Supreme Court Watch

[Lookie-lou]

really pulling all the stops to try and cover for the latest of their long line of fuckups. DC; never change. its nice and predictable.

 

[Michael Pemulis]

they've already blamed this on people voting trump lmao

And obviously they are correct.

 

[RisingPhoenix]

So if Dems actually run midterms on this...my understanding is they can't really do anything to stop SCOTUS deciding to carry it out as the Justices will all get very peeved if the Admin tries to mess with them, right?

At best maybe they could paper over with some executive orders I guess. But seems like a lie if they claim they can actually protect "womens rights"

 

[Kane Lives]

So if Dems actually run midterms on this...my understanding is they can't really do anything to stop SCOTUS deciding to carry it out as the Justices will all get very peeved if the Admin tries to mess with them, right?

At best maybe they could paper over with some executive orders I guess. But seems like a lie if they claim they can actually protect "womens rights"

Since this is a draft, they could possibly strongarm a justice to reverse course. Maybe.

Doubt the DNC even has such pull to begin with, even with the King Archwaffler Roberts in their pocket.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

So if Dems actually run midterms on this...my understanding is they can't really do anything to stop SCOTUS deciding to carry it out as the Justices will all get very peeved if the Admin tries to mess with them, right?

At best maybe they could paper over with some executive orders I guess. But seems like a lie if they claim they can actually protect "womens rights"

The House has really nothing to do with the Supreme Court anyway. The President appoints, the Senate confirms and there's only 1/3 of the Senate up for election. This will mean nothing for the midterms especially with $6/gallon gas and $20/lb steak.

Since this is a draft, they could possibly strongarm a justice to reverse course. Maybe.

Doubt the DNC even has such pull to begin with, even with the King Archwaffler Roberts in their pocket.

The exact opposite has to happen now or whatever trust the public has left in the Supreme Court will be lost. The SC is supposed to be the one apolitical body. This leak stunt will certainly backfire on the leaker.

 

[Hexadecimal]

So if Dems actually run midterms on this...my understanding is they can't really do anything to stop SCOTUS deciding to carry it out as the Justices will all get very peeved if the Admin tries to mess with them, right?

At best maybe they could paper over with some executive orders I guess. But seems like a lie if they claim they can actually protect "womens rights"

Dems have a few options with this and none are very attractive or effective.
1) court packing-unpopular, has to pass congress (lol) has a very sketchy history cuz FDR tried the same shit and it was transparent as fuck, and ,just like the filibuster, will be used against them but more effectively later on down the line.
2) pass abortion legislation in the congress- lol
3) scream and cry about it and try and keep the energy going until November for voter turnout and still lose the Senate and accomplish fuck all- most likely outcome IMO

When people are paying over twice what they used to for gas and 30-40% more in food, other issues especially cultural ones, don't matter. It's why the Dem messaging for the midterms is such a mess. Unemployment being low and wages being up doesn't matter if I can't fuckin drive to work and barely feed my family because inflation has eclipsd any potential benefits of the things Dems can be most proud of under Biden.

 

[Sammich]

I'm not so sure.

I think the left hasn't had to really campaign on this issue for a while, not nationally. The local campaigns are usually pretty unhinged so hopefully that is the same with the national campaign incoming.

Get a bunch of danger hair sex workers on CNN screaming about how they need post viability abortions in order to work and you're going to alienate every normal woman

I had given up on it ever being overturned, I wonder what the numbers are like. Be real interested in a legitimate poll on pro vs anti..
I hope the pro life crowd (like myself) pushes to get the vote out now, gonna be a very fun election season now. Hell it's gonna make state elections a lot more interesting as well, since all overturning roe is going to do is kick it back to the states.

So if Dems actually run midterms on this...my understanding is they can't really do anything to stop SCOTUS deciding to carry it out as the Justices will all get very peeved if the Admin tries to mess with them, right?

At best maybe they could paper over with some executive orders I guess. But seems like a lie if they claim they can actually protect "womens rights"

Congress makes laws, they can codify it into law if they could get the votes.

 

[Safir]

About that Tik Tok psycho, it doesn't hold water in the 21st century. Birth control for men and women is readily available, it's inexpensive and many times its free. Birth control pills are almost 100% effective when used properly and if a woman is too retarded to keep her legs closed and remember to take a pill every day then there is long term birth control like a shot every six months, implants and the IUD. You can use contraceptives to induce menstruation after unprotected sex/rape and if you are sapient enough to notice a missed period then there is the abortion pill. They ignore these very salient facts because it doesn't fit their narrative and scream about coat hangers and butchers, as if the only way to prevent pregnancy is via abortion. It is not. A fetus is a human being and has rights. If the idea of pregnancy is that abhorrent then sterilization is also an option.

Respectfully disagree. A woman (or girl) is having her body deformed and poisoned by another human. The TikTok psycho says that woman has the right to protect herself from harm. It doesn't matter how retarded and debased the woman was to get herself in harm's way in the first place. Rape is illegal even if the victim is unconscious. Home invasion is illegal even if the door is unlocked. Murder is illegal even if you're in Portland. "The victim is retarded and brought it on him/herself" is all there is to most criminal scams, and they're illegal nevertheless.

