We had a good run as a country

nolaegghead

Botch said:

fishlessman said:
and the obama whitehouse leaving that door open. 

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by this.  ???

Think along the lines that if a woman is raped, it’s her fault for dressing suggestively.  In other words, he is suggesting the victim is somehow culpable.

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

@HeavyG - Walker Bragman is a weapons-grade jackass.

He may well be. When I post a tweet it doesn't mean that I am supportive/approve of their entire ouevre. In this case, I just agree that the Dems (as usual) play softball while the opposing team is (always) playing hardball.

Maybe that will change in the next couple of weeks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure what the Dems are supposed to do about either Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.  To degrees, neither of them appears to give two craps about doing anything in the interests of the greater good.  

If Roe v. Wade is overturned it effects far more than just the abortion issue.

Given the near certainty that the Dems are going to lose both chambers this year and quite possibly (likely?) the WH in 24 I'm with those that think the Dems would be wise to at least make the attempt now and force votes in both chambers that would codify the rights being impacted.

No doubt that Manchin and Sinema are wildcards but, given that the vast majority of citizens are supportive of abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues that may be impacted there may well be enough voters that might "cross over" that current members of Congress might think twice about not supporting Roe v. Wade.

Or, the Dems can just keep doing nothing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Have you been paying attention over the past two years?  They have forced votes on issues.  Manchin and Sinema couldn’t care less.  In fact, all evidence points to them being more than happy to having to cast votes against their party, because THAT IS THEIR BRAND.  

The idea that either of those two can somehow be peer pressured into suddenly pulling for the team is pure fantasy.   And yet people cling to this concept because reality is just far too difficult to accept, I guess. 

fishlessman

Botch said:

fishlessman said:
and the obama whitehouse leaving that door open. 

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by this.  ???

There was a time when the democrats and the house and the Senate and the white house could of got her to retire during the Obama admin,  it was right there, easily seen. I said it here back then,.  It was too easy for trump. It's one of the most important things for a pres to do

JohnInCarolina

fishlessman said:

Botch said:

fishlessman said:
and the obama whitehouse leaving that door open. 

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by this.  ???

There was a time when the democrats and the house and the Senate and the white house could of got her to retire during the Obama admin,  it was right there, easily seen. I said it here back then,.  It was too easy for trump. It's one of the most important things for a pres to do

I think RBG was maybe 79 when the Republicans took the Senate back.  I do like this fantasy world where the Obama White House could have somehow forced RBG to resign, even if she didn’t want to.   She was in reasonably good health until fairly recently.  

Even had she resigned and Obama had appointed another judge, the court is still 5-4 conservative right now.  

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

fishlessman said:

Botch said:

fishlessman said:
and the obama whitehouse leaving that door open. 

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by this.  ???

There was a time when the democrats and the house and the Senate and the white house could of got her to retire during the Obama admin,  it was right there, easily seen. I said it here back then,.  It was too easy for trump. It's one of the most important things for a pres to do

I think RBG was maybe 79 when the Republicans took the Senate back.  I do like this fantasy world where the Obama White House could have somehow forced RBG to resign, even if she didn’t want to.   She was in reasonably good health until fairly recently.  

Even had she resigned and Obama had appointed another judge, the court is still 5-4 conservative right now.  

Ilove louv your fantasy world too

JohnInCarolina

i can haz Engrish?

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

fishlessman said:

Botch said:

fishlessman said:
and the obama whitehouse leaving that door open. 

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by this.  ???

There was a time when the democrats and the house and the Senate and the white house could of got her to retire during the Obama admin,  it was right there, easily seen. I said it here back then,.  It was too easy for trump. It's one of the most important things for a pres to do

I think RBG was maybe 79 when the Republicans took the Senate back.  I do like this fantasy world where the Obama White House could have somehow forced RBG to resign, even if she didn’t want to.   She was in reasonably good health until fairly recently.  

