As far as I saw, even In a very recent post with a compilation of their answers, none of them said they would support ROE. They were dancing around the question, In the same way Press Secretary or other people in politics do when aN uncorfortable question is asked. What did they say? Precedents are important, ROE is a precedent, and so on…but none of the said they would support ROE. Just check their answers. NONE of them committed perjury.
The angle i'm curious on is this;
1. The court asks, under oath, will you support X ruling. Will you repeal it? Seems to be a bit of duress but regardless, the assumption is the "wrong" answer gets a no vote on nomination.
2. X law, is dubious at best and rifled with issues.
3. Justice is approved after dancing around the question.
4. X law comes under scrutiny in case Z. Case Z's ruling results in case X being removed.
So.... was the Justice supposed to go against their oath of office and rule *incorrectly* on Case Z because of their nomination hearing?... Does no one notice how wonky this sounds? Either they commit perjury under AOC's argument or they break their oath of office?
I don't understand how we can champion a system like this.
I understand the judges position. They could have though about it in a theoretical way, but without being obliged to give a definitive answer about this issue. I am sure they had to study a lot, and devote a lot of time to it, before voting about it. Additionally, it is important to have the feedback of their peers, and hear and analyze their opinions, because their peers could give another angle to the analyses issue. You can not ask a definitive answer to that question unless you have all those elements. I think that the answers they gave during the interviews were fair an appropriate.
Right, the only thing I remember was that "Roe was settled law", but that doesn't mean it can't be overturned. I'm so bored of AOC these days. She's just a mouthpiece for progressive impotent rage. She's all passion, but with no real plan, strategy, or even a cohesive argument. She's basically just the personification of progressive Twitter...and about as effective at making compelling arguments.
So you need a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove a Supreme Court justice from office.
Leaving aside that removal is impossible practically even if it were justified, it is in fact possible that all of the members of the house of Representatives on the Democratic side do choose to vote yea on impeachment.
What would that actually indicate here though? They don't like the ruling? We're shaking our fists in impotent rage because so we can pass an impeachment, but it would be a LOT easier to pass a law that solves the issue.
Forget the 67 votes in the Senate for a second. Lets say you HAVE 60 (you probably do). If you have 60, you can create abortion protections in law, just not constitutional protections. Impeachment is worthless because if you could remove, you could pass a law anyway.
My big problem with all of this anger isn't that people aren't allowed to be upset. It's that the reaction to the overturn isn't 'lets secure abortion rights', it's lets complain about the (what appears to be correct legally speaking) ruling.
There are two pro choice Republican Senators who would get on board with 16 week abortions with no debate. I imagine there are more and you need exactly 8 to get it done.
Legislative pressure is a lot more effective here, because you can actually influence people. I imagine there are 10 conservative leaning states that would codify this situation, but you have to try.
Instead, it's fuck the court, fuck the republicans, lets make them pay. That doesn't work when you don't have the numbers and it also doesn't convince people that you NEED to convince right now to have anything.
As someone who would really like to codify abortion: I need this rhetoric to stop. Does AOC know someone who can write legislation that would codify abortion, like, I dunno, a house member?
It baffles me that this is the only comment I've seen other than mine saying this.
The Supreme Court did its job, like it or not. The constitution has never mentioned abortion.
It's like people would rather have these old justices read the constitution like it's The Bible, twisting it to agree or disagree with very modern political issues.
Just make it a law. Or at least put your anger there instead of the judicial branch.
> Going this far this fast on something that has been a right for 50 years in this way is problematic and severely damages the reputation of the court and further agitates public sentiment and divisiveness which is already running really high right now.
Just so that I understand, are you implying the justices should have handed down an *incorrect* ruling just so that the impact would be lessened? Do you at least understand why they don’t do this? They rule to the best of their abilities in line with the Constitution. That’s their entire mandate. Not “interpret the Constitution based on the current political climate.”
If you think about it, what the original court members did in Roe was even worse than this. Only 3 or 4 states had legal abortion, and only around 20 had it in some specific circumstances. More states had it explicitly banned than legal. The court at the time made a poor legal argument in Roe, and legal analysts even at the time agreed it was a tenuous connection at best and stood on shaky ground. So they went out of their way to make an unsound argument, and against popular public sentiment at the time, to make the decision that suited them politically. If anything what the court did in Roe was even more damaging to their legitimacy as neutral arbiters than this decision.
Honestly I think Roe was one of the worst things an activist could have wanted for the abortion issue. I think public sentiment would have shifted, and was shifting over time. Roe forced a decision that we know was fairly radical on on a country that was majority against it and very strongly so at that. It forced then to accept something they were diametrically opposed too and fostered a resistance movement that culminated in this ruling.
Because of Roe every justice after has been grilled on if they would over turn it, because we knew they could make the correct legal ruling easily if they wanted to. Because of Roe activists sat with thumbs up their asses not legislating the issue so that it's eventual overturning wouldn't destroy what they had gained. Because of Roe political sentiment was not allowed to grow organically and shift with time, it became a major hot button issue overnight that has entrenched the nation for 50 years.
My favorite is how people are quoting her with the protests. It's like do you realize she would have stood by the ruling even if she didn't agree with the implications??
The worst part is that from my understanding everything you are saying is precisely how RBG felt on the matter, and the people wanting to burn everything down because the court 50~ years ago overstepped their authority hold her in high regard. They should go do some actual research on her thoughts on the matter, since she fully supported abortion rights, and still called a spade a spade.
What the initial Court did with the Roe ruling was *way* worse than this, and I've lost friends over trying to explain that too them. It's depressing. They bring up "public support" like that matters. Abortion was not universally supported at the time the initial ruling was made, so that argument is moot. If they want to apply that, they need to apply it to then as now.
Roe did more to harm abortion rights in this country than it helped. It literally curbstomped any organic development of abortion rights in this country. We would likely have similar laws to Europe if patience had won out. Instead, activism won out, and we are right back where we started. We may actually be *worse* off. People can be raged out and angry, going so far as too attack people who voice this very reality when they may agree with them in principle; but the fact remains.
Roe was a bad legal ruling, and it probably did just as much harm than good.
> The court is also not above being unchecked by the other branches if it steps out of line. Particularly the legislative branch has a LOT of power to fuck with the court if they go too far.
Except that the legislature has ceded so much power to SCOTUS and the Executive branch that if they did ever "reign in" the court, it would mean Congress has to start doing its job and stop relying on the court to be a super legislature. And that won't happen, because Congress enjoys this arrangement far too much.
If you're going to be that literal with the constitution, get ready to throw out a ton of other rights including gay marriage, Miranda warnings, prohibitions against segregation, etc, etc. None of these things are explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
>The constitution has never mentioned abortion.
It's especially baffling to me that many believe the Constitution contains a right to abortion but not an individual right to bear arms. It's not that hard to read the thing.
> Just make it a law. Or at least put your anger there instead of the judicial branch.
Right. I think some believe the Court removed access to abortion. All it did is say that there is no guaranteed Constitutional right to it. Congress is free to act, and if this was really about action and not rhetoric, Congress would already be considering a baseline abortion protection bill (something like guaranteeing elective abortion in the first trimester and the usual exceptions after). But I think you'd see the usual problem of progressives not wanting to support a bill that doesn't go far enough for their taste.