Now I'm a utilitarian and a commie, so I believe an abortion ban (with exceptions for rape, incest, tard babies, and exceptional danger to the pregnant woman's health) in a first-world country in the 21st century will improve women's lives (less whoring, less commodification of women's bodies), and thus it is ethical to exclude harm caused by unborn babies from the right to protect oneself from existing ongoing physical harm. But I also believe that the right to abortion up until labor starts is sound. (I also believe that, if abortion is legal, it should be funded by insurance as long as insurance pays for many other retards' self-inflicted consequences; otherwise, it'd be sex discrimination.)

These schizos want to make after birth abortion a reality. They literally want to kill babies after they are born.

This is fucked up. Once the baby is out, he or she is no longer physically harming the woman (mother), and the above does not apply.

This doesn’t seem to reflect reality. The countries with high birthrates are the ones that are underdeveloped.

People in underdeveloped countries =/= underdeveloped people in a developed country.

 

[remiem]

Worsening our demographics to own the libs is a terrible idea, but as people ITT have pointed out there are ways to curb that population that don’t involve infanticide. If the right was smart (it isn’t smart and loves groveling to niggers), it would realize this and at least consider policies like conditioning welfare on birth control.

A pro-choice sentiment normal people who aren’t rabid leftists will often cite is that without abortion, society will have to deal with a whole lot more kids from people who shouldn’t be having them.

If birth control was so effective then the access to the ability to have an abortion wouldn't be something argued about. There's a fair amount of abortions that are directly the result of birth control failure. No form of birth control is 100% outside of abstinence except perhaps getting a full hysterectomy with ovary removal, which really fucks with your health if done at a younger age.

So tired of the same bullshit in every KF thread about abortion that puts all the onus on women. A baby doesn't magically appear in a womb. It takes two to tango. Ya'll want to call women loose sluts who use abortion as birth control, which 99% don't because of expense and accessibility, and bAbAy KiLLeRSZ but you don't see men lining up for vasectomy's to prevent themselves from being able to contribute to the problem.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Congress makes laws, they can codify it into law if they could get the votes.
Ver archivo adjunto 3243569

The leaked decision basically says any such law would be a violation of the 10th Amendment so any state could have it tossed. Congress won't take the risk of a new law with this same Supreme Court who'll just strike it down too and make a precedent.

 

[Josterman]

They won’t relent

 

[Sammich]

The leaked decision basically says any such law would be a violation of the 10th Amendment so any state could have it tossed. Congress won't take the risk of a new law with this same Supreme Court who'll just strike it down too and make a precedent.

I haven't read the leak, only snippets of it. That does make a ton of sense, i hope the congress still tries and gets shut down. Gonna be filibustered anyway.

 

[WelfareNiggerQueen]

How long until the US makes protesting effectively illegal, like the UK?

Whenever the Cuckservatives get the balls to do mostly peaceful but fiery protests

 

[Collections Agent]

Time for some hot takes:
Ver archivo adjunto 3243173
She deleted her account promptly.

I literally am having trouble processing this

 

[HarryHowler]

Since this is a draft, they could possibly strongarm a justice to reverse course. Maybe.

Doubt the DNC even has such pull to begin with, even with the King Archwaffler Roberts in their pocket.

The Democrats can't do shit. The Republicans on the other hand could possibly try reaching out to the three Trump-appointed judges and say "This is going to fuck us in the mid-terms, you need to stop short of fully shitcanning Roe v. Wade" if this really does go down badly with the general public.

When people are paying over twice what they used to for gas and 30-40% more in food, other issues especially cultural ones, don't matter. It's why the Dem messaging for the midterms is such a mess. Unemployment being low and wages being up doesn't matter if I can't fuckin drive to work and barely feed my family because inflation has eclipsd any potential benefits of the things Dems can be most proud of under Biden.

Things still don't look good for the Democrats, but at least they've now got a clear issue to campaign on in the mid-terms rather than just vague anti-Trump scaremongering. The Republicans, meanwhile, need to figure out how to incorporate this properly into their messaging, bearing in mind that accusing women who want abortion access of being baby-murdering sluts is the kind of thing that generally tends not to go down well in a political campaign.

As I see it, they've got two choices; the first is to try say they're defending the rights of states to make their own decisions free of interference from the federal government, which would go down well with the GOP base, but has the problem of the left being able to spin that argument as the one that was often used to defend slavery and segregation. The second choice is to pretty much ignore the whole thing and just focus on the economy and Russia, which is probably the better option, but could end badly if the Democrats manage to come up with an effective attack line over Roe v. Wade.

So, I guess it's just going to be a question of which side manages to self-sabotage less than the other. Again.

 

[Gamergirl Cleanup Crew]

If birth control was so effective then the access to the ability to have an abortion wouldn't be something argued about. There's a fair amount of abortions that are directly the result of birth control failure. No form of birth control is 100% outside of abstinence except perhaps getting a full hysterectomy with ovary removal, which really fucks with your health if done at a younger age.

