American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is becoming less likely all the time, not more likely. And it was already incredibly unlikely.

This is yet another step to the ideological balkanization that has been a snowball rolling downhill since the 90's down there. It'll only continue to pick up speed as people continue to relocate to states that align with their ideological preferences and those tendencies become all the more entrenched.

Doesn't do much for poor women living in metropolitan areas in the south, regardless.

The balkanization thing is interesting because being a super power is a big part of the US identity. A split US is still a super power but no longer THE super power.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Republicans are pushing to devolve authority to the states (or restore authority to the states, as they would characterize it). Which sucks if you’re a liberal in a Republican state. But I don’t see how that will hurt democracy in California, Illinois, or New York.

That is definitely how they brand it, but I don't see red states running up a bunch of cases to overturn cannabis laws, gay marriage or assisted suicide laws. States rights is the calling card people use when they want to do some unsavoury (see the racial segregation battles in 50s/60s)

[the_only_turek_fan]

Roe is actually a good statute. Banning abortion after fetal viability is the exact balance I would want to see in Canada.

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Someone trying to get someone to change their decision - the motive seems clear. Who it was would be debatable.

Or could have been leaked to gauge public response.

I wonder if it's considered a criminal act to leak such a draft. Is it considered classified information?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

There's something awfully suspicious that's such a decision's draft was so conveniently leaked ahead of time. That almost never happens.

I am curious about the motive.

1. Someone is strongly opposed to the decision
2. Someone wants to get the issue on the table early to build outrage for the midterms
3. Someone wants to get the issue out early to get outrage out of the way before the midterms
4. Someone wants to keep Roe in place so abortion can continue to be a Federal election issue
5. Someone wants to gauge public reaction before deciding
6. Someone wants to force Alito to tone down the language
7. Someone wants to present the most extreme version so that the next version appears more reasonable
8. Someone needs a distraction from something else
9. Someone is concerned about the legitimacy of the court and their legacy
10. Someone wants court expansion to get on the table
11. Someone got hold of one of the biggest decisions in their lifetime and wanted to be part of history
12. Someone feels betrayed by justices supporting this

Not saying all of those are good motivations but it certainly could be from either side. I'm curious who even had direct access to the decision to leak it or to share it with someone else who leaked it. Do politically charged decisions get any sort of under the table review or preview with politicians?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Roe is actually a good statute. Banning abortion after fetal viability is the exact balance I would want to see in Canada.

Get outta here with that. There's no balance. It's not your decision, or anyone else other than the woman in question.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

That is definitely how they brand it, but I don't see red states running up a bunch of cases to overturn cannabis laws, gay marriage or assisted suicide laws. States rights is the calling card people use when they want to do some unsavoury (see the racial segregation battles in 50s/60s)

But as you point out, states rights is what enabled Oregon and Colorado to legalize cannabis long before it would have been politically viable to do so federally. Same with gay marriage. It’s not obvious to me that states being able to enact legislation to suit the preferences of local voters is a bad thing. And there’s reason to believe the nationalization of politics - the trend over the last few decades for public dialogue to focus on national issues in a country where the governance and policies that affect people the most are at the state or municipal level - has been unhealthy for democracy.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/5...ion-federalism

[AltaGuy]

That's a wonderful idea if we were talking about tax rates and roads. Not so great when talking about women dying. Or slavery.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Get outta here with that. There's no balance. It's not your decision, or anyone else other than the woman in question.

Are you suggesting there shouldn’t be any gestational limits on abortion at all? Is there any country in the world where this is the case?

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Are you suggesting there shouldn’t be any gestational limits on abortion at all? Is there any country in the world where this is the case?

I'm saying that in every single case it is a private decision between patient and doctor, no matter what stage of gestation. As it is in Canada.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I'm saying that in every single case it is a private decision between patient and doctor, no matter what stage of gestation. As it is in Canada.

Allowing abortion at 35 weeks is a pretty radical position. Just saying.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Allowing abortion at 35 weeks is a pretty radical position. Just saying.

Don’t worry red state America won’t allow it at all soon so worrying about weeks won’t be an issue

[GirlySports]

Roe is based on the right to privacy, one that isn't explicitly in the Constitution. Which is true in the most specific sense, but the last 100+ years of jurisprudence basically said "if the point of a Constitution is to ultimately limit the power of government and preserve the rights of the people, then it would most definitely follow that a person has a right to his own privacy without government intervention." This right to privacy has then been used repeatedly, including the 1968 case Loving v. Virginia, which held that the right to privacy, specifically whether you can marry someone outside your race, was so important and fundamental that a state law prohibiting that would most certainly be against the Constitution and therefore be struck down.

Not only does the Alito draft of the opinion reject the right to privacy at the outset as not in the Constitution, it specifically cites Loving as not being analogous to Roe. From my skimming of the decision, this opens to the door to reversing Loving.

So yeah, there's going to be a state that's going to pass laws forbidding interracial marriage, just to see if it can get all the up to the SC so they could rule on it, and this decision could be used to justify it, as "there's no right to privacy in the Constitution".

The GOP is going to ban abortions and gay marriage without ever openly campaign on it. It's just an efficient machine.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Don’t worry red state America won’t allow it at all soon so worrying about weeks won’t be an issue

Gay marriage is next.

[timun]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Are you suggesting there shouldn’t be any gestational limits on abortion at all? Is there any country in the world where this is the case?

Uh... Canada...?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

Allowing abortion at 35 weeks is a pretty radical position. Just saying.

Abortion is one of those issues where starkly pro-against positions aren’t early as widespread as people believe.

60 per cent of Americans think abortion should generally be legal in the first trimester. 13 per cent think it should generally be legal in the third trimester, with women actually agreeing at lower rates (12 per cent) vs men (14 per cent).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/...ion-views.aspx

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Abortion is one of those issues where starkly pro-against positions aren’t early as widespread as people believe.

60 per cent of Americans think abortion should generally be legal in the first trimester. 13 per cent think it should generally be legal in the third trimester, with women actually agreeing at lower rates (12 per cent) vs men (14 per cent).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/...ion-views.aspx

Politics is fought at the edges. Again, this is where the GOP excels. Democrats aren't really there. 90%+ of them can rest knowing their lives exist well above the fallout and that their biggest personal risk would be the fight itself.

[Johnny Makarov]

What a 5th world country... How it is even a question for debate in 2022 is ridiculous.

1st world theme parks and 1st world nukes though!

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Abortion is one of those issues where starkly pro-against positions aren’t early as widespread as people believe.

60 per cent of Americans think abortion should generally be legal in the first trimester. 13 per cent think it should generally be legal in the third trimester, with women actually agreeing at lower rates (12 per cent) vs men (14 per cent).

https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/...ion-views.aspx

I think the mainstream is against abortion after fetal viability. Correct me if I am wrong.

Unrestricted and unlimited abortion is the same as the far right thinking every kind of fire arm or weapon should be allowed under the 2A.

Both issues are nuanced and are not black and white.

[AltaGuy]

The garbage thing about debates over "late-term" abortions is that it is entirely political/religious. Abortions should be a medical decision made behind closed doors.

Statistics show that abortions performed beyond 20 weeks are exceedingly rare - and even rarer still when access to abortion is unfettered earlier in a pregnancy - and yet the discussion around them is continually brought up, especially in the US. There are certain scenarios beyond twenty weeks where a doctor and their patient might choose to get one: like, say, if the woman's life were threatened.

I don't want a woman and her doctor to have to justify to the state why they performed a medical procedure. Especially when the justifications for that necessity have continually been shown to be nearly irrelevant.