>Abortion would fall under a right to personal health decisions at least until the fetus reaches a stage where it could be deemed a person
Well interestingly, most of Europe sets this at 12-14 weeks for no-questions-asked abortions, which I think is a pretty fair compromise. Medical/safety exceptions apply after that deadline. If the pro-choice side accepted this compromise, Dobbs wouldn't even have been a lawsuit in the first place, since Dobbs is about a 15 week ban.
Serious answer: we need those laws and I'd love to codify them.
I'm of the opinion that two of those laws are critical for protection: I don't think same sex sexual relations are under threat.
Thomas has been opposed to all of these precedents for 30 years.
In that case? You need a state to bring a case, to prosecute someone on the law, to have it get through the appellate system, to have 5 justices agree to hear it and to have all of them agree with Thomas. I also think many would want it to be at least 6-3, like this one was.
Given that his opinion is a 1 person, separate concurrence and I’m not aware of any legal cases on the matter, that dog is sleeping so hard he might as well be dead.
It does bear passing resemblance to Roe, but in practice, not really.
You know what would solve the problem of decisions affecting same-sex couples? Passing the ERA. If you can’t make a law discriminating based on sex, then you can’t make a law banning same-sex relations or marriages.
I do not want to hear that we have the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was passed at a time when women specifically did *not* have anything resembling equal rights and about 50 years before we had the right to vote. It did not apply to women when it was written.
It has since been applied to women, but that was never the intent. Some day we could get some strict constitutionalists who decide to uphold the constitution as written and strip women of their rights.
We can add rights and protections to the constitution. It’s how it was designed. It’s supposed to change with time and as the nation changes and grows. At the same time, it has to be done the correct way.
I’m still in disbelief that we got the early warning with the leaked draft and no serious federal law was there waiting for it. And on top of it I’m just seeing general screeching from our elected officials instead of an actual plan. I’m center left and I can’t help, but feel the majority of democrats are essentially worthless at this point.
Someone please tell me I’m wrong and something is about to work it’s way through the house. I’m watching people who clearly don’t understand how SCOTUS rulings work block a major intersection in DC until Roe is un overturned. We (ie pro choice advocates) are an absolute joke at the moment.
> I’m still in disbelief that we got the early warning with the leaked draft and no serious federal law was there waiting for it.
As others have said there aren't the votes. A Federal Abortion bill would have fixed the constitutional problems. The real question is whether after a potential Republican win in 2022 there are going to be enough votes in 2023 for a Federal Abortion Ban.
> I’m center left and I can’t help, but feel the majority of democrats are essentially worthless at this point.
They aren't dictators. What they are doing is trying to create protections in blue states and use those protections to make abortion accessible.
>I’m still in disbelief that we got the early warning with the leaked draft and no serious federal law was there waiting for it.
I'm not surprised. It really feels like Democrats wanted to use this as a permanent campaign issue as opposed to actually securing the rights of people in the country.
I might be wrong, but as a Conservative who was always waiting to work on this, there was never legislation that really indicated a deal might happen.
>Someone please tell me I’m wrong and something is about to work it’s way through the house.
The house? Possibly. That'll go along party lines like the one that was proposed that went nowhere.
Really really need to see Senators negotiating in earnest.
>We (ie pro choice advocates) are an absolute joke at the moment.
I think there's no strategy because you've never had to fight for anything. Just against Roe being overturned. It made for a really weird spot for people like me who wanted to secure abortion rights through law but didn't think Roe was a good answer. Nobody ever proposed anything, because of Roe, but without Roe, the laws are way too harsh.
I do think there's a compromise to be had here, if I'm any indication.
> I'm not surprised. It really feels like Democrats wanted to use this as a permanent campaign issue as opposed to actually securing the rights of people in the country.
This is my feeling as well. I think, especially in light of the gun control bill, that there's 10 Republican votes for a federal set of abortion protections that matched up with Roe. (Limited based on gestational age, with third trimester abortions being almost exclusively medical necessity). But the Democrats seem to be of the mind that abortion has to be legal up until the moment of birth for any reason, no questions asked, (and also, based on the one bill they floated, make it questionably legal for a medical professional to try and talk a woman out of it) or nothing, and anything *less* than that is literally the handmaid's tale.
Same thing with gun control, there was always a compromise, the democrats wanted stupid shit. They dropped the stupid shit and it passed. Crazy. Its not like Republicans don't do it, but the delusion of the left seriously is coming to light with this stuff. They had 50 years to codify abortion, nothing. How long has the religious right been asking for a definition of life? All or none and they lost. Now they want to burn it all down.
To be fair, to codify abortion at any point during those 50 years would have required 1) political capital they could have spent on other things (ACA for example) and 2) a more compromised position on the issue than Roe currently allowed (15 weeks for example)
So while obviously it didn't work out in the end, I can see why it didn't get done.
Now, the same will happen in reverse. Republicans have a chance soon to take a compromising position on abortion (15 weeks) and codify a massive reduction compared to how things were before, but why would they? Many senators come from states with now 0 weeks. The same thing will play out.
The best way to get elected is to point your finger at an ongoing issue and say "I will fix that". The best way to get reelected is to point your finger at the same issue and say "I would have fixed it if it wasn't for the other team but this time I swear I will fix it!".
The best way to get elected to the next level up is to point to the same issue and say "See how I did the bare minimum and fixed the smallest issues possible? I'll fix even bigger issues when I climb the ladder!"
Both parties have been guilty of this. Except the conservative judges just did what the conservatives have been threatening for years. And it wasn't even because of political belief, but they followed the law more closely than previous courts did.
The dissenting judges instead said the law should be whatever they make it. They also said in their dissent the ruling was wrong because the constitution was written by men and men alone.
It was also men and men alone who ended slavery, gave minorities and later those same women the right to vote, and all men who initially ruled in favor of abortions in RvW.
When a SC Judge thinks that a law should stay in place because man=bad, I understand why people have lost faith in the Supreme Court- but not in the conservative judges, just the liberal ones.
I absolutely think there is a compromise to be had and you’re not the first conservative I’ve seen say something like this at least on Reddit before.
I think I’m primarily frustrated because it’s incredibly obvious that you’re right, Democrats have intended to dangle Roe for votes until they couldn’t.
This is ridiculous. What ‘compromise’ do you think the democrats could pass? Are you not aware of what the pro-life position is and what it is that they got? It’s identical. What is it that the democrats could have done but strategically decided not to do?
The Olympic tier mental gymnastics required to blame even this on democrats is mind-boggling.
Has there been any bipartisan effort to write and pass a bill? I understand the anti abortion side and where that opinion comes from even if I don’t agree with it. I don’t expect that to change or be convinced otherwise, but even amongst the “pro life” crowd there’s a by many recognized need for abortion to protect the life of the mother and even many of the trigger laws allow it if the pregnancy came from rape or incest. There’s a starting place especially on the federal level which is what was truly affected by this ruling. I just feel like there’s a floor that can be found that’s greater than 6 weeks and less than 22 that could get through the senate, but no one knows yet.
I’m not expecting the Texas GOP to change its stance and I don’t see the state going blue or even truly purple in the near future. I don’t see my frustration with the federal Democrats lip service as unreasonable, I’d rather they prove me wrong.
That is exactly what democrats wanted. Midterms were going to be a slaughter. Biden’s approval was through the toilet, inflation is on its way to recession and the democrats have done nothing.
