Red Mosquito

4/5 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:From what I've seen both RBG and Obama are receiving a lot of criticism.

Why Obama?

“The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority,” Obama said at a news conference. “I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s where I’m going to focus.”

What is the big picture? What do they really want?

Who?

One side wants women to have control of their bodies and the other wants to end the (perceived) slaughter of babies.

Is it any more complicated than that?

Surely there’re deeper underlying motives

JuanHamm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:From what I've seen both RBG and Obama are receiving a lot of criticism.

Why Obama?

“The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority,” Obama said at a news conference. “I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s where I’m going to focus.”

Okay maybe not a great look today but how does that change anything about this? This court would have struck that down too.

RBG and Bernie Bros who didn’t vote for Hillary on the other hand…

4/5 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:From what I've seen both RBG and Obama are receiving a lot of criticism.

Why Obama?

“The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority,” Obama said at a news conference. “I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s where I’m going to focus.”

Okay maybe not a great look today but how does that change anything about this? This court would have struck that down too.

RBG and Bernie Bros who didn’t vote for Hillary on the other hand…

You're going to have to continue this conversation with somebody more informed than I am.

I read an article about phoebe bridgers basically bragging about her abortion. People like her are every bit the cretin someone who wants to force an incest baby into the world is.

After the Supreme Court released its bombshell decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) seemed to realize he’d been played by Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, two justices he voted to confirm. “I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans,” Manchin wrote in a statement. The Catholic senator said he’s still anti-abortion but supports legislation to safeguard the rights previously protected by Roe. He said he’s hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can draft such legislation, though there hasn’t been much consensus to do so in the past. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) also admitted Friday that she’d been duped. “This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me,” she said.

These f'n people.

Aren’t the hearings to confirm under oath? If so can they be charged for perjury?

4/5 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:From what I've seen both RBG and Obama are receiving a lot of criticism.

Why Obama?

“The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority,” Obama said at a news conference. “I believe that women should have the right to choose. But I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s where I’m going to focus.”

Okay maybe not a great look today but how does that change anything about this? This court would have struck that down too.

RBG and Bernie Bros who didn’t vote for Hillary on the other hand…

until I read this stupid fucking post, i'd forgotten about the morally unimpeachable bloc of clinton voters. the same supporters who voted for john mccain over obama in higher numbers in 2008 than "bernie bro" primary voters who went for trump in the 2016 general. the same voters whose candidate was late to support same sex marriage & a $15 minimum wage.

let's not pretend that clinton is anything other than center-right on any political spectrum that isn't totally fucking cockeyed. and that's what most of her supporters are, too.

the bernie bro is a mythic category, and people who seriously deploy it don't deserve to be taken seriously. one could meaningfully point to voters in states like WI & MI who didn't come out for clinton. they don't neatly or remotely conform to the connotations conjured by the term "bernie bro". i wonder why they didn't vote for her?

prior to running a shitty campaign that took for granted multiple states in the midwest, hillary & other new democrats moved the party to the right, continue to fetishize an inane centrism (of which the obama quote just above this post is but one example), and rather than exercise power to the extent they often can in their working- and middle-class constituents' interests, prioritize the interest of their donor class, of which many of them are members.

liberals like hillary clinton have helped create austere conditions where politics of reaction & revanchism can blossom, as we're seeing more and more.

Peeps wrote:Aren’t the hearings to confirm under oath? If so can they be charged for perjury?

Would they recuse themselves from deciding the case when it ultimately got to them?

Birds in Hell wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:Isn't the real problem the United State's bizarre form of government? States rights vs federal power and all that...

I don't know, we have a similar system in Australia that generally works well.

The problem seems to be the perverse politicisation of the Supreme Court where its seen as a de facto policy maker, something that should instead only be the responsibility of the legislature.

I'm only a non-local idiot and haven't read the decision, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Roe was poorly decided and there was a degree of inevitability about its overturning at some point.

Isn't it possible to accept overturning Roe was the right decision but also support abortion rights and leaning on elected officials to remedy the gap in legal protections? I guess it's hard for me to understand the 'another example of the USA sliding into fascism!' reactions.

Man, this is the bad stuff.

This should've been fixed by you and your colleagues at a legislative level decades ago, like any regular country.

I truly don't get you guys over there.

Biden is just pandering to the mob.

Peeps wrote:Aren’t the hearings to confirm under oath? If so can they be charged for perjury?

Good luck with that one

verb_to_trust wrote:Biden is just pandering to the mob.

what is this supposed to mean?

Malloy wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Biden is just pandering to the mob.

what is this supposed to mean?

Lonzo Balls knee will never be the same

Birds in Hell wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:Isn't the real problem the United State's bizarre form of government? States rights vs federal power and all that...

I don't know, we have a similar system in Australia that generally works well.

The problem seems to be the perverse politicisation of the Supreme Court where its seen as a de facto policy maker, something that should instead only be the responsibility of the legislature.

I'm only a non-local idiot and haven't read the decision, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Roe was poorly decided and there was a degree of inevitability about its overturning at some point.

Isn't it possible to accept overturning Roe was the right decision but also support abortion rights and leaning on elected officials to remedy the gap in legal protections? I guess it's hard for me to understand the 'another example of the USA sliding into fascism!' reactions.

Man, this is the bad stuff.

This should've been fixed by you and your colleagues at a legislative level decades ago, like any regular country.

I truly don't get you guys over there.

I think you're spot on here.

The sad thing is they could have done it two months ago, but went with the much more extreme activist stance instead:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv ... itics-live

https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom ... ed-to-fail


And if the Democrats thinks voters in swing states care more about an abortion litmus test than they do gas and food prices, or they think that this particular outrage is finally the current thing that will last for another 5 months, they are in for an even bigger landslide in November. Even Matty Y gets it:

tree_ wrote:Surely there’re deeper underlying motives

its all religious bullshit. every single argument against abortion comes down to a personal belief in a higher power judging your actions, and he does't like this action.

not sure if the onion was posted yet..

https://www.theonion.com

doug rr wrote:not sure if the onion was posted yet..

https://www.theonion.com

Those were worth the click.