News Roe v. Wade overturned

[HomerJS]

No, it's a majority. If Democrats chose to govern they could, but they as a party have chosen not to. Yes, it is primarily due to Manchin and Sinema.

Yes it’s a majority but that still does not mean control because of the EC

Like someone pointed out Senators represent a minority in this country.

Look at this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/

 

[fskimospy]

Pretty sure one of the appeals courts just dropped a decision stating boycotts are not protected speech.

That's correct, ironically ruling that money is not speech. So money is speech when it comes to buying politicians but money is not speech when it comes to protesting Israeli policy.

Appeals court upholds Arkansas law that restricts Israel boycotts | The Jerusalem Post

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled in favor of laws forbidding public contractors from being involved in any Israel boycott movements.

www.jpost.com

 

[K1052]

I think it is a genuine question just how far a conservative judiciary can push things before the country simply falls apart. They did it once before.

 

[MrSquished]

Anyone else feel like the Dems are constantly getting their asses handed to them even though they have control of the Presidency, Senate, and House?

Democrats do not control the Senate. So many people say this and it's so incorrect. With the filibuster they can basically do nothing except past two budget reconciliation bills a year and some weak bipartisan crap like this toothless gun control bill will occasionally happen. I've seen people say the Democrats control the Senate without this information it's so misleading

 

[Paratus]

That's correct, ironically ruling that money is not speech. So money is speech when it comes to buying politicians but money is not speech when it comes to protesting Israeli policy.

Appeals court upholds Arkansas law that restricts Israel boycotts | The Jerusalem Post

It was the first time a federal appeals court ruled in favor of laws forbidding public contractors from being involved in any Israel boycott movements.

www.jpost.com

i like how Hobbs mentions Q.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Pretty sure one of the appeals courts just dropped a decision stating boycotts are not protected speech.

As I said said in that thread too, fuck them. Let me rack up billions in debt due to suits from boycotted businesses. I'll just dump it on the govt.

 

[fskimospy]

Democrats do not control the Senate. So many people say this and it's so incorrect. With the filibuster they can basically do nothing except past two budget reconciliation bills a year and some weak bipartisan crap like this toothless gun control bill will occasionally happen. I've seen people say the Democrats control the Senate without this information it's so misleading

They do control the Senate and that's inarguable. The filibuster exists because they choose not to end it. If they wanted to they could pass whatever they want.

 

[K1052]

Republicans: this should be left to the states as the constitution says and the court has now correctly affirmed

Also Republicans:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1540342383514099713

 

[kage69]

Yep, ever since Trump destroyed the court with the nomination of liars and nutjobs the SCOTUS has been in non stop Calvinball mode.

I'm so sad for American women today, for our country. This is a victory for christofascists and a defeat for Americans who believe in liberty and freedom, plain and simple. I live in a free state thankfully, so I will be helping those I know who do not in whatever way I can.

May the whirlwind from this blow a lot of shit out of office.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans: this should be left to the states as the constitution says and the court has now correctly affirmed

Also Republicans:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1540342383514099713

I'm starting to think their federalist arguments against Roe v. Wade were not genuine!

 

[K1052]

I'm starting to think their federalist arguments against Roe v. Wade were not genuine!

You'll never go broke betting they are full of shit.

 

[hal2kilo]

Anyone else feel like the Dems are constantly getting their asses handed to them even though they have control of the Presidency, Senate, and House?

Study civics.

 

[fskimospy]

You'll never go broke betting they are full of shit.

That's the annoying part to me - that conservatives continually insist we pretend to believe them when they make transparently bad faith arguments like this.

They say whatever is most convenient for them at any given time. They do not give a shit about anything else.

 

[Pohemi]

They do control the Senate and that's inarguable. The filibuster exists because they choose not to end it. If they wanted to they could pass whatever they want.

Majority by numbers does not equal 'control', so yes...it IS arguable. The notion that they could pass anything and everything they want to is laughable, at best. More like ridiculous, imo.

 

[MrSquished]

They do control the Senate and that's inarguable. The filibuster exists because they choose not to end it. If they wanted to they could pass whatever they want.

I really wouldn't count Joe Manchin and now the super corrupt Synema as real Democrats. Every party is allowed to have a couple loons in their party.

 

[fskimospy]

Majority by numbers does not equal 'control', so yes...it IS arguable. The notion that they could pass anything and everything they want to is laughable, at best. More like ridiculous, imo.

You need 51 votes to pass anything you want in the Senate and the Democrats have 51 votes. They control the Senate, period.

 

[fskimospy]

I really wouldn't count Joe Manchin and now the super corrupt Synema as real Democrats. Every party is allowed to have a couple loons in their party.

I mean I get you and you're right that conservative Democrats are preventing the passage of this stuff but that's the Democrats' problem to fix.

 

[brycejones]

A friendly reminder that this is why people voted for Trump despite knowing what a despicable piece of shit he is. At least we are free to move to states that aren't shitholes, right?

That sounds a like a boycott of certain states which the 8th circuit ruled isn’t protected

 

[Zorba]

Put another tally in the counter of things the Baby Boomers have ruined for everyone else while they're on their way out.

After they enjoyed the benefits themselves.

 

[allisolm]

Cute that you think voting determines any output in the direction of this country.

Thanks! I always like being cute!

 

[Zorba]

What constitution are you reading? Is it one that doesn't include the 14th amendment?

Unless it's protecting gun rights, then the 14th is very important.

 

[pmv]

Yep, ever since Trump destroyed the court with the nomination of liars and nutjobs the SCOTUS has been in non stop Calvinball mode.

They really are on a roll now. With an entirely-ideologically-motivated gang forming a majority on the court, one wonders how far this is going to go. They've realised they can use that institution as an instrument of minority rule.

I mean, that's presumably why they fought so ruthlessly to gain control of it, but having done so, I think they might be discovering it's even more powerful than they originally thought, as they are clearly realising they don't even need to pretend to have rigorous 'legal' arguments for decisions.

Going to be fascinating to see how far they take things. I guess there's a limit to how far they will push 'social' issues, because public-opinion still counts for something. Banning inter-racial marriage or homosexuality, or bringing back slavery (perhaps next time on a more racially-equitable basis?), might be too ambitious for them, but I presume anything that increases corporate profits will be pursued relentlessly.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Some state will definitely pass one if they haven’t already.

What legal standing would they base such a law on? I can't wrap my head around any legal way such a law can be enforced.

 

[K1052]

More decisions coming Monday, where I assume we will find out that the EPA is illegal and your christian football coach can pressure you into praying with him.

 

[fskimospy]

What legal standing would they base such a law on?

They wouldn't have to base it on anything, just pass a law that does it. The right to free travel within the country is not in the Constitution, so what legal standing would SCOTUS have to invalidate it?

I don't see what prevents states from simply banning any of their residents from leaving, period, at least under the current reasoning of SCOTUS.