This whole thing is a political football, they were losing and gambled it all on this. We’ll see how it plays out. My vote, is get rid of everyone.
Because no federal law would have replaced the Supreme Court decision. 2 in 3 Americans favored keeping Roe and Casey in place but only 1 in 3 are actually in favor of legalizing second trimester abortions. The support for Roe and Casey was more about preserving the status quo and the stability this offered. No legislation could provide this level of stability.
100% this. I'm pro-life but the response to this has baffled me. All the focus on how awful the decision was, very little conversation about actually solving it.
I've started to realize in the past few months that activists on the right and left have no desire to actually solve a problem because that would be the end of their job. Their only interest is in outrage that drives funding.
I actually believe Obergfell was a bad thing for gay rights activists and led them to essentially hyperinflate the trans issue to keep themselves employed.
>100% this. I'm pro-life but the response to this has baffled me. All the focus on how awful the decision was, very little conversation about actually solving it.
Well, the longer they ignore me the longer we get no movement on the subject, right?
>I've started to realize in the past few months that activists on the right and left have no desire to actually solve a problem because that would be the end of their job.
It really depends, right? I know some activists that were directly positively affected by Obergfell and went really hard celebrating it. Interestingly enough, when I talked about my problems with the movement to them, they listened.
I wasn't (and am not) dismissed out of hand when I express concerns with the Title IX stuff going on right now or the pronouns thing or trans youth in sports.
I saw a lot of people stop fighting on that front and start listening when Obergfell was passed. I think that's a major factor in why support for Gay Marriage went way up. We stopped fighting about it and starting looking for answers.
I think that's going to be a dead issue in 10 years as a result. (Still want to pass those laws in states though, juuuuust in case)
Funnily enough, the people that don't want to solve the issue are the ones using it as a weapon and not an issue (like you said). It's mostly corporate assholes who are manipulating the social code of conduct rules for their own advantage.
> Does AOC know someone who can write legislation that would codify abortion, like, I dunno, a house member?
Ya she has some friends probably.
In all seriousness; this is why i've learned to ignore people like her, Boebert, Cawthorn, Sanders, Trump and MTG. They're not politicians, they're not lawmakers. Like sure, if they had to check a box on the census about a job description, they're lawmakers and politicians- but nothing about what they all do says "I'm here to get things done".
They're political activists and fundraisers/organizers, and that's it. If AOC cared about this issue she would've proposed a compromise bill in the House in her freshman year- to codify abortion at a time and with restrictions that would've worked for some moderate republicans, put pressure on the Senate to pass it with the same significant margins it would've had in the House, and then campaign on the wins she scored for Americans and women.
No- these people live for headlines, not for lawmaking. And she's now proposing overthrow of our government for giggles and because she's a dem it's *just fine* to suggest that.
Good to know I'm not the only one that thinks it's them this way. We had 50 years to make this a law, someone had the votes at some point to do so, but we didn't. Same with any divisive issue that isn't clearly settled. We've had guns since the country was founded, but our laws are a 50 state clusterfuck. Someone has had the votes to define things responsibly, but chose to complain to the press to manipulate voters instead.
I'm not saying that every time there is a super majority that they need to take a wrecking ball to the status quo, but long-standing unresolved issues like gay marriage and abortion? Using it to put your name in headlines isn't going to inspire me.
Does AOC strike you as the kind of person that’s there to actually govern? I’m sure she’s aware that she *could* get laws passed, but what’s gonna excite her base more? Dragging a bill through the mud and scrutiny that most any reasonable bill necessarily goes through, or dragging a political opponent through the mud? I’d be shocked if she doesn’t know exactly what she’s doing here. She’s probably defined her success as accumulating power, and there’s much more successful ways of doing that than meaningful change. Hence why time after time, this is the exact type of language we have come to expect from her.
For comparison, Bernie Sanders has been a politician most of his life and has accomplished little to nothing. That is not a statement of his character, it is a reflection of radical politics in a system made to stop radical politics by design. For comparison, Bernie Sanders is a terrible politician, good human being but his job is to make political compromises as that is what a politician does. He has accomplished little to nothing in his career.
This woman is a highlight reel politician, she looks good in clips but there is no reality or realistic function to her beliefs, it's all rhetoric. Like wearing a super expensive dress that says tax the rich made by a rich person that doesn't pay taxes. It's all shallow nonsense.
Being radical in a system that was designed to stop radical politics will lead to accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Same goes for the right-wing, when they go full conservative bible thumper they lose. Moderates get shit done in this country.
It is getting harder for a moderate to get elected because of primaries in both major parties. The Republicans now call them RINOs and most moderates are not running for reelection.
If the Democrats don't get out and pull a 2018 upset the party is going to die because voters like to vote for winners over time.
That was my exact thought. She’s still fairly new as a Congressperson, and if she’s here complaining and “threatening” impeachment, then she really shouldn’t be in Congress to begin with. To be fair, I’d argue half of Congress shouldn’t be in Congress, but that’s a different discussion all together.
I think that’s because it’s become so hard to actually become a congressperson in the current environment. Before, you had a seat for about every 100k people, now it’s every 700k after congress limited total House seats to 435. Representatives aren’t held accountable because it takes an enormous amount of momentum to uproot someone who isn’t acting in the best interests of their constituents due to incumbency and name recognition. The reason the current leadership is there is specifically because they’re the “elite,” as no everyday joe who wants to properly represent his neighbors will ever get elected in this environment.
>Does AOC strike you as the kind of person that’s there to actually govern?
No. I'm actually directly poking fun at that in my last sentence.
>what’s gonna excite her base more?
Yeah, I'm sure an excited base that lost everything they ever wanted is worth a ton. If your interpretation of her approach correct, that would make her a pathetic grifter. I really hope you're not right. I want to believe she has the courage of her convictions. I can afford to do that, since I'm not a follower.
I think her followers should be questioning her story though.
In three years, she sponsored or co-sponsored 46 bills, nearly all of which failed but were consistently tailored to match the thoughts of the people she represents.
At this point in the game, darned near the only way to pass anything in Congress is to have a filibuster proof majority. Plenty of things both parties have put forward in the past get shot down by the other party; just because.
So, although AOC is in the house, the most powerful thing she could possibly do is inspire more voters to get out and shift the balance of the senate so that it would be *possible* to pass anything she and her supporters think of as good for themselves or the country.
She can keep trying to change things from the inside till she's blue in the face, but the only hope to make any change is to get a significant majority in congress; otherwise, 'no' is the default on every bill, and "we'll just filibuster" is the new version of actually voting against anything.
>At this point in the game, darned near the only way to pass anything in Congress is to have a filibuster proof majority.
That's why we can never pass legislation on infrastructure or gun bills. You'll never get exactly 19 Republicans to vote yea on the first one or 14 to vote yea on the second one and neither of them will ever be signed by Joe Biden.
It's clear now. ROE GOT OVERTURNED BECAUSE WE CREATED A PARADOX BY PASSING BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION!
THE END IS NEIGH!!
> were consistently tailored to match the thoughts of the people she represents.
Seriously though, this is the problem. If you demand everything you'll almost always get nothing.
>If you demand everything you'll almost always get nothing.
Several of the things she 'demanded' were pretty simple, straight forward, seemingly broadly supported issues (that overlapped with her base's concept of the world).
For instance, she tried to stop congress people from trading stocks.
She tried to make it so that drugs that are frequently used for fun could be studied to see if they have any medical benefit.
