News SC Draft Opinion: Roe v. Wade overturned

Page 41 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,269
1,205
126
But it’s so confusing the competing bills. Bill from the house that Schumer brought for a vote, Manchin complaining it’s expanding on Roe and will overrule state rights. Dems it’s only codifying Roe. Bill Murkowski and Collins wrote, while codifying abortion nation wide, apparently doesn’t do enough to stop state laws on number of weeks. But then you get Moscow Mitch saying everyone going to get an abortion at 9 months just before delivery. And media saying this vote backfired on the Dems because it failed under a bipartisan vote. Just because 1 person crossed the aisle, it’s not bipartisan stupid news anchor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
11,665
6,110
136
But it’s so confusing the competing bills. Bill from the house that Schumer brought for a vote, Manchin complaining it’s expanding on Roe and will overrule state rights. Dems it’s only codifying Roe. Bill Murkowski and Collins wrote, while codifying abortion nation wide, apparently doesn’t do enough to stop state laws on number of weeks. But then you get Moscow Mitch saying everyone going to get an abortion at 9 months just before delivery. And media saying this vote backfired on the Dems because it failed under a bipartisan vote. Just because 1 person crossed the aisle, it’s not bipartisan stupid news anchor.
The whole point was to get everyone on the record. None of them would get past the filibuster.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
39,695
16,900
136
This is a messaging exercise since this SCOTUS will toss any law passed in the trash. In which case it might have been better to make Rs vote against protections for pregnancies from rape and incest plus protect access for ectopic pregnancies. Voting to say a raped woman must carry to term or a mother must risk her life for a pregnancy without an option is a lot more damaging politically.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
13,017
4,655
136
the only real choice is pro freedom, or anti-freedom. forcing people into a choice when they are stuck between a rock and a hard place is terrible.

pro freedom- let people make the choice that is best for them, their family. no moral gray areas, not fascist.

anti freedom- tell others what to do when it does not affect you. immoral, fascist, requires bureaucracy

the choice is clear, weather you would personally choose an abortion or not does not matter, it matters weather you would force someone else to do something, even when it does not effect your life.

The anti-abortion people can practice all of their pro-life beliefs all they want AND they want to force the rest of the nation to conform to their beliefs or get arrested and convicted if they don't. How's that for their having personal religious freedoms while denying other people their own personal freedoms because their religious scripture is somehow interpreted in such a way that compels them to do just that.

The separation of church and state is now a myth what with our nation's clergy preaching politics from their pulpits without being held to account for it by the IRS, a duly authorized federal enforcement agency.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,998
4,476
126
Manchin. Who else?

"The final tally was 49 to 51 with moderate Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, joining with Republicans to vote against the measure and stop it from advancing. "

This is why the 2020 election upset me.
Sure we got rid of Trump. But we lost the war.

Don't worry, Republicans tell us all the time how Democrats "control" the country and deserve blame. Powerless to uphold Roe, but all so powerful. Yep...
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and dank69

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,186
2,076
136
So the reports are that the Alito opinion that leaked is the ONLY draft that the majority has created, meaning that there's been no back-and-forth to temper the language of the opinion. To me then that lends weight to my theory that the opinion was leaked by someone who wanted, in the absence of the majority switching sides, CJ Roberts to switch his vote and seize the majority opinion away from Alito to tone down the rhetoric.

Like, leaking this doesn't get Bort or the Coney Dog to switch sides because everyone will know they switched. The only thing leaking this accomplishes is it sends a message to Roberts: "Join us and control the narrative or live with the fact that you let us burn it all down to ashes."
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,874
4,065
126
This is why the 2020 election upset me.
Sure we got rid of Trump. But we lost the war.

Don't worry, Republicans tell us all the time how Democrats "control" the country and deserve blame. Powerless to uphold Roe, but all so powerful. Yep...
You enabled this. You literally have been supporting this behavior for years on here. I always knew you would pull this bullshit, but you need to be reminded constantly for your role in this.

Plus, if this is why you're upset about 2020 election, you're already far past being helped in understanding what is up. This isn't even on the 2016 election, this was started before that. You can trace this back decades. And it was always enabled by people like you.

