PeteMoss gave the game away in his post. To get a super majority, the Dems have to run pro-life candidates. So even electing those candidates doesn't guarantee abortion protection, hence why "just vote harder" makes zero sense mathematically on this particular issue.
And that's if you believe the Dems truly want to protect abortion. I would wager that certain segments of the party don't want these issues settled because cultural wedge issues are the only things that fundamentally differentiate them from Republicans.
Keeping Republicans out of office is about the only practical play at keeping whatever abortion protections are left.
If Hillary had won, Abortion would have been protected for at least a generation just by the effect that election had on the Supreme Court.
How would this actually play out if republican states can legally gerrymander and democrat states can legally gerrymander?
Democrats would struggle to ever win a national election. They only control both houses in 17 state legislatures, and every one of them is already mostly a lock for them federally. Meanwhile Republicans control both houses in 30 state legislatures, including virtually every single tossup state.
And it's not just gerrymandering. If state legislatures had basically unchecked authority with no judicial or federal oversight regarding elections, they could easily appoint whatever Presidential electors they wanted in the event of "fraud" (i.e. the election not going how they like) which is what Trump was trying to do.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Democrats would struggle to ever win a national election. They only control both houses in 17 state legislatures, and every one of them is already mostly a lock for them federally. Meanwhile Republicans control both houses in 30 state legislatures, including virtually every single tossup state.
And it's not just gerrymandering. If state legislatures had basically unchecked authority with no judicial or federal oversight regarding elections, they could easily appoint whatever Presidential electors they wanted in the event of "fraud" (i.e. the election not going how they like) which is what Trump was trying to do.
Well, that's pretty disheartening.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Americans aren't dumb. At some point if the system isn't working for the people they'll change it. The current state is already pretty out of sink with polls from the average American. They'll figure it out. In the meantime we watch.
Americans aren't dumb. At some point if the system isn't working for the people they'll change it. The current state is already pretty out of sink with polls from the average American. They'll figure it out. In the meantime we watch.
Oh my sweet summer child...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien
If we can't fall in love with replaceable bottom 6 players then the terrorists have won.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
Is there anything stopping the supreme court from tossing either of those, if it they were done?
Possible. At least it would be a law and individual cases would have to be argued all the way up to the Supreme Court instead of having it blocked at state level.
So say, hypothetically, there was a law that allowed abortions in all cases up to 16 weeks. Would there be a case to prevent a woman to get a 'legal' abortion? Who would sue? Nobody is forcing women to get an abortion, if they want to keep the baby they just keep it, so who would sue? That's would be backwards, no? People sue to get abortions, not to prevent abortions. There are no forced abortions I can think of. Same with voting, who would sue to not vote? If you don't want to vote, just don't. And i don't think sue to prevent other people from this and that exists, does it?
Democrats need to codify laws, establish the precedents and go from there. They can't be scared of future scenarios of someone possibly suing to not have abortions or not vote, that seems weird.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 07-01-2022 at 09:43 AM.
#1 - SCOTUS is always kept at 50% Republican and 50% Democrat. They are appointed by the caucus of each party. I don't see what the point is of making the judicial system a political body.
Judges should be apolitical, with no allegiances to any party. They should rule based on the merit of a case, nothing more. I don’t get it.
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
Oh yes. Oh yes, they are. Incredibly poorly educated, poorly read, and poorly informed (not completely their fault as the mass media has failed them), Americans are dumb as the original signpost. When people can't agree on facts, the system that educated them is broken. The reason it is broken is because the country is populated with the type of people PT Barnum was pining about.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Oh yes. Oh yes, they are. Incredibly poorly educated, poorly read, and poorly informed (not completely their fault as the mass media has failed them), Americans are dumb as the original signpost. When people can't agree on facts, the system that educated them is broken. The reason it is broken is because the country is populated with the type of people PT Barnum was pining about.
I can’t believe you are saying they are poorly educated….in Florida they are revising the K-12 curriculum to say that the Founders were against slavery, that there has always been a political, moral and societal need for education, that the Founders did not want a separation of church and state.
In Texas, there is a suggestion to teach kids in grade two that slavery was actually “involuntary relocation”. The Democrats on the State Board of Education have pushed back and said that they do not agree with that way of “educating” Americans about slavery.
The Following User Says Thank You to Aarongavey For This Useful Post:
Possible. At least it would be a law and individual cases would have to be argued all the way up to the Supreme Court instead of having it blocked at state level.
So say, hypothetically, there was a law that allowed abortions in all cases up to 16 weeks. Would there be a case to prevent a woman to get a 'legal' abortion? Who would sue? Nobody is forcing women to get an abortion, if they want to keep the baby they just keep it, so who would sue? That's would be backwards, no? People sue to get abortions, not to prevent abortions. There are no forced abortions I can think of. Same with voting, who would sue to not vote? If you don't want to vote, just don't. And i don't think sue to prevent other people from this and that exists, does it?
Democrats need to codify laws, establish the precedents and go from there. They can't be scared of future scenarios of someone possibly suing to not have abortions or not vote, that seems weird.
What would happen is the state will pass a law contrary to the federal law and try to enforce it. Then the women seeking the abortion would go to court. Then the court would agree with the state because the federal government doesn’t control heath policy.
All the federal government can go is attach funding to health to induce states to to allow abortion. Essentially they would need to say if you don’t find abortions we don’t fund any heath care. But even that would be subject to significant law suits based around South Dakota bs Dole where the court limits the federal governments ability to interfere in states using money.
PeteMoss gave the game away in his post. To get a super majority, the Dems have to run pro-life candidates. So even electing those candidates doesn't guarantee abortion protection, hence why "just vote harder" makes zero sense mathematically on this particular issue.
And that's if you believe the Dems truly want to protect abortion. I would wager that certain segments of the party don't want these issues settled because cultural wedge issues are the only things that fundamentally differentiate them from Republicans.
Nfoitu explained it to you. If people didn't stay home in 2016 and Clinton won... This wouldn't have happened. Should have voted harder then.
The rest of your complaints are just about the US system which isn't going to change. So I agree it sucks, but it isn't going to change.
That leaves changing minds regarding abortion, which could happen. But it's not going to happen if you are so rigid in everything meeting your standard that you are perceived as unreasonable.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
