Conservatives did this. Trump was the tool they used, but this would have happened under Jeb! or any other Republican president as well.
Don’t let the rest of the party off the hook. They all own this.
Democrats did this by not codifying
This kind of gaslighting should not be tolerated. Everyone take a moment and block that troll.
That’s like saying that the burgler that bypassed your locks by smashing a window is fully justified because you didn’t put cages over the glass. Reproductive rights were protected by 50 years of precedent. Roe was established case law for decades and was overturned by a court that rejected how the judicial branch was working and has worked for centuries by ignoring precedent, accepting a case on weak standing to challenge it, and arguing that the established case law was wrong on shakey arguments.
Don’t let right-wing nuts lie to you about objective reality.
That’s like saying that the burgler that bypassed your locks by smashing a window is fully justified because you didn’t put cages over the glass.
There is no lock. There is no broken window. There is no burglar, because this person was invited inside the house. The Democratic Party has been rife with “Pro-Life” candidates for decades. The Dems on the judiciary committee going back 40 years have rubber stamped Pro-Life candidates in the Judiciary Committee.
Dems will put the GOP in their fucking cabinet. The GOP isn’t breaking in, its being invited in.
Don’t let right-wing nuts lie to you about objective reality.
If you wait on Federal Dems to save you, you’re going to be left extremely disappointed.
Cool story, bro (or sis, or comrade, or whatever, idk you). Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said “nah, that ain’t for me,” to then threw out established case law, casting doubt on the legitimacy of 1/3 of the co-equal branches of government? Oh, no? It wasn’t? It was a group of far-right so-called “Christians” put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?
Yeah, that’s certainly how I remember it happening, and, you know, objectively true, so thanks anyway.
There is zero reason to argue with these trolls. They are here to disrupt an election and they will do whatever they can do to achieve that.
Was it the Democrats 40 years ago that discarded ages-old decorum, stared down stare decicis, and said “nah, that ain’t for me,”
The Republican nominees said the magic words and the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee rubber stamped every GOP nominee since Clarence Thomas. If Dems were hoodwinked time after time after time by candidates who mouthed “stare decisis” to the Senate and proceeded to piss on it as soon as the confirm vote cleared, perhaps they bare some of the blame for being so fucking gullible.
It was a group of far-right so-called “Christians” put on the SCOTUS by Republicans?
By Joe Biden’s Democrats. By Dianne Feinstein’s Democrats. By committee after committee that cowered when Bill Frist or Lindsey Graham whispered “the nuclear option” to a DC journalist. Every nominee since Bork has been worst than the last, and yet Dems refuse to hold up nominations on the grounds of polite decorum.
Well, fuck my man. The J6ers are at the gates. Democracy is finally on the table. We’ve got 6 judges who will just as soon wipe their asses with the rulebooks as read them. Can we get a 10th and 11th appointment to the courts to balance things out, President Biden? No? Oh well, I guess its game over.
It’s a weird strategy to show up and explain how one team operates without rules and lies about everything, but it’s the other guy that’s the problem. I can see that you’re one good faith fella.
These two teams set the rules for the game. When one team cheats and the other team steps in to defend them while they break the rules, the problem is two-fold.
In the case of the SCOTUS, you’ve got a Dem Party that refuses to investigate and prosecute flagrantly corrupt judges, refuses to seat additional judges through the Senate (a thing they have the power to do but will not employ), and will not order their bureaucracies to ignore rulings that endanger the life and property of American residents. Instead, you’ve got a willing accomplice to the willful neglect of women in need of emergency medicine, the persecution of LGBT children and young adults, and the execution of innocent men.
When the DOJ is not merely docile, we have an FBI engaged in illegal surveillance and detention of peaceful dissidents, a DHS that actively facilitates humanitarian crimes against lawful migrants and refugees, and a Pentagon that perpetuates war crimes abroad. All of these agencies are operating under a Democratic Administration.