Even had she resigned and Obama had appointed another judge, the court is still 5-4 conservabest plan was to do nothing. V.                    
 Pretty typical for the dems

For the crap . I don't agree with this for crap
I agree with roe but the left handled this wrong


                

JohnInCarolina

Geez Fish have another gin and tonic man, lol.

lousubcap

The hills are alive with the sound of music-I am kidding but the incoming info is incredible. I may find more-but worth a read.

Saahil Desai SENIOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR

What comes after Roe v. Wade? It’s no longer an abstract question. Then:What it’s like to have NFT scammers hack your Twitter account.

Post-Roe America (Drew Angerer / Getty; Win McNamee / Getty) Unprecedented is one of those words that journalists like to throw around. But if any moment seems to fit the bill, it’s this one. According to a leaked draft opinion obtained by Politico (and today confirmed as authentic by Chief Justice John Roberts), the Supreme Court has decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, paving the way for states to ban abortions. (The scope of the decision could still change before it becomes public next month.) Though the anticipated outcome might be shocking—the Supreme Court doesn’t often reverse its own precedent—the Court’s Republican-appointed majority signaled that the end of Roe was coming during oral arguments for the abortion case at hand, and the conservative legal movement has been angling for this outcome for many decades. What will a post-Roe America actually look like? Expect more than half of states to outlaw abortions outright—13 already have “trigger” laws that would automatically ban abortions once Roe is officially dead. (Although, thanks to existing restrictions, largely in red states, nearly 90 percent of counties currently lack a single abortion clinic.) Meanwhile, a covert network of abortion-rights activists has been plotting how to maintain access even amid the new restrictions, pivoting to self-managed abortion pills and DIY devices. “A post-Roe world will not resemble a pre-Roeworld,” the journalist Jessica Bruder writes in our May cover story. Here are three more views from our writers. The conservatives aren’t just ending Roe—they’re delighting in it. The leaked draft is the work of emboldened justices who have no desire to end Roe in a gentle manner, the law professor Mary Ziegler argues: “The conservative majority is not going to sit around and wait; nothing about this seems particularly hard for these justices. No soul-searching was required.” Roe’s supporters must stand up. “My mother and all the women who fought alongside her gave my generation Roe v. Wade,” our contributing writer Molly Jong-Fast explains. “They gave us the bodily autonomy we should have already had … It was an essential gift, and an irreversible one. Or so we thought.” This ruling will have tremendous implications. Our staff writer Adam Serwer asks, if the Court is willing to strip away a right that has been enshrined for a half century, what will the justices do next? “There is no freedom from state coercion that conservatives cannot strip away if conservatives find that freedom personally distasteful,” he writes. “The rights of heterosexual married couples to obtain contraception, or of LGBTQ people to be free from discrimination, are obvious targets.”

lousubcap

And one more- after this I will cease at least til Wednesday:

Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good   Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Subscribe here.   May 3, 2022

Abortion Consumes US Politics Arguably, there has not been a bigger story in the US in decades: A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion would, if finalized, overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made abortion legal in America.    The impact would be difficult to overstate.    After years of Republican efforts to impose stricter regulations on abortion clinics, hundreds-mile swaths of the US currently have none. Still, journalists and abortion-rights advocates have cited the danger of abortion before its legalization. Predicting the end of Roe in January, The New York Times’ Ilana Panich-Linsman and Lauren Kelley told the stories of women who faced those risks. Tulane history professor Karissa Haugeberg summarized pre-Roe abortion to NPR in 2019.    Abortion now can be expected to dominate US politics, writes Politico founding editor John Harris. “(N)ot many Republican operatives would advise that the best strategy for the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential elections is to put abortion rights front and center in a consuming national debate,” Harris writes. “But if the court follows through with its draft opinion … front and center is where it will be, even as polls” in recent years have shown majorities consistently want Roe to stay.    (Overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion: Most immediately, it would allow individual states to write their own abortion laws. But Harris isn’t so sure the matter would be confined to the states. Abortion could be banned nationwide “if Republicans chose to do so with a narrow majority next time they take control of Congress,” Harris notes; it could be legalized nationwide “when Democrats are in charge.”)   There is more to say about US public sentiment on abortion, but in the draft opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito writes that abortion policy should be “return(ed) … to the people and their elected representatives.”    If the decision is finalized, Harris writes, Alito will get what he wants.