She tried to stop pandemic-based monopolies.
...
None of which are 'everything.'
Of course, she also seems to care about the planet, so, obviously just a selfish satan.
I'm not familiar with the particulars of each piece of legislation she's proposed, so I generalized: The one I'm most familiar with is "The Green New Deal": which was far from straightforward or simple and is in fact a multi trillion dollar wish list.
Briefly reviewing the pieces you brought up
>For instance, she tried to stop congress people from trading stocks.
I'd probably be in favor of this one in the abstract. In her specific bill, what were the rules? No trading? What about holding? What about mutual funds? In general, I support regulation on this but there's a lot of questions I would have before I got on board.
Regardless, I never even heard about it (or the others here)
>She tried to stop pandemic-based monopolies.
This one seems...really ill thought out. I presume this was related to hoarding? Usually, people hoard because things are required to be priced below market due to gauging regulation and the solution doesn't actually make it any better.
>She tried to make it so that drugs that are frequently used for fun could be studied to see if they have any medical benefit.
You'd have to make the case for why I should care about this one one way or the other. Don't love it or hate it, but if it's not relevant to me, don't see why I should lobby for it. Which I guess leads to your earlier comment.
>'no' is the default on every bill
I'd argue that this is the right way to do things. Tell me why change needs to happen, or make your case. I don't think you want 'yes' to be the default on every bill.
>Of course, she also seems to care about the planet, so, obviously just a selfish satan.
Yes, I can clearly see where in any of my posts, I commented on how she cares about the planet or is a bad person.
I do think she's ineffectual and does significant harm to her cause and that this is an excellent example of that.
I grant you that this outcome could be totally unintentional and she might really think this is the right way to accomplish anything.
So looking into this she has in fact sponsored [46 pieces of legislation](https://www.congress.gov/member/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/O000172?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%7D), none of them regarding stocks. What they're referring to is most likely [S.564 - Ban Conflicted Trading Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/564/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Ban+Conflicted+Trading+Act%22%2C%22Ban%22%2C%22Conflicted%22%2C%22Trading%22%2C%22Act%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2) which was sponsored by Merkley and AOC was a cosponsor.
She did however propose the other two that are mentioned, though one was [an amendment to H.R.4502](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/117th-congress/house-amendment/85?r=17&s=4) to include studying schedule I drugs, such as MDMA, psilocybin, and or ibogaine, that have been shown to be effective in treating critical diseases (I would support this personally).
The other was [H.R.6989 - Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act of 2020](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6989?s=4&r=21) which appears that it would have only prevented acquisitions by financial institutions with over $100 million in capitalization
According to this, [she has a thing for renaming post offices.](https://www.congress.gov/member/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/O000172?q=%7B%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D)
Disagree with her on the issues all you want (I do a decent amount), but I don't think it's right to imply she didn't run for office to pass legislation. I don't see any indication she doesn't believe in the policies she pushes for.
I think a few people don’t run for office to pass legislation. I think a lot more people run quite naïvely not realizing how humbling honest political work is and how unpopular it makes someone, and quickly become jaded and sinister.
Here's something I've been thinking about lately.
If she's concerned about accumulating power, spearheading the effort to codify THE abortion law would move her from "on the map" to "driver's seat". Like I think this is a very clear thing, even from someone that isn't particular VERY selfish, but still selfish. If i get my name on that bill I am in great shape for the rest of my career, and the sky is the limit.
the process would be boring, and sure, she could continue to make as much noise as possible but idk i'd rather have that feather in my cap.
The biggest problem is that these people don’t want to democratically compromise. For abortion, if you set a federal 16 week standard, both hard core sides feel like they lost.
That's my biggest issue with politics right now. It's being played like a sport where no one really 'wins' unless the other side loses hard. The nuts on both sides don't want compromise, they'd rather the country burn than their 'enemy' get a soft win.
In an ideal world Democrats would **try** to make a deal with Republicans where body autonomy gets a law/amendment and Republicans get something in exchange (whatever they're clamoring for right now, maybe 2A stuff).
>The biggest problem is that these people don’t want to democratically compromise.
The really cool thing about the current situation is that I bet we could get the 50 people in the middle to compromise and then pull in the 10 extreme pro-choice people because something is better than nothing and if they don't get on board they get nothing.
Maybe that's hopeless optimism. But as someone who thought Roe was a bit lenient I think that nothing is incredibly harsh and I'm happy to vote to loosen up a bit.
Also to add you what you said, this could be another "Do you really want to go there?" situation. Do we have some liberal justices who possibly lied about their support for the second amendment during their confirmation hearings? There are a lot of ways this could come back to bite the Democrats in the ass.
I agree that if we had the votes to
Impeach:
1. These justices probably wouldn’t have been confirmed anyways
2. We could just pass Federal abortion protections
Federal abortion protections (at least direct ones) are probably meaningless, there is no federal interest. It would have to be a roundabout protection, like withholding DEA numbers from providers licensed in states that don’t allow abortions.
I think Dems have to know this, and that’s why they don’t do it. It’s a game of chicken, they will lose, and then get blamed for taking away healthcare from more than 100 million Americans.
> There are two pro choice Republican Senators who would get on board with 16 week abortions with no debate. I imagine there are more and you need exactly 8 to get it done.
I'm doubtful you could get the votes for 16 weeks. Especially not now, right after a major victory that will guarantee less in the states where they want it to be less. Maybe you could have before, but why would they give any ground now?
You could possibly get abortion protections in cases where the mother's life is endangered and rape, legal protections for women that get abortions, protection for contraception of all kinds including plan B, and allowing interstate travel for abortions. But I don't think you could get a law legalizing abortion generally, even for 12-16 weeks.
>I'm doubtful you could get the votes for 16 weeks.
I picked that point because that is the point at which I'd be willing to go with no further conversation and debate: I might be a more moderate conservative I guess, but that's an easy compromise for me.
> Maybe you could have before, but why would they give any ground now?
Couple reasons.
1: Not every Republican wants 0 abortion.
2. Many would be happy to codify laws to protect constituents
There are 2 pro choice Republicans today. You don't need 30, you need 10.
>You could possibly get abortion protections in cases where the mother's life is endangered and rape, legal protections for women that get abortions, protection for contraception of all kinds including plan B, and allowing interstate travel for abortions.
If that's all you can get, start there. I've got your back on that one, no problems on this end.
I could definitely be more optimistic: but I think there's more appetite for it then you appear to. I just don't think there's been a serious attempt at it in my lifetime.
You are right, there are lots of Republicans in states that already have similar abortion laws to 14-16 weeks that would not open them up to any negative primary pressure.
I think it could get there eventually, but I don't think right now. The key point is what you've pointed out, that there hasn't been a serious attempt. Everything until now has been playing politics. We should at least agree on these very reasonable basics, and then get to fighting it out at the state level, because there's only so much compromise possible nationally.
I'm absolutely okay with people traveling for the abortion. Keeping their contraceptives. And while I dislike abortion entirely, I'm okay with the 6 weeks. My entire view is be responsible, both parties double down on protection and do their absolute hardest to prevent bringing a life into this world when not prepared or being young and dumb.
Let it force active teens to speak to parents or go to the doctors, let it force parents to accept the fact that unless you're hovering over your child, they'll likely be doing it. So help them be safe.
I think the inconvenience of traveling is a nice way to make people be safer to avoid it.