So tired of the same bullshit in every KF thread about abortion that puts all the onus on women. A baby doesn't magically appear in a womb. It takes two to tango. Ya'll want to call women loose sluts who use abortion as birth control, which 99% don't because of expense and accessibility, and bAbAy KiLLeRSZ but you don't see men lining up for vasectomy's to prevent themselves from being able to contribute to the problem.

There is birth control with 99.9% effectiveness. The percent of women killing their babies because they were correctly taking birth control and it still failed is basically nonexistent. Literally just don't be a whore and only fuck a man if you want to stay with him.
>Ya'll
Oh, I see. Nevermind, carry on.

 

[named]

So tired of the same bullshit in every KF thread about abortion that puts all the onus on women. A baby doesn't magically appear in a womb. It takes two to tango. Ya'll want to call women loose sluts who use abortion as birth control, which 99% don't because of expense and accessibility, and bAbAy KiLLeRSZ but you don't see men lining up for vasectomy's to prevent themselves from being able to contribute to the problem.

The sort of person who runs around having sex with everything isn't exactly known for their dedication to careful planning. I in fact do have several friends who had vasectomies specifically because they didn't feel like trusting women's word on birth control and were paranoid about potential legal obligations; though it's not something they bring up much (supposedly it hurts them on the dating market in our age bracket). It's certainly an interesting form of dysgenics.

Now I'm a utilitarian and a commie, so I believe an abortion ban (with exceptions for rape, incest, tard babies, and exceptional danger to the pregnant woman's health) in a first-world country in the 21st century will improve women's lives (less whoring, less commodification of women's bodies), and thus it is ethical to exclude harm caused by unborn babies from the right to protect oneself from existing ongoing physical harm. But I also believe that the right to abortion up until labor starts is sound. (I also believe that, if abortion is legal, it should be funded by insurance as long as insurance pays for many other retards' self-inflicted consequences; otherwise, it'd be sex discrimination.)

From a utilitarian perspective, this isn't quite so straightforward - if you believe the value of a QALY is positive, then usually the expected baby will have higher expected utility than the mother for the simple reason that the baby has more QALYs to begin with and they're likely to be in similar socioeconomic conditions. You can hold that this is counterbalanced by a default negative impact on everyone else, but that's an extremely difficult balance to strike, and I've rarely seen one that doesn't end up with a logical conclusion of either people living in pods eating bugs or mailing bombs from your home in the woods. You can also try to argue that this is counterbalanced by infant mortality, but that's not really true unless you include the sort of "infant mortality" that has mysterious increases with drunk parents near holidays.

Even from a more standard US perspective, Roe v. Wade held that women have a "right to privacy" which protected the right to choose an abortion, but it also held that the government has an interest in maintaining pre-natal life. Most left-wing people I talk to don't acknowledge the latter interest anymore, and hold that the decision should be based solely on the mother's utility. I don't understand how this is supposed to be consistent with their usual perspective on economics, though - it's not simple personal utility maximization because they also tend to argue in favor of fairness/"equity". (Correspondingly, for the right wing, Dreher etc. will be happy to go on about how in an atomized society there's no sense of responsibility to society.)

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

Things still don't look good for the Democrats, but at least they've now got a clear issue to campaign on in the mid-terms rather than just vague anti-Trump scaremongering. The Republicans, meanwhile, need to figure out how to incorporate this properly into their messaging, bearing in mind that accusing women who want abortion access of being baby-murdering sluts is the kind of thing that generally tends not to go down well in a political campaign.

As I see it, they've got two choices; the first is to try say they're defending the rights of states to make their own decisions free of interference from the federal government, which would go down well with the GOP base, but has the problem of the left being able to spin that argument as the one that was often used to defend slavery and segregation. The second choice is to pretty much ignore the whole thing and just focus on the economy and Russia, which is probably the better option, but could end badly if the Democrats manage to come up with an effective attack line over Roe v. Wade.

So, I guess it's just going to be a question of which side manages to self-sabotage less than the other. Again.

What issue can they campaign on? Democrats already control Congress and the White House. They could pass a law tomorrow. Campaigning on this would be hilarious.

 

[JohnDoe]

As I see it, they've got two choices; the first is to try say they're defending the rights of states to make their own decisions free of interference from the federal government, which would go down well with the GOP base, but has the problem of the left being able to spin that argument as the one that was often used to defend slavery and segregation. The second choice is to pretty much ignore the whole thing and just focus on the economy and Russia, which is probably the better option, but could end badly if the Democrats manage to come up with an effective attack line over Roe v. Wade

"Senile Joe and his out of touch Washington Democrat Elites bungled Afghanistan, flushed the economy, might start a world war and now want ultimate control of all your medical decisions. Vote GOP to keep control where it belongs, with you and your community."

I dunno, something like that maybe?

 

[Collections Agent]

What issue can they campaign on? Democrats already control Congress and the White House. They could pass a law tomorrow. Campaigning on this would be hilarious.

Bidens first year had 2 full terms worth of mistakes and errors in it, pretty sure this is them getting what they paid for ("reinforcing" the election I mean)