What the Leak Means for the Court The leak, in itself, has shocked many. “I love a leak as much as the next reporter,” writes Washington Post columnist and court-watcher Ruth Marcus, “but unlike Congress and the White House, the court can’t function this way. … I’m not prepared to believe the institution should be destroyed, which would be the consequence of a culture of preemptive leaking.”

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

Geez Fish have another gin and tonic man, lol.

You just don't understand the commen man. Onemoref

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

@HeavyG - Walker Bragman is a weapons-grade jackass.

He may well be. When I post a tweet it doesn't mean that I am supportive/approve of their entire ouevre. In this case, I just agree that the Dems (as usual) play softball while the opposing team is (always) playing hardball.

Maybe that will change in the next couple of weeks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure what the Dems are supposed to do about either Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.  To degrees, neither of them appears to give two craps about doing anything in the interests of the greater good.  

If Roe v. Wade is overturned it effects far more than just the abortion issue.

Given the near certainty that the Dems are going to lose both chambers this year and quite possibly (likely?) the WH in 24 I'm with those that think the Dems would be wise to at least make the attempt now and force votes in both chambers that would codify the rights being impacted.

No doubt that Manchin and Sinema are wildcards but, given that the vast majority of citizens are supportive of abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues that may be impacted there may well be enough voters that might "cross over" that current members of Congress might think twice about not supporting Roe v. Wade.

Or, the Dems can just keep doing nothing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Have you been paying attention over the past two years?  They have forced votes on issues.  Manchin and Sinema couldn’t care less.  In fact, all evidence points to them being more than happy to having to cast votes against their party, because THAT IS THEIR BRAND.  

The idea that either of those two can somehow be peer pressured into suddenly pulling for the team is pure fantasy.   And yet people cling to this concept because reality is just far too difficult to accept, I guess. 

Doesn't really matter what Manchin/Sinema do in this. The point is to make a roll call vote so the record clearly shows - loudly and publicly - where every Congresscritter stands.

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

@HeavyG - Walker Bragman is a weapons-grade jackass.

He may well be. When I post a tweet it doesn't mean that I am supportive/approve of their entire ouevre. In this case, I just agree that the Dems (as usual) play softball while the opposing team is (always) playing hardball.

Maybe that will change in the next couple of weeks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure what the Dems are supposed to do about either Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.  To degrees, neither of them appears to give two craps about doing anything in the interests of the greater good.  

If Roe v. Wade is overturned it effects far more than just the abortion issue.

Given the near certainty that the Dems are going to lose both chambers this year and quite possibly (likely?) the WH in 24 I'm with those that think the Dems would be wise to at least make the attempt now and force votes in both chambers that would codify the rights being impacted.

No doubt that Manchin and Sinema are wildcards but, given that the vast majority of citizens are supportive of abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues that may be impacted there may well be enough voters that might "cross over" that current members of Congress might think twice about not supporting Roe v. Wade.

Or, the Dems can just keep doing nothing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Have you been paying attention over the past two years?  They have forced votes on issues.  Manchin and Sinema couldn’t care less.  In fact, all evidence points to them being more than happy to having to cast votes against their party, because THAT IS THEIR BRAND.  

The idea that either of those two can somehow be peer pressured into suddenly pulling for the team is pure fantasy.   And yet people cling to this concept because reality is just far too difficult to accept, I guess. 

Doesn't really matter what Manchin/Sinema do in this. The point is to make a roll call vote so the record clearly shows - loudly and publicly - where every Congresscritter stands.

How do you even get to a roll call vote on an issue like this with the filibuster in place?  

