Scrutable

Ivan, I agree. And as far as surveys go there is a majority of the adult population in favour of freedom to choose in only 20 states. See the link up thread.

As far as I can tell in only 14 states are democrats in control of both houses in the legislature and the governor is a democrat.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 7:03 am

Bewildered wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 5:57 am

I was more thinking of passing an amendment to the constitution with republicans support. i.e. say that you will pack the court if they don’t support the amendment.

Amendments to the constitution have to be ratified by 38 individual states, with a time limit on that. You might get away with some kind of a deal in the house and senate, but you'd never get the states to go along with that. Whilst quite a few amendments were made and ratified during the 20th century, the last to pass the house and senate, the 26th, was in 1971. There is also a 27th amendment, but that passed the house and senate in the 18th century, and was enabled to be ratified 200 years later as it was discovered that the usual time limit didn't apply.

The unratified Equal Rights Amendment, passed by the house and senate in 1971-72 got only 35 state ratifications within the 1979 time-limit. The 38th ratification was achieved only just recently, but by then some 30 years too late, and its late "ratification" by a few states were a gesture. The campaign against ratification at the time by what we would now call "tea party" republicans - especially coordinated Phyllis Schlafly - could be seen as the modern origin of the activist republican right, later renewed in the form of the "tea party".

Since then it has been recognised as basically impossible to get any amendment to the constitution that would have a sufficient grass roots opposition at state level. And that is why there has been none since.

Minor point, but the time limit is only imposed by Congress when the amendment is put forward. It doesn't have to be imposed by Congress, and the time limit can be overridden later, as has been proposed for the ERA.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: ↑

Wed May 11, 2022 10:25 am

Personally I reckon only one opinion is important before the decision to have an abortion, and it isn't that of a doctor.

yep

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 7:22 am

Ivan, I agree. And as far as surveys go there is a majority of the adult population in favour of freedom to choose in only 20 states. See the link up thread.

As far as I can tell in only 14 states are democrats in control of both houses in the legislature and the governor is a democrat.

I knew it was hard and hadn’t happened in an age, but I didn’t know (or remember) it had to be ratified in all states. I was thinking it was just more like super majorities in both houses. So yes what Ivan says does make it very tricky, if not impossible.

But I think at least you woodchopper misunderstood my suggestion. I wasn’t suggesting they pass an amendment to explicitly protect womens right to choose or to protect privacy in general more strongly. That would be ideal if possible but it’s obviously not since the republicans are dead against it.

I was responding to Ivan’s concern about lasting long term harm to US democracy from packing the house and asking if the democrats aren’t going to do it anyway on the grounds that it’s dangerous, shouldn’t they be trying to make sure some evil bastards republicans can’t do it in the future. I was imagining the republicans might find the threat of packing the court to over turn this coupled with their comfort with the general make up of the court which without packing will likely last a long time might make them amenable to this. Note this was specifically a proposition to Ivan and anyone who agrees with him that packing the court should never be done because it’s so dangerous. If you don’t want to do it now because you don’t have the numbers and hope to try again if the dems do even better another time then obv this question is irrelevant.

Bewildered wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 1:17 pm

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 7:22 am

Ivan, I agree. And as far as surveys go there is a majority of the adult population in favour of freedom to choose in only 20 states. See the link up thread.

As far as I can tell in only 14 states are democrats in control of both houses in the legislature and the governor is a democrat.

I knew it was hard and hadn’t happened in an age, but I didn’t know (or remember) it had to be ratified in all states. I was thinking it was just more like super majorities in both houses. So yes what Ivan says does make it very tricky, if not impossible.

It's a super majority of states that have to ratify it - 3/4 of the States, so 38 out of 50. It also needs a 2/3 supermajority in the House and Senate to get the Amendment proposed and to send it to the states for ratification (or 2/3 of States to request a convention to propose an amendment for ratification, which has never happened).

Bewildered wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 1:17 pm

But I think at least you woodchopper misunderstood my suggestion. I wasn’t suggesting they pass an amendment to explicitly protect womens right to choose or to protect privacy in general more strongly. That would be ideal if possible but it’s obviously not since the republicans are dead against it.

I do think a proposal for an Amendment to give the right to privacy could be a pretty powerful political weapon - it would require Republicans, who run on limited government and protecting people from the government, to vote against protecting people from the government.

Meanwhile, in Spain.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... rual-leave

It’s gone

https://twitter.com/davidmackau/status/ ... EdxuHy3bKA

America worries me... most powerful country in the world and it's only a few steps away from being a christo-fascist state.

I am very angry.

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:50 pm

America worries me... most powerful country in the world and it's only a few steps away from being a christo-fascist state.

The judgement openly states that laws allowing contraception, same sex relationships and same sex marriage should be the next targets.

https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/ ... EdxuHy3bKA

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:08 pm

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:50 pm

America worries me... most powerful country in the world and it's only a few steps away from being a christo-fascist state.