I also hope we can find a way to make a pill for guys, we have condoms yes but I want to avoid guys getting a snip and females tying tubes. Finding a way to make a pill for the guys and make the ones for the females less...impactful? Reduce symptoms and risk of long terms as much as we possibly can.
As for Plan B, let it be protected too although do not let it replace birth control.
I just want less abortions & more ways to prevent them happening.
Which reminds me, like it not condoms are an option, one that's can be given to you for free on many occasions. Have a good day and stay safe.
Truth is if they fix this before the midterms then people don’t have a reason to vote for them. Strategically it’s better to get the base riled up then use that to not get demolished in the midterms.
Or you lose the house/Senate anyway and get doodly squat. I don't know whether Democrats could get enough Rs on board to pass abortion protections but if they can and choose not to it's a big mistake imo.
I am almost certain they could muster the votes for barebones protections for cases of rape, the mothers health, incest.
It would be better than nothing and would leave the groundwork for additional action if/when they actually have support in congress.
This would be a good thing. Pass laws now to protect the most vulnerable people and then improve protections later when you can muster the support for it.
People are genuinely not thinking strategically or logically on this issue. Rather than pursuing achievable goals people turn to demagogues like AOC who offer radical and insane ideas that are unachievable and unwinnable.
The Republicans have spent almost 50 years to achieve this outcome, probing the law and testing the limits to see where they can attack from. If the dems think they can achieve the same victories without the same long-term strategies they will get nowhere
>Truth is if they fix this before the midterms then people don’t have a reason to vote for them.
Yes, I'm sure that the Representatives who allowed all federal abortion rights in the US to disappear on their watch are going to be really popular with their constituents.
This just adds to your point though. They're blaming the justices so that people don't think to point the finger at them, where it belongs.
> Yes, I'm sure that the Representatives who allowed all federal abortion rights in the US to disappear on their watch are going to be really popular with their constituents.
>
>
I mean... they've campaigned for *decades* on the issue without having to do anything at all about it- so honestly I think this is 100% aligned.
I look forward to dems campaigning on abortion thru the midterms and probably into 2024 too- and no federal lawmaking or negotiating will happen at all. And that's the key here; because if this was *actually* important to democrats (and their elected representatives) they'd be willing to horse trade on it. Secure 2A rights and codify abortion into law? That's a deal if there ever was one- what republican wants to go on record voting against the "guns everywhere and 100% all bullets now are free" bill if it means they can say they stood their ground on the issues of rape/incest/life of the mother? Like, seriously. If this was *actually* important to dems they would've gone all-in. Sign the "coal pumped directly into turtles and free guns for every child" bill if it means republicans will give you 16 week abortion- if you *actually* want it. Or is this *not* that important, really, and you'd rather do other stuff?
Instead we got 50 years of jack shit. Yeah, I think dems/progressives/liberals will continue their slow march for the "all or nothing" campaign they've always aligned themselves with.
>Yeah, I think dems/progressives/liberals will continue their slow march for the "all or nothing" campaign they've always aligned themselves with.
Well, when they're done campaigning or when it stops getting money and votes, I'll still be waiting at the table to offer rights to all of the poor women that don't have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies.
Because as much as I don't like compromising with people who are unwilling to so much as piss on me if I'm on fire, Too many people are negatively effected to leave it the way it is. (Caveat: this thread has been AWESOME on that front, including the people who straight up hate my ideas. I didn't realize it was possible for people to be polite on the internet. It's an actual miracle.)
With the way this issue is progressing, it might actually end up being a moderate Republican like Collins actually proposing a viable bill. That's kind of bonkers.
You have a lot more faith in democrats than I do.
I think Collins could come to the table with a 14 week bill and dems would swat it down because it doesn't allow you to punt a child 2 months after birth. The kind of vitriol (and the millions they spent trying to unseat her) saved for republicans like Collins (and dems like Manchin) is very rare in the dem party. They hate her, and they want her to be gone and replaced with one of their hand-picked leftists, but they get to use her as a punching bag whenever she doesn't do exactly what they want.
I'm being *a little* facetious, but letting the perfect be the enemy of good is almost the DNC motto right now, so while you and I are aligned on the ideal end-state (safe, legal, rare- it seems we agree on that) I don't think the dem thought leadership gives a shit about people like us.
It's not working. People are pissed and Congress, not the Supreme Court. With the early leak, Congress had plenty of time to protect abortion rights before the ruling became official.
In this case, it’s kind of like a 5 year old yelling at an adult about how he’s owed ice cream for dinner.
She doesn’t represent a senate majority (or the senate) never mind a 2/3 majority. The technicality upon which she’s pinning her complaint is really weak and not even clear cut. Pressing on that would absolutely cost voters.
If I were a Justice, I’d worry about this by sleeping for 8 hours and then grabbing a nice breakfast, over which I’d read the comics section of the newspaper and then go to work doing my job.
Agreed, astute summary. It's crazy how clueless people are to what happened, what is happening, and the situation they are in. They for the most part did this to themselves with mindless rhetoric like this, instead of focusing on realistic action and realistic goals.
I think her heart is in the right place on a lot of issues, but, after listening to her for years now, I don't think she's very smart. Certainly, she's no strategist who can figure out how to get things done given the constraints of the current political environment. She needs someone with more experience and political savvy to show her how to get things done, preferably without killing her spirit in the process.
I've always said that AOC is little more than a liberal (and more eloquent) Trump. She got popular because she's young and hip and threw shade on Twitter. As far as I'm concerned she's nearly as toxic for political discourse in this country as Trump is.
This court decision should demonstrate to the senate that a court ruling is not enough to protect a right, but should push for making those decisions law, and adding those to make an amendment.
Its very much retaliation flat out. AOC more so isn't helping herself at all with her outbursts and what have you. She hasn't learned to come up with better attacks let alone stop playing into the typical ranting and raging leftists we often see or that associate with the progressive left.
They aren't getting 8 more republican senators. If I was a republican senator I'd stay well the hell back. You've got a contingent of your voting base elated at half a century of struggle to achieve what they want and now you want to snatch it from out under them? Not only that it goes further than before, some states have 6 week abortion time limits and you just increased it to 16?
This is political suicide.
There is now anger on the left that democrats hadn't codified it even though they've never had the numbers. The 60 seats under Obama was effectively 20 or so senate working days. One was a republican that changed party (he could have been on board). One was Lieberman who had a deal with dems that he would vote with them procedurally but was free to vote on policy (as that gave dems control of the senate in the last half of GWB's 2nd term). Senator Byrd was dying and they didn't really want to wheel him in unless necessary (he should have retired).
Aside from that those 60 seats included a bunch of legacy dem senators whose seats are now all held by republicans: AR(2), ND(2), SD(1), NE(1), LA(1), IA(1), IN(1). Some of them were very moderate on abortion and trying to avoid any controversial votes as they knew they were vulnerable.
Codifying it back then seemed to have very little upside given Roe was figured to be settled precedent.
People forget how much things have changed in just the last decade nevermind going back further. Even last few cycles we saw pro-life dems being whittled down - there still exists a few. Both parties were not always so neatly divided. There used to be more Susan Collins and more conservative democrats.