So the reports are that the Alito opinion that leaked is the ONLY draft that the majority has created, meaning that there's been no back-and-forth to temper the language of the opinion. To me then that lends weight to my theory that the opinion was leaked by someone who wanted, in the absence of the majority switching sides, CJ Roberts to switch his vote and seize the majority opinion away from Alito to tone down the rhetoric.

Like, leaking this doesn't get Bort or the Coney Dog to switch sides because everyone will know they switched. The only thing leaking this accomplishes is it sends a message to Roberts: "Join us and control the narrative or live with the fact that you let us burn it all down to ashes."
Straight up, this is a power grab, they're trying to force Roberts out as Chief Justice, basically they want it to ruin his reputation and force him out and they think they'll put the erosion of the SCOTUS on him. Either way he goes on this enables that. If he supports them then he's just cowtowed and liberals will be eager to get him out of there as well. If he goes against them, then that gives them ammunition to send to the base about how he's being a road block. An open seat will galvanize right wingers who see the mechanism to achieve everything they want in sight. Roe getting overturned is going to destroy a lot of liberal morale, and the two combined could be enough to win them the Presidency (or possibly gain enough in Congress to completely neuter a President, people think its bad now, but if they have both the SCOTUS and Congress, they can effectively put everything they want into law and then overrule whatever any non-Republican President would do to stop it - hell they could wantonly impeach the President and then VP and install their Speaker as President easily; and that's if they don't decide to just throw everything to the wind and declare a Democrat President and VP as traitors and execute them).

This is going to be bad. When Turmp was President there was constant talk about the damage he was doing. I'm not hearing a peep at all from normal people about what is happening now. Average people have almost completely tuned out everything going on politically right now.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,488
2,192
136
The whole point was to get everyone on the record.
THAT'S a bunch of bull cocky.
Not you, but this thinking from Chuck Schumer.
WHO F-ing CARES about THE RECORD???
No one cares. It makes to difference to anyone in the end, and besides.... we already know exactly what THE RECORD will look like so whats the point?

To me, to do this just makes democrats look as helpless as they truly are. Tells the world WE'RE F-ED AND CAN'T DO A THING ABOIUT IT. Democrats need to be hitting hard on the midterms with getting more democrats elected, not whining about past and current failures.
Yeah.... it's embarrassing. Biden is the president, democrats have the house and senate, and still nothing that they can do. It's totally shameful.

And it's not that Manchin can bring an entire political party down to its knees, it is that Joe Biden allows it. Dems should have snipped Manchin's balls long ago and sent Manchin off to the Mitch McConnell camp. No loss to the dems in losing a traitor. A republican in sheep's clothing. Get rid of this Manchin SOB because all that Manchin is doing is making democrats look like worthless fools.

GAUD... WHERE IS LBJ WHEN WE NEED HIM....
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
18,810
8,161
136
THAT'S a bunch of bull cocky.
Not you, but this thinking from Chuck Schumer.
WHO F-ing CARES about THE RECORD???
No one cares. It makes to difference to anyone in the end, and besides.... we already know exactly what THE RECORD will look like so whats the point?

To me, to do this just makes democrats look as helpless as they truly are. Tells the world WE'RE F-ED AND CAN'T DO A THING ABOIUT IT. Democrats need to be hitting hard on the midterms with getting more democrats elected, not whining about past and current failures.
Yeah.... it's embarrassing. Biden is the president, democrats have the house and senate, and still nothing that they can do. It's totally shameful.

And it's not that Manchin can bring an entire political party down to its knees, it is that Joe Biden allows it. Dems should have snipped Manchin's balls long ago and sent Manchin off to the Mitch McConnell camp. No loss to the dems in losing a traitor. A republican in sheep's clothing. Get rid of this Manchin SOB because all that Manchin is doing is making democrats look like worthless fools.