And to top it all off, you’ve got a candidate running on the promise of appointing Republicans to her cabinet. This, while coordinating donations and campaign support with the fucking Cheneys. This goes beyond “cheating and lying”. It amounts to stepping out into the stands and killing spectators as part of the event. “Well, the other team just told us who to kill, what were we supposed to do? Not kill them?! We’d have fewer fans!” is a fucked way to run your franchise.
If they won’t expand the court, they could do what the House and Senate did to Johnson and that’s shrink the court.
Unfortunately, the only fair way to do it would also remove Brown-Jackson.
“Five, five is a good number. Remove the four most recently added.”
You’d get rid of the Trump court, but also Jackson, and it would still be 3-2 right wing court. Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor.
If they won’t expand the court, they could do what the House and Senate did to Johnson and that’s shrink the court.
They won’t do that either.
You’d get rid of the Trump court, but also Jackson, and it would still be 3-2 right wing court.
Why would you remove the most recent judges and not the most elderly judges?
How can you simultaneously claim that abortion was protected only by precedent, yet the democrats did everything in their power to preserve it?
Oh you’re trying so hard to build a strawman! How adorable.
Roe was established case law. Reproductive rights were settled. Blaming Democrats when the actions of Republicans baselessly dismissed it is moronic.
Okay… so why haven’t dems baselessy reinstated it?
You may wish to observe that the Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives, meaning the Democratic Caucus lacks the votes to reinstate it.
And, in states with Democratic majorities, they are codifying it at the state level. Sucks for the rest of us, though. I’m moving out of one of them for many reasons, but one important one is for my children.
Lots of red states are pushing for a vote on it and passing, too. It’s wild seeing “vote no on amendment 3” signs here in Missouri as if it’s not just advertising for the majority of us to show up and shut these chucklefucks up. I’m hoping that’s how it’ll go anyway 😓
Crossing my fingers for you! I’m hoping that Harris and certain single issue referenda (like marijuana) will bring people to the polls and while they’re there, they’ll vote for women’s rights.
I saw a “vote no on question 1” sign in maryland and they claimed it was to “protect children”.
You know what protects kids? Keeping their moms alive.
Hope you’re moving to the PNW. We need more good people here.
Sticking with east coast for now. Not sure where we’ll ultimately end up. Not an easy decision.
Republicans have a majority in the House of Representatives
The GOP gained that majority in 2023. Dems had an opportunity to enshrine Roe in 2021 as well as in 2009 under Obama. In both instances, they decided pursuing the legislation would be too unpopular and punted.
What’s more, the Dems had the opportunity to shut down the ACB nomination - weeks before Biden was sworn in. Feinstein waved her through, after McConnell had successfully stonewalled the Garland nomination for over a year. Dems cave on this shit constantly. There are simply too many Pro-Life Democrats to expect they will deliver on reinstating Roe.
None of these things keep democrats from stacking courts.
IDK how that would possibly happen with Manchin and Sinema in there. It seems easier to pass a federal law.
Here you go, buddy.
TL;DR:
Obama left 105 empty federal judgeships when he left office.
Republicans slowed down Democratic nominees during Obama’s first term.
They virtually shut the process down in Obama’s final two years.
What a life. Just throw out nonsense statements with no evidence, don’t address a single counter point, and just go on living with ignorant confidence. I see the appeal of being Republican. Facts and reality are such a drain to deal with.
They have. In the seven states that have put abortion issues on the ballot since 2022, every single one has supported abortion, including red states: Montana, Kentucky, Kansas, and Ohio.
10 states have abortion issues in their ballots this year. Abortion access is being picked up faster than “Constitutional Carry” did.
Logically, the answer would have to be that Democrats lack the power to preserve it. Which happens to be true because:
- Ordinary legislation would not be sufficient to overturn state laws regarding abortion due to the 10th Amendment, and even if it was the 2/3 Republican court would overturn it anyway.
- A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 majority that Democrats will not have in this lifetime.
And so why weren’t the courts getting stacked the moment Biden took office?