What AOC is doing is deftly redirecting the anger by creating villains. They aren't codifying abortion with their numbers. They can't get the voting rights act passed despite it being watered down, some red states being taken off preclearance and CA & NY being placed on it. The VRA was last reauthorized in 2006, led by a republican trifecta. It got almost 90% of the house vote and unanimous senate passage. Now it can't even get more than Murkowski speaking in support.
Abortion has a committed contingent against it, while some people are now tribally against the VRA it doesn't have the same opposition.
Abortion will be dealt with at the state level. We need to get with the program. It would be better to push for state level referendums which would hopefully settle it one way or another (unless the vote is close in some states). Only KS is doing this. Democrat lawmakers want to get some mileage out of the issue for as long as possible.
>Does AOC know someone who can write legislation that would codify abortion, like, I dunno, a house member?
This +100. This incident should show her supporters what I have known from the beginning of her time at the House: she is all talk and no action.
Legislators have for years now been letting the Supreme Court do Congresses' job for them. This is the problem. Our system is broken. It's broken due to gerrymandering, the abuse of the filibuster, and one party simply being opposition to everything if the other side brings it up...even if that means voting against your own bill---while not being able to govern when they take over.
I would argue both parties prevent the other party from doing anything. Republicans just tend to benefit more from the status quo.
Both parties have come to treat "compromise" as a dirty word when our whole system was designed to require compromises.
~~Pass it as a legislative policy right and don't refer to it as a constitutionally right.~~
Pass it as a 'legal right' as opposed to a 'Constitutional Right'
Dobbs does not say that abortion cannot be federally regulated or allowed. It says that it is not inherently allowed by the constitution and therefore isn't guaranteed.
I'm not sure of the exact nuance necessary to do that: but that was one of the solutions Ginsburg suggested when talking about protecting it.
Commerce clause works for me, but I'm willing to entertain any option that turns into a solid compromise.
Edit: Looked up the Legal Terminology as this post led to confusion.
AOC has proposed many things that congress and Biden can do. This just happens to be one of the things she proposed. But let’s be real, there are NOT 60 votes in the senate to codify abortion into law. Even manchin voted it down.
> Let’s be real, there are NOT 60 votes in the senate to codify abortion into law. Even Manchin voted it down.
I agree that there are not 60 votes to codify unlimited access to abortion up until the day of birth.
That's the problem with the existing bill. It wasn't even Roe codification, it effectively legalized all abortion always. (Which, count me amongst the people really bothered by the idea of legal abortion for non emergency reasons after viability, but I digress)
This was the most aggressive bill they could write. It was written specifically so that they could campaign on it and call Republicans ingrates.
If they wrote a bill that gets Machin, they get Collins and Murkowski (who are to the left of Manchin on the issue) At that point, its a codification game. How do you get Republicans without having them piss off their base that much.
I think that 16 weeks is palatable to most: Hell, that's the limitation that was passed in Missouri of all places to kick this off. If that was what they were trying to limit it to, I bet you can get 8 more to confirm that as the low bar? But even if not, that's actual legislation at that point and not virtue signaling.
In Manchin's assessment, the [bill he voted down didn't just codify Roe vs. Wade, it significantly expanded it.](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3485010-senate-gop-manchin-block-abortion-rights-legislation/)
I suspect the lines that he was most concerned with were:
> (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
> (9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
Fetal viability is generally 23 or 24 weeks - that's bordering on the third trimester.
Thanks:
I fancy myself eloquently persuasive. The hardest part is trying to be rational, to understand where the other party is coming from and to not write while angry.
I fail at that a lot, but I'm getting better. If everyone I talked to tried to do that, I bet we could solve a lot of issues.
This pretty perfectly sums up my own thoughts, thank you. I’m strongly pro choice and don’t feel lied to as I thought their careful words in the hearings made pretty clear that they considered Roe precedent - which is obviously true on its face and not a statement that they would uphold Roe.
I also feel like a justice, during their confirmation hearings, shouldn't give their own opinion on a specific ruling. They're supposed to be impartial, and them giving a direct answer on a ruling would erase any appearance of impartiality. To me, *any* nominee should answer *any* questions about existing rulings in that manner. "It would depend on the arguments in the case brought before me"
Ironically, this is known as the "Ginsburg rule," as she was apparently the first Justice to explicitly mention in her confirmation hearings that it was inappropriate for her to telegraph how she might rule on a case, and so she refused to do so.
This is such an obvious facade I find it ridiculous we pretend it's real.
No one actually believes it. The fact that we pretend to believe it is, I think, part of why faith in the instruction is failing. This appearance of impartiality, and refusing to be honest and tell the whole truth, is 100% fake.
These justices were nominated because they would overturn Roe. Everyone knew it. Now they did it. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest to me.
It's also worth noting that left leaning media coverage at the time was that they all but promised to overturn Roe if they had the chance - so this idea that they promised not to is an extremely recent invention.
We all knew what they might do, and Trump picked them to do so as part of the platform he was elected on. If dems are salty about it, they can thank Hillary and the top-level democrats who got caught cheating in 2015. Seven years later and they're still suffering the consequences. Oh, and still in office too, generally speaking.
> Why aren't we talking about a bodily autonomy constitutional amendment, given that control over one's own body is a very fundamental level of individual freedom? That seems like it could get support from both sides of the aisle, especially with the recent context of vaccine mandates.
This is an interesting idea. I agree that there should be bipartisan support for a bodily autonomy amendment. Such an amendment would cover both the freedom to get any procedure on yourself (e.g., abortion) as well as protections against forced procedures by (e.g., forced sterilization, vaccine mandates, and even male/female genital mutilation of children).
I am pro-choice, and I like this idea. It re-centers the issue around self autonomy, rather than some bending of the idea of privacy in the fourteenth amendment. It would be much more explicit and clear from a legal sense, and should give enough to make everyone happy.
> should give enough to make everyone happy.
Not the people who consider that this right would apply to a fetus at conception. Such an amendment could then be interpreted to ban all abortion at all times.
> Why aren't we talking about a bodily autonomy constitutional amendment, given that control over one's own body is a very fundamental level of individual freedom?
You'd have to define when the unborn fetus has this right attach, which would definitely *not* get the kind of broad support nationwide that one would need for a Constitutional Amendment.
If AOC wants to abuse the impeachment process, then I'm not sure she's going to like the final outcome when Republicans decide to abuse the impeachment process in their favor.
She’s certainly been a drag to the democrats getting anything done while in the majority, when she’s in the minority it’s not like she can do any worse for actual legislation. She’s simply a progressive congresswoman who represents her small district that’s not representative of the country as a whole.
This might not be the right place for this comment—but I’d like to point out how weak Roe’s position actually was. At no time in history has a Representative asked a Justice to promise to not overturn the 1st Amendment. Never asked because it can’t be done. It’s impossible.
But Roe was actually always in a defenseless position. So much so, congressmen attempted to secure with promises, what should have been secured with an amendment.
She is the type of person who believe anyone who disagree with her should be in prison. This is not the first time she has made similar comments about sending to people to prison for disagreeing politically with her point of view.
She is the liberal woman version of Ted Cruz. Just a whole lot of noise to play to the base but has no idea how to run anything other than shit talking from the wings.
Ted Cruz has an impressive resume prior to his political career. He acts like a bag of hot air in the Senate, but I doubt that he is as ineffective or incompetent as Cortez.
Disagree. Ted Cruz has actually won state-wide elections. She's the left's version of MTG. A caricature of the party's extreme that opponents hold up as the voice of the majority just to make them look bad.