Look I’m all for Dems doing everything in their power to protect rights, I just don’t think something like what you’re suggesting actually qualifies as “doing something” or “playing hardball”.  Mostly it just seems like kabuki theater.  Maybe that makes a few people feel better momentarily, but it’s not serious.

JohnInCarolina

Well, now I’m convinced!

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

@HeavyG - Walker Bragman is a weapons-grade jackass.

He may well be. When I post a tweet it doesn't mean that I am supportive/approve of their entire ouevre. In this case, I just agree that the Dems (as usual) play softball while the opposing team is (always) playing hardball.

Maybe that will change in the next couple of weeks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure what the Dems are supposed to do about either Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.  To degrees, neither of them appears to give two craps about doing anything in the interests of the greater good.  

If Roe v. Wade is overturned it effects far more than just the abortion issue.

Given the near certainty that the Dems are going to lose both chambers this year and quite possibly (likely?) the WH in 24 I'm with those that think the Dems would be wise to at least make the attempt now and force votes in both chambers that would codify the rights being impacted.

No doubt that Manchin and Sinema are wildcards but, given that the vast majority of citizens are supportive of abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues that may be impacted there may well be enough voters that might "cross over" that current members of Congress might think twice about not supporting Roe v. Wade.

Or, the Dems can just keep doing nothing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Have you been paying attention over the past two years?  They have forced votes on issues.  Manchin and Sinema couldn’t care less.  In fact, all evidence points to them being more than happy to having to cast votes against their party, because THAT IS THEIR BRAND.  

The idea that either of those two can somehow be peer pressured into suddenly pulling for the team is pure fantasy.   And yet people cling to this concept because reality is just far too difficult to accept, I guess. 

Doesn't really matter what Manchin/Sinema do in this. The point is to make a roll call vote so the record clearly shows - loudly and publicly - where every Congresscritter stands.

How do you even get to a roll call vote on an issue like this with the filibuster in place?  

Look I’m all for Dems doing everything in their power to protect rights, I just don’t think something like what you’re suggesting actually qualifies as “doing something” or “playing hardball”.  Mostly it just seems like kabuki theater.  Maybe that makes a few people feel better momentarily, but it’s not serious.

All I can say is that Schumer said today that there will be a vote in the Senate.

Of course it's not bloody likely that he will be able to muster the 60-vote supermajority needed to pass a law and I'm sure he knows that.

And I'm not saying that doing this is, in and of itself, "playing hardball". To the contrary, doing this seems like about the minimum they can do - just get everyone on the record before the real battles begin.

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

@HeavyG - Walker Bragman is a weapons-grade jackass.

He may well be. When I post a tweet it doesn't mean that I am supportive/approve of their entire ouevre. In this case, I just agree that the Dems (as usual) play softball while the opposing team is (always) playing hardball.

Maybe that will change in the next couple of weeks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I’m not sure what the Dems are supposed to do about either Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema.  To degrees, neither of them appears to give two craps about doing anything in the interests of the greater good.  

If Roe v. Wade is overturned it effects far more than just the abortion issue.

Given the near certainty that the Dems are going to lose both chambers this year and quite possibly (likely?) the WH in 24 I'm with those that think the Dems would be wise to at least make the attempt now and force votes in both chambers that would codify the rights being impacted.

No doubt that Manchin and Sinema are wildcards but, given that the vast majority of citizens are supportive of abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues that may be impacted there may well be enough voters that might "cross over" that current members of Congress might think twice about not supporting Roe v. Wade.

Or, the Dems can just keep doing nothing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Have you been paying attention over the past two years?  They have forced votes on issues.  Manchin and Sinema couldn’t care less.  In fact, all evidence points to them being more than happy to having to cast votes against their party, because THAT IS THEIR BRAND.  

The idea that either of those two can somehow be peer pressured into suddenly pulling for the team is pure fantasy.   And yet people cling to this concept because reality is just far too difficult to accept, I guess. 