Two reasons:
- Ethics
- The GOP engaged in a campaign of doing everything, fair and foul, to prevent or at least slow this from happening.
Remember Diane Feinstein?
She was a crucial vote to fill court seats for biden. She also had dementia and then died. Her absence from the senate was part of what slowed filling vacancies.
Also assholes like Manchin and Sinema - may they rot in hell.
The democrats have become Such a big tent party that there’s no more room for common sense.
TURN TEXAS BLUE!!
We can help make that happen
Canvass, Phone bank, Textbank, etc. for Texas Democrats:
https://www.mobilize.us/texasdemocrats/
Write letters to likely dem voters in Texas to make sure they turnout!
I’m a nurse and there is no amount of money you could possibly pay me to work in Texas again. That entire state is hostile towards healthcare workers.
…and women, and LGBTQ folks, and logic, and laws…
I got a friend who visited Texas over the summer and loved it, now she wants to move over there. I wonder if it’s actually that bad or maybe it is and she just never saw it.
“the healthcare in Texas is terrible!”
“Well I had a friend go to Texas and not visit a hospital or engage with the healthcare system at all, so I don’t know why I’m even typing this comment…”
I lost power for a week during the winter storm of 2021 when I lived there. They barely have a functional power grid. It’s like a third world country there.
That’s my impression of Texas. Crumbling infrastructure and shitty politics.
If you’re white, wealthy, and sterile Texas has excellent healthcare
She visited for a couple weeks. Living somewhere is very different. Especially if she didn’t leave the blue cities.
I was completely enamored with Austin when I was there a few months ago. It really is the perfect city for me…not too busy, but a totally walkable and functional downtown.
Then I realized I’d be in the middle of Texas.
Amber Thurmond should still be alive. And there are a lot of people who should still be alive, and I certainly wish that she was. - JD Vance at the debate
We’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us. - Also JD Vance at the debate
Not hard to connect these dots JD
Today is the last day to register to vote in the Nov 2024 election in Texas. Vote.gov
I’d like to take this opportunity to blame Citizens United and the lack of regulation on the advertising industry.
Social media companies seek greater engagement to increase their main source of revenue: advertising. Extremist opinions on topics like abortion receive greater engagement, so algorithms optimize accordingly.
I think a lot of people forget the automatic abortion bans specifically set up for the overturning of Roe v Wade. Republicans have wanted this for over 50 years. It’s like pointing a remote control rocket launcher at your neighbor’s house and then lobbying to get rocket launcher related domestic terrorisms legalized. Okay, maybe a bit extreme, but still your pregnant neighbor dies with an unborn child in either case, so…
If you know that, so do Democrats. Yet they did nothing to protect it.
Obama: “Protecting Roe is not a priority.”
I mean ig, big blunder on their part for sure, but not exactly the people who are murdering women by banning emergency abortions so what’s your point
“The thing the Republicans did was terrible, but Democrats did not do enough to prevent it, so I’m going to support the Republicans!”
Make it make sense.
We need to post birth abort some of these Supreme Court justices
Won’t someone rid us of these meddlesome justices?
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Raw Story:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-did-this-scotus-blocks-biden-emergency-abortion-mandate-in-texas/
Democrats did this by refusing to codify decades ago.
I agree both major parties had a hand in this directly or indirectly. But only one has any chance of changing this for the better.
Which one, the one that directly revoked women’s rights or the one that did nothing to prevent it from happening?
You don’t seem to have a grasp on reality.
The reality is the DNC is nothing but lip service
And the RNC is a terrorist group trying to take over America. Lol
We have 3 Justices on the court because of *the party that did nothing." Nothing short of a Constitutional amendment at this point will “codify” abortion rights in the eyes of the right. We need to get SCOTUS back.
As if these zealots wouldn’t have ruled it unconstitutional or slowly weakend it with a series of cases anyway. See recent decisions gutting Voting Rights Act, weakening the Clean Water Act, Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Dodd-Frank and other federal laws.