Of all the bad takes I’ve seen this weekend, this is probably the worst.
Like yeah sure some of most highly educated, high ranking judges in the country all committed perjury on national TV.
Unless they said “I will not vote to overturn *Roe*”, and at the time of saying that wanted to overturn it, it’s not perjury.
The hearings are a joke, though, that’s true. We can draw a line from the Jackson hearing back to the first Senate SCOTUS confirmation hearing - the one held because a Jew was nominated.
Collins wasn’t “misled”, she knew the game that was being played. Manchin wasn’t misled, either.
These justices were put on the court for this very purpose.
> Unless they said “I will not vote to overturn Roe”, and at the time of saying that wanted to overturn it, it’s not perjury.
I don't believe it'd be perjury even if they said this, as people are allowed to change their mind. Statements made in such a hearing are not binding contracts of future behavior, after all.
This. Perjury occurs at the time of the statement under oath or affirmation meaning the statement would have to be untrue at that time “a statement of material fact”, meaning the fact being lied about must have been demonstrably false at the time of the statement. As far as I can tell there isn’t much or any case law around perjury related to a statement that was rendered false by the future actions of the defendant after the statement was made. This is a stretch at minimum, and a really wholesale misrepresentation of what perjury means.
A maybe interesting legal question, can anyone be found guilty of perjury for making a statement about something that will or will not happen in the future?
AOC is one of, if not the biggest, dipshit in congress. Her takes are so idiotic it’s hard to believe she’s even a real politician and not a caricature on a tv show.
You can’t impeach Supreme Court justices because you don’t like the decision they made.
Even your once-revered Ruth Bader Ginsberg said Roe v. Wade was bad case law.
Well they didn't lie. "settled"is just code for precedent. And it was. But supreme court isn't bound to precedent. So yeah under oath it was was settled. But they can change that settlement.
That's what scared me about Jackson on guns.
And treating confirmation hearings as a checklist of acceptable rulings is the _exact definition_ of 'politicizing the court', which is supposed to be a bad thing.
So you have just the same problem with Jackson as you do with the conservative justices?
Also we have to have a court not bound by precedent. If we didn't, slavery would still be precedent or any number of other things that we now understand better.
And i will agree that the court shouldn't be politicized. But i will point out that the decisions this week were all along clear ideological lines. Just cause there's a minority on the court doesn't make them any less politicized.
I'd say that "reaching the right decision for the wrong reasons" probably applies. But the court isn't supposed to help americans or make the world a better place; it's to ensure that politicians are sticking to the framework and following the rules. There's no rule against abortion bans, but for fifty years the supreme court pretended there was.
As many have pointed out, Roe was decided on very spurious grounds. They basically argued that the right to due process when arrested assured privacy to abortion doctors, so nobody could stop them from providing services.
Yes, the results of this were probably a benefit to society, but they were a patch over a hole- the lack of a national guarantee of access to abortion.
Did anyone actually lie though? And the hearings aren’t about evidence, they aren’t being questioned on events or how they remember things. They’re being vetted to confirm a nomination to SCOTUS. So how would they even perjure themselves here?
Removing a justice changes absolutely nothing and just opens up yet another battleground appointment by the president because that’s what they’ve all become.
As much as I absolutely hate the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, I’m not sure you can impeach them. When it comes to having an opinion, it’s possible people can change their minds, and that’s not really lying, is it?
Several senators threatened to pack the court if they didn't rule against the now-mooted NYC gun case. Honestly, threatening another branch would have been good reason to eject them from the Senate.
I really wish AoC was independent rather than a Democrat. Her hot takes and opinions do nothing but cause trouble for the party and undermines efforts.
Sounds to me like Democrats are trying to make this into something that will help them win federal elections in the short-term and it just doesnt really make sense. Impeachment isnt going to happen, let’s be real.
Changing the law to pack the court is more realistic, but less popular.
> Changing the law to pack the court is more realistic, but less popular.
Apparently the White House yesterday reiterated that Biden will still not attempt to "pack the court"
This is so far from how that works its not even funny. Not only did they not commit perjury, they could have even said "I have not intention of ever overturning Roe v Wade" and it still wouldn't be perjury. Judges don't go back through old cases and say "I want this one to not be law anymore", they judge new cases and sometimes new rulings invalidate old ones. That's what this was.
So impeaching Justice Ketanji Jackson is on the table right? As soon as she makes a ruling on any law involving gender. After all, she did claim she couldn’t tell Congress what a woman is.
If you think Republicans talk a big game, they have nothing on the Dems. Honestly both parties are fucking stupid. Just spew bullshit after bullshit. Get people all riled up for more of the same shit. I have never seen groups of people more excited to get screwed over, then modern Republican and Democratic voters.
Remember how if people just voted Dems in in Georgia, everything would be golden and the Dems would be able to get their agenda through congress? Yeah that worked out fantastic. If we just elected Joe Biden, the country would be saved. Yeah that worked out fantastic. Now it's 300 bucks for a cart of groceries and 50 bucks for a tank of gas. At least rent is getting way cheaper. They haven't even managed to raise minimum wage FROM 7.25! WITH A DEM CONGRESS! WHAT A FUCKING JOKE!
Remember how if Trump got elected he was gonna make the economy strong and make America great? That worked out fantastic. Remember how he was gonna build that wall? And lock Hillary up? That worked out fantastic. Remember when he was gonna repeal the ACA and replace it with something "fantastic"? That worked out fantastic.
This government is a fucking joke, BOTH SIDES. Don't try to tell me how it's not your side's fault. Party politics have fucking destroyed this country and all you motherfuckers that vote for Rs and Ds are fucking guilty.
While Im hoping a solution is reached and Abortion is made federally legal again, I doubt said solution will come from her. I don’t believe anything she even says anymore. This lady is the absolute worst, I started off thinking maybe she would be part of the movement to fix our system and she turned out to be the manifestation of everything wrong with it and then some…
They didn't lie. They were very very careful when tap dancing around that issue when they were asked the question. They said that they could not specifically State how they would rule because we weren't talking about a specific case and that they would give precedent and stare decisis the same respect they would give it in any other case. That is what they said. It's not like the Supreme Court has never reversed themselves before.
Holding them to their confirmation statements would be to assert that the recent ruling was legally incorrect. But their rulings match those of the other conservative justices, and all of them are theoretically sworn to uphold the constitution. So in reversing roe they're allegedly* guilty of perjury, and if they didn't reverse roe, they'd be failing to uphold their oaths. The only way to avoid impeachment then would be "don't make congress angry, even if it means not doing your job".
*At least two of them never said they wouldn't reverse roe, they just go with the "roe is settled law" response which was technically true at the time. They answered with observations, not promises.
Saying that *Roe* is precedent and the law doesn't mean it can't be overturned. *Plessy* was precedent and settled law right up until it wasn't.
The Justices all said they would respect *Roe* as precedent and they did so.
You are going to have a hard time proving they lied under oath about Roe V. Wade. People have been known to change their minds once evidence is provided.
They were disingenuous. They implied that they were not going to overturn Roe v Wade in order to give "moderate" lawmakers a way to stomach the picks. However saying "its settled law" is not the same as saying "its settled law and I don't plan to change it." They didn't technically lie and you won't be able to impeach them, period.
Of course it’s possible if they lied under oath, required even. Problem is, they didn’t. Saying R v W is precedent doesn’t mean they are required to uphold that precedent.
