Yes I'm absolutely sure, I am not saying they wouldnt do it if they had the votes but they will never run on it as it would cost them any chance of winning seats in the south
Except that Obama literally did run on it and won.
If it ends up being a 5-4 decision, you can also hang some of that on Bader-Ginsburg who refused to retire in 2014 when she was an 81 year old 2-time cancer survivor and the Senate was about to change hands.
Quote:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a message for liberals who have been saying the 81-year-old should step down while Democratic President Barack Obama is in office so he can appoint her successor: Who are you going to get who will be better than me?
Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
If it ends up being a 5-4 decision, you can also hang some of that on Bader-Ginsburg who refused to retire in 2014 when she was an 81 year old 2-time cancer survivor and the Senate was about to change hands.
Except that Obama literally did run on it and won.
No he didn't, he ran on being the US's first Black President and he didnt touch abortion with a ten foot pole when he could have, which kind of proves my point
Also could have retired in 2009 when, again, there was a supermajority.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
No he didn't, he ran on being the US's first Black President and he didnt touch abortion with a ten foot pole when he could have, which kind of proves my point
I'd say you have a bizarre definition of what constitutes "touching with a ten foot pole" if explicitly promising to codify Roe v. Wade in a campaign speech doesn't qualify.
What is your argument here? Did they or did they not have a supermajority, which they could have used to codify Roe v. Wade in 2009, just as Obama had promised during his campaign?
They did for a year. And judging by those states - they wouldn't have had the votes to get it done so they focused on Obamacare.
If it ends up being a 5-4 decision, you can also hang some of that on Bader-Ginsburg who refused to retire in 2014 when she was an 81 year old 2-time cancer survivor and the Senate was about to change hands.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
If it ends up being a 5-4 decision, you can also hang some of that on Bader-Ginsburg who refused to retire in 2014 when she was an 81 year old 2-time cancer survivor and the Senate was about to change hands.
So how does this disprove my point? Seems like protecting abortion rights is not possible simply by voting for more Democrats.
I have no idea what your point is. Its your only hope of ever having it done unless you think some 3rd party is going to form and win 60 senate seats.
With the US as divided as it is. You need someone to break the fillibuster (which you need more democrats to win to do it or have the Republicans do it when they can control) and then you need more democrats to win senate seats so you can pass it with 53 senators or whatever (knowing a few will vote against it).
If you want abortion codified - that's your only way of making it happen. And even then its probably not going to happen because of how the US system works and how it gives a ton of power to sparsely populated states that don't support abortion.
Which is what Rube is basically saying - the solution to the problem of a lack of a federal law addressing abortion isn't to vote for more democrats, because even if you do, they're not going to actually do it. So the whole "you have to fix this by showing up at the ballot box" line of argument isn't convincing or even honest.
Which obviously isn't to say that you shouldn't vote for Democrats, because at least they're not actively eroding abortion rights in most cases.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
So how does this disprove my point? Seems like protecting abortion rights is not possible simply by voting for more Democrats.
Had Hillary been elected this wouldn't have happened, Democrats protect the status quo, that is not insignificant as every poor woman in the south is about to find out
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Yeah, the actual solution is to go hard GOP-playbook and start pulling funding and threaten to primary anyone who seems lukewarm on this. The "vote for me I'm the good guy/girl" schtick is worthless in the face of the relentless GOP attacks on these issues.
Ah, but who am I kidding? They'd be accused of being far-left and too partisan, and would actually get primaried themselves. The US is effed.
Ah, but who am I kidding? They'd be accused of being far-left and too partisan, and would actually get primaried themselves.
In most cases that would actually be the correct answer from the perspective of the DCCC - the only situations where this would even come up are in districts where those same candidates would lose in the general.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Corsi, your continued posting of an example from West Wing when it comes to current political discourse really makes me think I need to watch that show. I love how you always find the right clip for the discussion haha.
This, as I mentioned above, fails to appreciate the distinction between a right to do something and a failure to prohibit it. I don't know what consequences you're specifically referring to, but this statement necessarily implies that if there was a way to get around those consequences (some future development in society or technology or medical advancement), you would want the state to take advantage of that development and prohibit abortion at that time. It is an objection to the means by which the state is trying to prohibit the thing you think is wrong, not an objection to the prohibition in principle. That is incompatible with the statement that someone should have a legal right to abortion that the state should not be permitted to violate.