Look, republicans suck ass, it’s true. But if Dems had codified Roe into law either time they had the supermajority (two chances in the last 20 years), then the corrupt SC wouldn’t have been able to do jack shit. If dems had any integrity, they would shoulder a significant amount of the blame for this issue, because they had their chance and deemed it “not a priority.”
Sure, Dems absolutely should have codified it. However, a federal law protecting abortion rights as health care against the religious freedom of a regional Catholic hospital’s beliefs not to save a mother’s life with an abortion would be the test case and I’m pretty sure I know how 5 of the Justices would vote. This SCOTUS know they have unchecked power and are no longer afraid to wield it.
Would be interesting to see that play out fully. Here’s hoping we get the chance to do so in the next few years. Its so heartbreaking that so many women are suffering/dying because of these regressive policy positions.
I’ll never, ever forget the very first thing Democrats did when Republicans successfully overturned Roe.
They sent out a mass text asking for $15 donations because of what had just happened.
They had that shit ready to go immediately. Maybe if they had put a fraction of that preparation into having legislation ready to go, they wouldn’t have wasted their opportunities to protect Americans’ rights.
But at least they did for the only thing that matters. Fundraising.
Well yeah, the decision was leaked early.
Republicans were trying to overturn Roe for half a century. Best Democrats were willing to do in response was to cynically regard it as a fundraising opportunity.
They had that text waiting to be sent for years. The story was hot off the press when I got mine begging for money
Turns out the party that does nothing and calls it incrementalism can move pretty quickly when they’re panhandling.
So what I’m hearing is if Democrats had codified it, Republicans would have come along and got it struck down. But to fix the problem we need to elect more Democrats to get it codified?
No one else sees the circular reasoning behind this?
And if we have another 2016, Trump can appoint Thomas and Alito’s successors, and maybe some more, with more Federalist Society hacks.
That lesser evil that’s grown enormous was a mistake wasn’t it?
As a Canadian, I’d like to ask you a couple of things.
What exactly does it mean to codify something? Two, why can’t the Federal Gov put out a set of standards and say, “If you want Federal money for your healthcare systems, you have to meet these standards. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but in that case you get get nothing from us.”
That’s essentially how it works in Canada between our Federal gov and the Provinces, granted Canadian Provinces are less powerful than American states, but the power of the purse should still be the same, yes?
That’s how the minimum age for purchasing tobacco used to work in the US; if states wanted a specific chunk of federal funding, their minimum age had to be set to at least 18.
Yeah, Dems had this crazy idea that Republicans wouldn’t just straight go against the will of most Americans. But it seems to be their MO now, so ya, more Dems would be better, because now we know we need to codidy everything because Republicans have no problem destroying the common man for a buck.
They knew it would eventually happen, that’s why they kept promising to codify, and never did
Claiming you know what an entire group of peoples thoughts and morals, as well as declaring they knew the future is extremely stupid.
It wasnt me that authored legislation codifying woman’s rights, it wasn’t me as president promising to protect it by signing that legislation.
Yeah it wasn’t, no argument there. Doesn’t make the blanket assumptions and future telling claim any less stupid.
“The guy who did the arson isn’t to blame, it’s the firefighters for getting there too late”
If you really wanted to stop houses from burning down you’d build a fire house on every block and make the Dems pay for it.
It’s the ones claiming to be firefighters
So it’s not the arsonist who’s to blame, it’s the neighbor who shouted “look out! There’s an arsonist!” But didn’t physically tackle them?
It’s Democrats pretending to be firefighters watching Republicans burn things while proclaiming someone should do something
And again, in this analogy you aren’t blaming the Republicans who are literally burning things?
Woosh
You really do make a habit of being on the bottom with your terrible takes don’t you
Decades ago, the parties were much different than today. There were pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. Only one time in recent (2000+) memory did the Dems ever have the 60 votes necessary for codifying Roe. They used that two-ish week window to pass the ACA.
And that’s not even touching on the differing public approval of abortion.
The ACA which should be noted was desperately needed at the time unlike Roe which was known to be at risk but not nearly as immediate.