GAUD... WHERE IS LBJ WHEN WE NEED HIM....
How much PR material you think they’ll extract from this come midterms?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,596
29,685
136
This is a messaging exercise since this SCOTUS will toss any law passed in the trash. In which case it might have been better to make Rs vote against protections for pregnancies from rape and incest plus protect access for ectopic pregnancies. Voting to say a raped woman must carry to term or a mother must risk her life for a pregnancy without an option is a lot more damaging politically.
Exactly. I do not understand why democrats are so bad at this. Bring up a federal bill that guarantees abortion rights in case of rape or incest only. If it passes and SCOTUS upholds it great, you just increased abortion rights. If SCOTUS strikes it down it further undermines them. If Republicans block it they are holding a super unpopular stance.

How is this hard to understand.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,207
4,951
136
Is this take accurate? It's not a civil war, but an amicable separation


But as long as the system (the Senate and the electoral college) gives the red-states disproportionate influence at the national level, surely it could always turn from a "concious uncoupling" into Depp v Heard?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
11,665
6,110
136
THAT'S a bunch of bull cocky.
Not you, but this thinking from Chuck Schumer.
WHO F-ing CARES about THE RECORD???
No one cares. It makes to difference to anyone in the end, and besides.... we already know exactly what THE RECORD will look like so whats the point?

To me, to do this just makes democrats look as helpless as they truly are. Tells the world WE'RE F-ED AND CAN'T DO A THING ABOIUT IT. Democrats need to be hitting hard on the midterms with getting more democrats elected, not whining about past and current failures.
Yeah.... it's embarrassing. Biden is the president, democrats have the house and senate, and still nothing that they can do. It's totally shameful.

And it's not that Manchin can bring an entire political party down to its knees, it is that Joe Biden allows it. Dems should have snipped Manchin's balls long ago and sent Manchin off to the Mitch McConnell camp. No loss to the dems in losing a traitor. A republican in sheep's clothing. Get rid of this Manchin SOB because all that Manchin is doing is making democrats look like worthless fools.

GAUD... WHERE IS LBJ WHEN WE NEED HIM....
We know how they'd vote, but the "swing voter" probably doesn't, so this opens an attack path on them. Now instead of saying "republicans will ban abortion" they can specifically say "Susan Collins voted against Row V Wade." This was smart, now they need to do it for birth control, which will be much more effective.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,596
29,685
136
Is this take accurate? It's not a civil war, but an amicable separation


But as long as the system (the Senate and the electoral college) gives the red-states disproportionate influence at the national level, surely it could always turn from a "concious uncoupling" into Depp v Heard?
Splitting America in two is a lot more difficult than people may realize. First, it’s not so much of a state divide as an urban/rural divide, meaning even the reddest and bluest states are more like 60/40. Maybe more importantly though, the red states have dominant political power but are backwards economically. They can’t afford to split from the blue states because they would in large part become third world countries without fiscal transfers from the economically prosperous blue states.

So in the end you have red states with disproportionate power who have very strong incentives not to let the blue states escape from them. Not really a recipe for amicable separation.
 

linkgoron

Platinum Member
Mar 9, 2005
2,054
472
136
hell they could wantonly impeach the President and then VP and install their Speaker as President easily; and that's if they don't decide to just throw everything to the wind and declare a Democrat President and VP as traitors and execute them).
You need two thirds for an impeachment to pass the Senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
6,269
1,205
126
You need two thirds for an impeachment to pass the Senate.
Also the person you replied to, is ignoring the fact you can’t impeach both POTUS and VP at the same time. Separate hearings. And once POTUS gets impeached, VP will choose their VP and the circle continues. Only in the scenario of getting further down the line of succession is a mass terrorist attack like in TV show Designated Survivor and you get Mayor Pete as new POTUS.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
75,596
29,685
136
Also the person you replied to, is ignoring the fact you can’t impeach both POTUS and VP at the same time. Separate hearings. And once POTUS gets impeached, VP will choose their VP and the circle continues. Only in the scenario of getting further down the line of succession is a mass terrorist attack like in TV show Designated Survivor and you get Mayor Pete as new POTUS.
Not true - a new VP has to be approved by a majority of the house and senate.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY