Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

4/5 wrote:Theories on the leak? Liberal clerk(s) hoping to spark a wave of outrage/protests/congressional action? Or public pressure for the majority to scale back the scope of this decision from a complete overrule to merely increased restrictions?

GOP ploy to gauge impacts to the midterms

Given two options….

1. A week of click-hungry press headlines building up the anticipation of a major incoming abortion decision, putting increased public attention on it right before an explosive announcement.

…or…

2. A sudden late Monday leak when nobody is expecting it, which noises up the conversation with the type of pearl clutching decorum debate that pundits, politicians, and others can pivot to instead of talking about the actual erosion of rights and the real world ramifications of that erosion for actual people.

…I’d take the latter if I was a conservative coming for Roe. Bonuses are that people will default to suspecting the other team, conservative media has a grievance angle, and states can start writing anticipatory bans that go into effect asap. It puts that much more time between the announcement and the next vote. A leak is kind of the best case scenario for Republicans.

The idea that this court will be pressured into changing its mind by public response seems naive to me.

Yeah could be. Only Roberts could possibly be swayed if you believe he changed his mind on the Obamacare case but he doesn't matter anyway. It may ratchet up the pressure on Dems to end the filibuster and legislate the right but it's hard to imagine how that would be significantly different now versus in two months.

I care about the whodunit because it's the only interesting thing about this. We knew months ago they were either going to significantly scale back abortion rights or overturn Roe all the way. This is still just a draft and it's written by one of the people who was a sure vote for overturn. They still need 4 more people to sign their name to it. I tend to think this is internal politics trying to move a single Justice (I think Kavanaugh was the most in doubt IIRC) in one direction or the other.

This is such a shitty place to be in. Nothing to do about it.

Democrats will mistakenly believe that the anger it generates is theirs by right to harness. They’ll respond with VOTE, not considering that they just campaigned on understanding and responding to immense problems and then did as close to nothing at all as is humanly possible. When the momentum they want but definitely didn’t earn from this fails to manifest, they’ll start blaming subsets of their own voters for wanting pie in the sky. “If only you’d vote so hard that we had a filibuster-proof majority big enough that it can afford to lose several Roe-opposing members,” they’ll say, like that isn’t a thing that would require Democrats getting more than 72% of the popular vote. Like it’s an answer.

Meanwhile, Republicans will be pre-rushing legislation into place anywhere they can that doesn’t have a trigger law already in waiting, to avoid letting upcoming state races be about preventing such a law from happening. They’ll crow about leaks to avoid talking about the actual decision, and this will work far more often than it should.

The majority of people who saw student loan forgiveness to those making less than $125k as a stunning betrayal of the working class, or who regularly invoke the word elites with scorn, will have no real thoughts on laws that revoke a poverty-stricken person’s access to something the wealthy can still easily attain. Many who regularly bemoan an erosion of personal rights in our country will have no strong opinion at all.

Abortion, an ever-rumbling but mostly dormant volcano, will re-emerge as a primary culture wars front line as corporations try to balance the need to draw talent and maintain brand against restrictive state laws and the instinct to cozy up to political power. Abortion access will become a source of inter-state conflict, and abortion opponents in swing states will get first hungry, and then angry.

Then, potentially, climate change will end up sending millions of people from the coast inland, completely redefining the political make-up of many swing and some rural states, and setting up desperate ideological clashes as “outsiders” seek to undo “our” laws.

This was leaked just in time for riot season.

McParadigm wrote:This is such a shitty place to be in. Nothing to do about it.

Democrats will mistakenly believe that the anger it generates is theirs by right to harness. They’ll respond with VOTE, not considering that they just campaigned on understanding and responding to immense problems and then did as close to nothing at all as is humanly possible. When the momentum they want but definitely didn’t earn from this fails to manifest, they’ll start blaming subsets of their own voters for wanting pie in the sky. “If only you’d vote so hard that we had a filibuster-proof majority big enough that it can afford to lose several Roe-opposing members,” they’ll say, like that isn’t a thing that would require Democrats getting more than 72% of the popular vote. Like it’s an answer.

Meanwhile, Republicans will be pre-rushing legislation into place anywhere they can that doesn’t have a trigger law already in waiting, to avoid letting upcoming state races be about preventing such a law from happening. They’ll crow about leaks to avoid talking about the actual decision, and this will work far more often than it should.

The majority of people who saw student loan forgiveness to those making less than $125k as a stunning betrayal of the working class, or who regularly invoke the word elites with scorn, will have no real thoughts on laws that revoke a poverty-stricken person’s access to something the wealthy can still easily attain. Many who regularly bemoan an erosion of personal rights in our country will have no strong opinion at all.

Abortion, an ever-rumbling but mostly dormant volcano, will re-emerge as a primary culture wars front line as corporations try to balance the need to draw talent and maintain brand against restrictive state laws and the instinct to cozy up to political power. Abortion access will become a source of inter-state conflict, and abortion opponents in swing states will get first hungry, and then angry.

Then, potentially, climate change will end up sending millions of people from the coast inland, completely redefining the political make-up of many swing and some rural states, and setting up desperate ideological clashes as “outsiders” seek to undo “our” laws.

Fingers crossed for the next asteroid.

Covid burned out, world war three went nowhere....there is always the chance that TPTB tapping this as the next big crisis flops.

Simple Torture wrote:

McParadigm wrote:This is such a shitty place to be in. Nothing to do about it.