Doesn't really matter what Manchin/Sinema do in this. The point is to make a roll call vote so the record clearly shows - loudly and publicly - where every Congresscritter stands.

How do you even get to a roll call vote on an issue like this with the filibuster in place?  

Look I’m all for Dems doing everything in their power to protect rights, I just don’t think something like what you’re suggesting actually qualifies as “doing something” or “playing hardball”.  Mostly it just seems like kabuki theater.  Maybe that makes a few people feel better momentarily, but it’s not serious.

All I can say is that Schumer said today that there will be a vote in the Senate.

Of course it's not bloody likely that he will be able to muster the 60-vote supermajority needed to pass a law and I'm sure he knows that.

And I'm not saying that doing this is, in and of itself, "playing hardball". To the contrary, doing this seems like about the minimum they can do - just get everyone on the record before the real battles begin.

http://twitter.com/therecount/status/1521535056795295752?s=20&t=KbG3zybIWT8I1Vhph9N0OQ

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

Geez Fish have another gin and tonic man, lol.

wish i could blame it on the gin

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1521481078376181760?s=20&t=NpRAPdTWHT2iwyxHbHuA7Q

gay marriage is next, followed by gay rights

fishlessman

https://youtu.be/B2201BYp6HE

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/BrynnTannehill/status/1521481078376181760?s=20&t=NpRAPdTWHT2iwyxHbHuA7Q

gay marriage is next, followed by gay rights

Like I said earlier if the leaked opinion holds more than abortion rights will be at risk.

Gotta wonder tho if Clarence Thomas and Mitch McConnell both still believe that Loving v. Virginia is still so called "settled law".

Botch

"How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?"  
 
- Matt Gaetz, R-FL.  

BigreenGreg

In pushing the issue to states rights, there won't be a national ban. Red states will ban it, blue states will make it easy. You may have to road trip two states over. do you see a different outcome?

JohnInCarolina

BigreenGreg said:

In pushing the issue to states rights, there won't be a national ban. Red states will ban it, blue states will make it easy. You may have to road trip two states over. do you see a different outcome?

When people are speaking of a national ban, they're not referring to it being a direct result of this Supreme Court decision.  They're talking about what they're expecting from the GOP if they manage to secure both houses of Congress and the White House in 2024.  

lousubcap

I will leave this here for an interesting read:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-there-are-no-women-in-the-constitution?utm_source=nextdraft&utm_medium=email  

dmchicago

BigreenGreg said:

In pushing the issue to states rights, there won't be a national ban. Red states will ban it, blue states will make it easy. You may have to road trip two states over. do you see a different outcome?

What about poor people. 

Also women in abusive relationships that can’t  just sneak away for a couple of days. 

Also women in a neonatal or when the baby is non sustainable and giving birth Risks  the mothers life. 

Need more examples?

BigreenGreg

If it goes to states rights I thought that takes it out of congress’ reach. 

nolaegghead

Should a woman have the freedom to make choices about her body in just blue states?  The Texas law allows any citizen to hunt down those that try fleeing to another state to get that type of health care.  

I respect those that choose to carry that unwanted pregnancy….especially if it was from rape from a family member or may risk the mother’s life.  But should the government force women by making their choice illegal?

BigreenGreg

I’ve been on different sides of this issue at different times in my life, an incredibly difficult issue. I’m more for the government staying out of it, I don’t want the government supporting it or banning it. Let citizens make their own decisions.
The libertarian side of me is winning right now.

JohnInCarolina

BigreenGreg said:

If it goes to states rights I thought that takes it out of congress’ reach. 

There are federal laws that apply to all states.  

JohnInCarolina

BigreenGreg said:

I’ve been on different sides of this issue at different times in my life, an incredibly difficult issue. I’m more for the government staying out of it, I don’t want the government supporting it or banning it. Let citizens make their own decisions.
The libertarian side of me is winning right now.

Wouldn’t the libertarian view be supportive of letting people have a right to abortion, and leaving it up to them in terms of whether or not they choose to exercise it?