay in office. Or our society fails entirely, falls to ruin, and we hope our children's children eventually forge a stronger union from the ashes of our failure. It's either/or.
Voting is the solution to our society's problems...but your vote alone is not. Studies still show only about 62% of eligible voters voted in 2020, and that's the highest turnout in 60 years. Nearly a third of our population doesn't think voting matters. Saying "Why bother?" and joining them only makes things worse, only encourages political parties to further engage with the extremists at the far ends of the spectrum who always vote and will never agree. Our current political climate exists as a direct result of parties realizing "swing voters" had just stopped voting, so why try to appeal to the middle ground anymore?
Our society will be fixed when enough people start voting that political parties have to engage with viewpoints outside their extremist pluralities to stay in office. Or our society fails entirely, falls to ruin, and we hope our children's children eventually forge a stronger union from the ashes of our failure. It's either/or.