Red Mosquito

B wrote:

That's not what the supreme court would be saying. It would be saying the government would let your shithole state decide, just like with masks. Maybe at best that you can't abort while on Amtrak?

B wrote:Breyer burning the place down on his way out.

It was the CIA to distract from the black ops arriving in Ukraine.

elliseamos wrote:It was the CIA to distract from the black ops arriving in Ukraine.

With all the conspiracy theories circulating these days it's surprising that the good ol' fashioned CIA isn't in the middle of as many of them as they used to be.

Green Habit wrote:

elliseamos wrote:It was the CIA to distract from the black ops arriving in Ukraine.

With all the conspiracy theories circulating these days it's surprising that the good ol' fashioned CIA isn't in the middle of as many of them as they used to be.

Because it's not a conspiracy at this point. That requires something hidden from public knowledge.

tragabigzanda wrote:Some B-list actor proclaiming his solidarity in between pressers is basically the entire democratic platform at this point. Biden is a failure and the Dems have no balls, no fight, no clarity of purpose. What a hopelessly miserable party they’ve become.

+1

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Some B-list actor proclaiming his solidarity in between pressers is basically the entire democratic platform at this point. Biden is a failure and the Dems have no balls, no fight, no clarity of purpose. What a hopelessly miserable party they’ve become.

+1

+2

is this how middle aged white dudes become conservatives?

It might not have come to this if Dems didn't allow extremists to push for 36 week abortions on demand with just a bit of lip service to 'health of the mother'.

Limiting abortion to 12 weeks is wildly popular, heck, there could have been a compromise at viability that might have passed at the national level. Restrictions past 12-24 weeks, you know, inline with Western European countries.

Roe v Wade tried to settle an issue without any political compromise and was doomed from the start.

I feel like the answer to spike’s question lies in how “liberals” choose to engage the simple schoolboy out there. Not sure there’s a real answer, to be honest. I can’t speak for McP but mine was more a “vote of no confidence” than anything else.

Rob wrote:I feel like the answer to spike’s question lies in how “liberals” choose to engage the simple schoolboy out there. Not sure there’s a real answer, to be honest. I can’t speak for McP but mine was more a “vote of no confidence” than anything else.

Vote of no confidence for who? The electorate? Welcome to the party.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Rob wrote:I feel like the answer to spike’s question lies in how “liberals” choose to engage the simple schoolboy out there. Not sure there’s a real answer, to be honest. I can’t speak for McP but mine was more a “vote of no confidence” than anything else.

Vote of no confidence for who? The electorate? Welcome to the party.

The Democratic Party. They never stop disappointing.

simple schoolboy wrote: heck, there could have been a compromise at viability that might have passed at the national level.

States are currently able to restrict abortion in the third trimester? So, that statement is horseshit.

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote: heck, there could have been a compromise at viability that might have passed at the national level.

States are currently able to restrict abortion in the third trimester? So, that statement is horseshit.

For those that insist on doing things at a national level my mang. Grand compromises and all that.

We clearly don't agree on how US govt functions based on your Elie Mystal quote so I dunno. Maybe federal legislation is impossible because of what Louise Mensch thinks the Marshal of the Supreme Court does.

I dont normally follow this type stuff but I have questions

1. When roe vs wade happened, why wasn't a law/constitutional amendment or actual legislation written about abortion?

2. Or.. Was something written? Since when do judges write laws?

3. Why are judges affiliated with political parties? Shouldn't they be impartial?

i got bugs wrote:
3. Why are judges affiliated with political parties?

They're not.

i got bugs wrote:I dont normally follow this type stuff but I have questions

1. When roe vs wade happened, why wasn't a law/constitutional amendment or actual legislation written about abortion?

2. Or.. Was something written? Since when do judges write laws?

3. Why are judges affiliated with political parties? Shouldn't they be impartial?

1. A law like that would require supermajority support (60 in the Senate) and a constitutional amendment even more (2/3 both House and Senate plus 3/4 of states to ratify) so yeah good luck getting that on an issue this contentious.

2. Judges don't write laws but they interpret laws and the Constitution and what they did in Roe was say that there is a constitutional right to abortion and therefore states nor the federal government can pass laws to violate that right.

3. I mean they don't have a D or R next to their name but they're nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate so politics matter and obviously presidents want somebody who they think aligns with their ideology and party.