Democrats will mistakenly believe that the anger it generates is theirs by right to harness. They’ll respond with VOTE, not considering that they just campaigned on understanding and responding to immense problems and then did as close to nothing at all as is humanly possible. When the momentum they want but definitely didn’t earn from this fails to manifest, they’ll start blaming subsets of their own voters for wanting pie in the sky. “If only you’d vote so hard that we had a filibuster-proof majority big enough that it can afford to lose several Roe-opposing members,” they’ll say, like that isn’t a thing that would require Democrats getting more than 72% of the popular vote. Like it’s an answer.

Meanwhile, Republicans will be pre-rushing legislation into place anywhere they can that doesn’t have a trigger law already in waiting, to avoid letting upcoming state races be about preventing such a law from happening. They’ll crow about leaks to avoid talking about the actual decision, and this will work far more often than it should.

The majority of people who saw student loan forgiveness to those making less than $125k as a stunning betrayal of the working class, or who regularly invoke the word elites with scorn, will have no real thoughts on laws that revoke a poverty-stricken person’s access to something the wealthy can still easily attain. Many who regularly bemoan an erosion of personal rights in our country will have no strong opinion at all.

Abortion, an ever-rumbling but mostly dormant volcano, will re-emerge as a primary culture wars front line as corporations try to balance the need to draw talent and maintain brand against restrictive state laws and the instinct to cozy up to political power. Abortion access will become a source of inter-state conflict, and abortion opponents in swing states will get first hungry, and then angry.

Then, potentially, climate change will end up sending millions of people from the coast inland, completely redefining the political make-up of many swing and some rural states, and setting up desperate ideological clashes as “outsiders” seek to undo “our” laws.

Fingers crossed for the next asteroid.

Is that really his argument?

I think one could easily shoot holes in that comparison (pun intended).

But anyway everyone's mind is already made up and no compromise between the two sides is possible. Only option is domination or separation.

BurtReynolds wrote:only option is domination or separation.

What exactly are you getting at here?

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:only option is domination or separation.

What exactly are you getting at here?

Increased conflict between groups enforcing their values universally or groups desiring regional autonomy, with people in different regions having different values. The globalist missionaries want the former. I prefer the latter.

Or maybe we're just in some weird point of history where nothing gets settled and the noise just keeps growing louder and louder but nothing ever happens.

BurtReynolds wrote:

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:only option is domination or separation.

What exactly are you getting at here?

Increased conflict between groups enforcing their values universally or groups desiring regional autonomy, with people in different regions having different values. The globalist missionaries want the former. I prefer the latter.

Or maybe we're just in some weird point of history where nothing gets settled and the noise just keeps growing louder and louder but nothing ever happens.

Are there any basic rights you feel that should absolutely be protected by federal law? honest question out of curiosity. I feel like with your above opinion, some areas of the country may still allow slavery.

4/5 wrote:I care about the whodunit because it's the only interesting thing about this. We knew months ago they were either going to significantly scale back abortion rights or overturn Roe all the way. This is still just a draft and it's written by one of the people who was a sure vote for overturn. They still need 4 more people to sign their name to it. I tend to think this is internal politics trying to move a single Justice (I think Kavanaugh was the most in doubt IIRC) in one direction or the other.

It's not clear to me that leaking this really 'helps' anyone. Wouldn't you want outrage generated closer to the election if the idea is to improve turnout?

What if the leak was just some apolitical go-getter who just wanted to get paid?

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:only option is domination or separation.

What exactly are you getting at here?

Increased conflict between groups enforcing their values universally or groups desiring regional autonomy, with people in different regions having different values. The globalist missionaries want the former. I prefer the latter.

Or maybe we're just in some weird point of history where nothing gets settled and the noise just keeps growing louder and louder but nothing ever happens.

Are there any basic rights you feel that should absolutely be protected by federal law? honest question out of curiosity. I feel like with your above opinion, some areas of the country may still allow slavery.

There are enumerated rights which include prohibiting slavery, and these were incorporated under the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well.

Strat wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

washing machine wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:only option is domination or separation.

What exactly are you getting at here?

Increased conflict between groups enforcing their values universally or groups desiring regional autonomy, with people in different regions having different values. The globalist missionaries want the former. I prefer the latter.

Or maybe we're just in some weird point of history where nothing gets settled and the noise just keeps growing louder and louder but nothing ever happens.

Are there any basic rights you feel that should absolutely be protected by federal law? honest question out of curiosity. I feel like with your above opinion, some areas of the country may still allow slavery.

I dont know of any pro-slavery states, but they probably wouldn't do well considering its a poor economic system.

tragabigzanda wrote:Question for RM: if Alito’s “abortion is different bc it impacts other lives” argument were to drive a SC ruling against guns, would you be ok with the hypothetical trade off?

There will be no such tradeoff, because Alito will simply say that gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment, while abortion rights aren't protected by the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution.

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Question for RM: if Alito’s “abortion is different bc it impacts other lives” argument were to drive a SC ruling against guns, would you be ok with the hypothetical trade off?

There will be no such tradeoff, because Alito will simply say that gun rights are protected by the 2nd Amendment, while abortion rights aren't protected by the 14th Amendment or any other part of the Constitution.

Which is a very defensible position. It's weird to have a special carve out for abortion but not for growing wheat on your own land. Loss of economic activity due to no child being born has just an attenuated connection to interstate commerce as anything else.