uspol 

People, not all people but most people, are angry about the wrong thing.

I agree that Roe v Wade being canceled is a bad outcome. I agree that women should have the right to their bodies, but here's my possibly unpopular take:

A Supreme Court that doesn't give a damn what the public wants ... is exactly what a Supreme Court is for, actually.

uspol 

The reason we even know the party allegiance of the Justices, the reason there is partisan court seat stacking etc is that the SCOTUS cares too much what the people or rather what the people's representatives think.

It's the politicization of everything. As another example the US appoints some of its District Attorneys by popular vote and that's just super weird for a role that is supposed to be administrative, meritocratic, bureaucratic.

uspol 

If a majority of the US supports the outcome of RvW, if the Dems support the outcome of RvW, if the Dems have Presidency, Senate and Representatives, then just fucking fix this the right way this time. Make a law instead of interpreting the law. You had 50 years.

Relying on an interpretation for 50 years is the failure. The definition of rights is political and should be solved through political mechanisms.

uspol 

@clacke no one would gave thought to codify a right that the supreme court had ruled on until recently though. If you'd tried to do this any time in the last 50 years you'd have democrats in conservative states in a really bad spot electorally and right now they just don't have the votes since their "majority" is effectively 48. Also, the house did vote on it like 6 years ago, but they haven't controlled the senate by a large enough margin for it to go further.

uspol 

@sam "Roe was 1 day old in 1973 when Bella Abzug, who was a House representative from New York, urged Congress to codify Roe. She basically foresaw exactly where we are today, that there was the potential legislation to erode Roe. She introduced an act: The Abortion Rights Act, H.R. 254, to bar states from creating new (laws) on abortion."

www.propublica.org/article/thi…

uspol 

@clacke exactly, at the time it seemed like an extreme position.

Follow

uspol 

@clacke it's obvious now that they should have done it earlier, but no one at the time could have reasonably expected the system could fall apart to this degree and become so one sided that even if democrats technically have a majority they wouldn't be able to pass anything for decades. Anyways, obviously I agree they should codify it, but blaming them for not doing it when they never stood any chance (and actually have tried anyways multiple times) seems wrong.

Β· Β· Tusky Β· 1 Β· 0 Β· 0

uspol 

@sam I know that representatives and senators have their personal positions, but doesn't the party have a whip they bring out when the occasion so requires? They didn't make it a priority, as Obama said in 2009.

I think even if the first couple of decades people figured RvW was solid, it's been pretty widely discussed starting at the very latest with RBG's refusal to step down that Roe was being conspired against.

uspol 

@clacke technically there's one, but you're not going to get a handful of conservative dems on board so you *need* a bigger majority. It's not as if they're not pressuring Manchin et al. same as when Obama briefly had a majority: there were like 4 senators who publicly stated they'd vote against it and it seemed rather safe at the time so no one pushed it. Either way, it comes down to not having a big enough majority in the senate, then no one shows up to vote in the midterms.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

A Fediverse instance for people interested in cooperative and collective projects.