I’m not happy Roe is dead. The fact is though that without a constitutional amendment Roe was always on borrowed time with the constant attacks on it, and I don’t believe that there is any time after the issuance of the bill of rights that an amendment protecting abortion would work, and in the form of the bill of rights it would’ve had to be a robust privacy amendment that just happened to protect abortion.
They used that two-ish week window to pass the ACA.
The ACA was passed in March 2010. Obama took office more than a year earlier. The bill to codify Roe was written in 2003, all that it needed was a vote, which Pelosi refused.
Your revisionist history is wrong.
No revisionist history. Pelosi refused to bring it to the floor because she didn’t have the votes. There’s lots of stuff to criticize her on, but whipping and vote counting aren’t that.
Do you remember 2000 - 2006? We had the Republicans floating and pushing anti-marriage freedom constitutional amendments. They controlled the House, Senate, and White House. Republicans controlled the 107th, 108th, and 109th congresses. So while Pelosi could have proposed the Act, there’s no guarantee Hastert (the Republican Speaker) would have even have allowed that on the floor.
She refused a vote while SHE was speaker. And if you remember correctly it was Bill Clinton that signed DOMA with Pelosi as House leader which restricted our marriages.
Introduced in the House as H.R. 3396 by Bob Barr (R–GA) on May 7, 1996. Committee consideration by House Judiciary. Passed the House on July 12, 1996 (342–67). Passed the Senate on September 10, 1996 (85–14). Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.I don’t know if you know this or not. I should hope you do, because it’s a fundamental part of our democracy…but a presidents veto power is not absolute. Veto could be overridden with 2/3 vote in house and Senate, which they clearly had support for.
Yeah the house and Senate were (barely) dem controlled at the time…but Bill Clinton is clearly the wrong scapegoat for DOMA.
Right, if she didn’t have the votes, she wouldn’t bring it to the floor. Simple as that. She didn’t not bring it up because she wasn’t supportive of the LGBT+ community.
And bringing up DOMA, which was passed in 1996, at least get your facts straight. Republicans controlled the House when DOMA was passed. Pelosi was not the Democratic leader in the House then; that was Dick Gephart. Yes, Clinton signed it. However, there was much more public support for the bill then.
Up until the court decided to start ignoring centuries of legal tradition that is the bedrock of our legal system and threw out stare decisis the decision was actually more secure than a specific law.
Any law codifying it can be challenged on many grounds, especially the 10th amendment. It could easily have been struck down as unconstitutional because the federal government has no power to pass a law affecting this issue, since the constitution doesn’t grant it.
Only a constitutional amendment would have been likely to survive a court willing to do what this one has done, and there is zero possibility the Democrats could have passed one.
Several members of Congress thought a law was good enough, Obama thought it was good enough when he promised to sign the freedom of choice act on day one in office. Then 3 months later said it was no longer a legislative priority.
It’s a bold take to blame the side that failed to prevent something, rather than the side that actually did the thing.
When the side that failed to prevent something had the power to prevent it, they are to equally to blame
I mean, I am utterly befuddled at how you could reach that conclusion.
There is an old saying, ‘see something, say something.’ Democrats saw something and their only thought was turning it into a fundraising opportunity.
A lot of people were saying something. A conditional amendment would require 2/3rds of the house, when did the Democrats have 2/3rds of the house?
Nice goal post you got there
Sorry, are you upset I defined a goal of “what would be required” instead of your goal of “why didn’t they do something that would have been literally impossible?”
I’m guessing that’s in reference to your reply to someone else about messages going out asking for donations after the supreme court decision? That may be in poor taste, I’ll grant you, bug doesn’t change the fact that it still wasn’t the democrats that made the decision in the first place.
If Person A punches Person B, and Person C could have stopped it, I would still blame Person A for throwing the punch.
Does that mean Republican representatives and senators are inherently useless?
They would have had to put it in the constitution.
Any congressional laws this supreme court would have declared unconstitutional.