Right now I believe in Canada we have a failure to prohibit abortion, not a legal right to it, is that correct?
Imo, that makes sense. There are all sorts of moral wrongs that the state shouldn't intervene to correct, many of which I don't think are inalienable rights. As with my example of tobacco, I think the sale of tobacco is morally wrong. It's addictive and dangerous, and the people who sell it know that. I dont think smoking is an inalienable right, but on balance I don't think the good you'd do by prohibiting it outweighs the negative consequences (organized crime taking over the trade).
From a "greatest good" perspective, I think the back alley abortions you'd get by prohibiting would offset the lives saved.
Corsi, your continued posting of an example from West Wing when it comes to current political discourse really makes me think I need to watch that show. I love how you always find the right clip for the discussion haha.
There's actually an equally good one from Season 5 when they're trying to convince the extremely old and possibly suffering from dementia judge to step down about how they can't get anyone worthwhile confirmed by the Republican Senate, but it's not on youtube.
Quote:
ASHLAND
Who'd you get to replace me?
BARTLET
I'd hoped to consult with you.
ASHLAND
Holmes.
BARTLET
Holmes?
ASHLAND
Oliver Wendell. Marshall, John or Thurgood, either one. I want Brandeis, Blackman, Douglass. But you can't get them, can you? Because it's all compromises now, the ones who have no record of scholarship, no body of opinions, nothing you can hold them to, that's who they'll confirm, raging mediocrities... My clerks are preparing a brief. There's an Arab-American man, grabbed out of a line at the airport. What's next? Tribunals, identity cards, bar codes tattooed on our forearms?
BARTLET
Then give me a name.
ASHLAND
Daniel Robenov, New York State Supreme Court. Susan Bengaly, Ninth Circuit. [shakes his finger at Bartlet] But they won't confirm them, will they?
I have good days... and bad. But on my worst day, I am better than the ambulance chasers you can get confirmed by this Senate. You can't do it, Jed. You're not strong enough. The Speaker's running the table. And I can't take a chance.
And yes, you should watch it. It's arguably the best written television show in history - particularly the second and third seasons. The only other show in the conversation on that front is Deadwood. And it's exceptionally well acted too, for the vast majority of the run.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Right now I believe in Canada we have a failure to prohibit abortion, not a legal right to it, is that correct?
That is not correct. We have a legal right to abortion, derived from the right to life, liberty and security of the person, enshrined in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It's not that there's a failure to prohibit abortion, it's illegal to prohibit abortion - the government had a criminal law on the books, and that law was struck down.
From a "greatest good" perspective, I think the back alley abortions you'd get by prohibiting would offset the lives saved.
That's my point - if this is the reason you're against an abortion prohibition, the implication is that if the "back alley abortions problem" could, practically, be solved so that it doesn't offset the lives saved, you would then be fine with a prohibition on abortion. You're entitled to that view, but I don't think it's a view held by most pro-choice people.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Right now I believe in Canada we have a failure to prohibit abortion, not a legal right to it, is that correct?
Imo, that makes sense. There are all sorts of moral wrongs that the state shouldn't intervene to correct, many of which I don't think are inalienable rights. As with my example of tobacco, I think the sale of tobacco is morally wrong. It's addictive and dangerous, and the people who sell it know that. I dont think smoking is an inalienable right, but on balance I don't think the good you'd do by prohibiting it outweighs the negative consequences (organized crime taking over the trade).
From a "greatest good" perspective, I think the back alley abortions you'd get by prohibiting would offset the lives saved.
See that is kind of where I'm at as well.
I am morally opposed to abortion, but even if we ignore the importance of bodily autonomy, banning abortion doesn't actually make abortion rates go down; in fact it might increase the rate, including the back alley stuff.
And then of course we simply cannot allow for a state that can dictate what people do with their bodies (except for vaccinations of course ), but that also ignores the potential of a fetus being viable at some point, and from a legal perspective how you deal with it. And while you can argue it both ways, Canada abortion laws are an outlier in comparison even to very progressive Europe, who definitely provides more protection to the unborn baby.
End of the day, we should focus on reducing the actual NEED for an abortion.
The rate should be next to zero.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
), but that also ignores the potential of a fetus being viable at some point, and from a legal perspective how you deal with it. And while you can argue it both ways, Canada abortion laws are an outlier in comparison even to very progressive Europe, who definitely provides more protection to the unborn baby.