The judgement openly states that laws allowing contraception, same sex relationships and same sex marriage should be the next targets.

https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/ ... EdxuHy3bKA

Was just coming back here to post about that. Here's an article - clicky

That's not the ruling though, that's Clarance Thomas' opinion. It doesn't set out what The Law is or isn't. But yeah, it's basically an invitation for some State to come have a go at it.

monkey wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:16 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:08 pm

TopBadger wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:50 pm

America worries me... most powerful country in the world and it's only a few steps away from being a christo-fascist state.

The judgement openly states that laws allowing contraception, same sex relationships and same sex marriage should be the next targets.

https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/ ... EdxuHy3bKA

Was just coming back here to post about that. Here's an article - clicky

That's not the ruling though, that's Clarance Thomas' opinion. It doesn't set out what The Law is or isn't. But yeah, it's basically an invitation for some State to come have a go at it.

Yeah I should have been more careful with my post - I don’t want to add to misinformation

Although I think this is 100% accurate

This is the sad outcome of a long-term tendency of the US legislators to fail to grapple with key social issues, nor even to find a proportionate way of being able to grapple with them. Instead, they left the court in effect to make pseudo-legislation for them in place of their inability or unwillingness to act, or overcome powerful minority interests that stood in the way of the will of the majority. It was never a good approach. It's what we might have called an American Solution to an American Problem, except it is no longer an acceptable or implementable solution even in America. Though it doesn't solve the American Problem of being unable to legislate.

The result of the court deciding for everyone, was that the debate that happened in many other countries that eventually led populations to understand these old-fashioned laws were inhumane, and replace them through a consensual approach, didn't happen. Rather, those people whose opinions might eventually have been swayed to reach the modern consensus remained angry and stuck in their old views, because a court had prevented the people from going through a learning process and coming to a consensus.

Now a court has decided, with - it must be admitted - better legal (not moral or social) cogency than the earlier rulings, that those ruling went further than was legally permitted. So those rulings are peeled back, and, as they so accurately say, these matters are returned to the people to decide. In peeling them back, we are left with a rather old-fashioned legislative position and rather old-fashioned attitudes, because those never had a chance to develop.

Remember when I said Biden should push to expand the Supreme Court and people said that would escalate the situation?

Still think Democrats shouldn’t escalate?

I'm seeing a lot of posts on Facebook along the lines of "In case anyone needs to get away for A VACATION, I just want to let you know, I'm good company and don't ask questions"

I mean, is it actually surprising that the US Constitution - a document written hundreds of years ago by religious men - doesn't include a right to abortion? It seems entirely unsurprising that it wouldn't, without an amendment being passed.

The Onion is going for it https://twitter.com/dave_brown24/status ... 6og9jD6fQQ

Abortion is now illegal in my state for except when the parent's life is in danger.

It wasn't immediate, because a judge had to lift an injunction.

headshot wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 5:03 pm

Remember when I said Biden should push to expand the Supreme Court and people said that would escalate the situation?

Still think Democrats shouldn’t escalate?

Do you think it's a good idea for the Supreme Court to judge cases on the basis of what they thing the law should be or what it actually is? Because if you choose the former, you have chosen to have the USA ruled at the whim of the nine judges.

The problem with abortion law in the USA is not what the Supreme Court have done, it's what the other 330 million Americans have been doing. The USA is govered by its people who could make abortion available through their votes.

I don’t think anyone is considering the real victims in all this.

Spare a moment’s thought for Senators Collins (R) and Manchin (D). They now feel very very silly.

In the words of supposed pro-choice Senator Collins “Brett Kavanaugh swore to me on a stack of bibles that if he was appointed to the SCOTUS that he would never ever ever vote to overturn Roe vs Wade on his clear and certain assurance of eternal life at the right hand of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Now what has the world come to when you can’t take the solemn word of an alcoholic rapist*? I mean it wasn’t as if there were any other glaring red flags during his shitshow of a confirmation”.

In unrelated news, on May 11th a vote to legalise abortion failed 49-51 when Collins voted in lockstep with her lunatic colleagues and once again Manchin decided what the Democratic voters of West Virginia really wanted was for him to link arms with various far-right conspiracy nuts and unapologetic Christo-fascists and cheerful walk through the voting lobby with them.




*alleged

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:46 pm

Because if you choose the former, you have chosen to have the USA ruled at the whim of the nine judges.

Which differs from the status quo, how?

monkey wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:05 pm

Abortion is now illegal in my state for except when the parent's life is in danger.

It wasn't immediate, because a judge had to lift an injunction.

Abortion is now protected in my state by law, and the state cannot assist any other state's attempts to prosecute abortion laws.

Due to an executive order by our GOP governor.

How soon until someone tries to define abortion pills as "arms"?

Can you shoot a foetus on a stand your ground basis? If not why not?

Looking forward to threads on this.