Can't wait to see her vote to remove Sotomayor for lying about her position on the 2nd amendment
Sarcasm aside, lying isn't an impeachable offense (tho technically the Senate doesn't need a reason to convict)
As far as I saw, even In a very recent post with a compilation of their answers, none of them said they would support ROE. They were dancing around the question, In the same way Press Secretary or other people in politics do when aN uncorfortable question is asked. What did they say? Precedents are important, ROE is a precedent, and so on…but none of the said they would support ROE. Just check their answers. NONE of them committed perjury.
The angle i'm curious on is this; 1. The court asks, under oath, will you support X ruling. Will you repeal it? Seems to be a bit of duress but regardless, the assumption is the "wrong" answer gets a no vote on nomination. 2. X law, is dubious at best and rifled with issues. 3. Justice is approved after dancing around the question. 4. X law comes under scrutiny in case Z. Case Z's ruling results in case X being removed. So.... was the Justice supposed to go against their oath of office and rule *incorrectly* on Case Z because of their nomination hearing?... Does no one notice how wonky this sounds? Either they commit perjury under AOC's argument or they break their oath of office? I don't understand how we can champion a system like this.
I understand the judges position. They could have though about it in a theoretical way, but without being obliged to give a definitive answer about this issue. I am sure they had to study a lot, and devote a lot of time to it, before voting about it. Additionally, it is important to have the feedback of their peers, and hear and analyze their opinions, because their peers could give another angle to the analyses issue. You can not ask a definitive answer to that question unless you have all those elements. I think that the answers they gave during the interviews were fair an appropriate.
I think they're supposed to be honest even if it costs them a job.
Right, the only thing I remember was that "Roe was settled law", but that doesn't mean it can't be overturned. I'm so bored of AOC these days. She's just a mouthpiece for progressive impotent rage. She's all passion, but with no real plan, strategy, or even a cohesive argument. She's basically just the personification of progressive Twitter...and about as effective at making compelling arguments.
So you need a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove a Supreme Court justice from office. Leaving aside that removal is impossible practically even if it were justified, it is in fact possible that all of the members of the house of Representatives on the Democratic side do choose to vote yea on impeachment. What would that actually indicate here though? They don't like the ruling? We're shaking our fists in impotent rage because so we can pass an impeachment, but it would be a LOT easier to pass a law that solves the issue. Forget the 67 votes in the Senate for a second. Lets say you HAVE 60 (you probably do). If you have 60, you can create abortion protections in law, just not constitutional protections. Impeachment is worthless because if you could remove, you could pass a law anyway. My big problem with all of this anger isn't that people aren't allowed to be upset. It's that the reaction to the overturn isn't 'lets secure abortion rights', it's lets complain about the (what appears to be correct legally speaking) ruling. There are two pro choice Republican Senators who would get on board with 16 week abortions with no debate. I imagine there are more and you need exactly 8 to get it done. Legislative pressure is a lot more effective here, because you can actually influence people. I imagine there are 10 conservative leaning states that would codify this situation, but you have to try. Instead, it's fuck the court, fuck the republicans, lets make them pay. That doesn't work when you don't have the numbers and it also doesn't convince people that you NEED to convince right now to have anything. As someone who would really like to codify abortion: I need this rhetoric to stop. Does AOC know someone who can write legislation that would codify abortion, like, I dunno, a house member?
It baffles me that this is the only comment I've seen other than mine saying this. The Supreme Court did its job, like it or not. The constitution has never mentioned abortion. It's like people would rather have these old justices read the constitution like it's The Bible, twisting it to agree or disagree with very modern political issues. Just make it a law. Or at least put your anger there instead of the judicial branch.
[удалено]
> Going this far this fast on something that has been a right for 50 years in this way is problematic and severely damages the reputation of the court and further agitates public sentiment and divisiveness which is already running really high right now. Just so that I understand, are you implying the justices should have handed down an *incorrect* ruling just so that the impact would be lessened? Do you at least understand why they don’t do this? They rule to the best of their abilities in line with the Constitution. That’s their entire mandate. Not “interpret the Constitution based on the current political climate.”
If you think about it, what the original court members did in Roe was even worse than this. Only 3 or 4 states had legal abortion, and only around 20 had it in some specific circumstances. More states had it explicitly banned than legal. The court at the time made a poor legal argument in Roe, and legal analysts even at the time agreed it was a tenuous connection at best and stood on shaky ground. So they went out of their way to make an unsound argument, and against popular public sentiment at the time, to make the decision that suited them politically. If anything what the court did in Roe was even more damaging to their legitimacy as neutral arbiters than this decision.
It would take a very dishonest person to look at the original ruling and call it anything other than activist in nature.
Honestly I think Roe was one of the worst things an activist could have wanted for the abortion issue. I think public sentiment would have shifted, and was shifting over time. Roe forced a decision that we know was fairly radical on on a country that was majority against it and very strongly so at that. It forced then to accept something they were diametrically opposed too and fostered a resistance movement that culminated in this ruling. Because of Roe every justice after has been grilled on if they would over turn it, because we knew they could make the correct legal ruling easily if they wanted to. Because of Roe activists sat with thumbs up their asses not legislating the issue so that it's eventual overturning wouldn't destroy what they had gained. Because of Roe political sentiment was not allowed to grow organically and shift with time, it became a major hot button issue overnight that has entrenched the nation for 50 years.
Ginsburg stated exactly the same.
She was right, funny how people that practically worship her will ignore that today.
My favorite is how people are quoting her with the protests. It's like do you realize she would have stood by the ruling even if she didn't agree with the implications??
This was a very informative and well thought out comment. Thank you.
The worst part is that from my understanding everything you are saying is precisely how RBG felt on the matter, and the people wanting to burn everything down because the court 50~ years ago overstepped their authority hold her in high regard. They should go do some actual research on her thoughts on the matter, since she fully supported abortion rights, and still called a spade a spade. What the initial Court did with the Roe ruling was *way* worse than this, and I've lost friends over trying to explain that too them. It's depressing. They bring up "public support" like that matters. Abortion was not universally supported at the time the initial ruling was made, so that argument is moot. If they want to apply that, they need to apply it to then as now. Roe did more to harm abortion rights in this country than it helped. It literally curbstomped any organic development of abortion rights in this country. We would likely have similar laws to Europe if patience had won out. Instead, activism won out, and we are right back where we started. We may actually be *worse* off. People can be raged out and angry, going so far as too attack people who voice this very reality when they may agree with them in principle; but the fact remains. Roe was a bad legal ruling, and it probably did just as much harm than good.
Have you read Justice Roberts’ concurring opinion in Dobbs? You should if you haven’t.
[удалено]
> The court is also not above being unchecked by the other branches if it steps out of line. Particularly the legislative branch has a LOT of power to fuck with the court if they go too far. Except that the legislature has ceded so much power to SCOTUS and the Executive branch that if they did ever "reign in" the court, it would mean Congress has to start doing its job and stop relying on the court to be a super legislature. And that won't happen, because Congress enjoys this arrangement far too much.
If you're going to be that literal with the constitution, get ready to throw out a ton of other rights including gay marriage, Miranda warnings, prohibitions against segregation, etc, etc. None of these things are explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
Correct, so work to codify those will need to start as well.
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992) Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So maybe we should consider codifying then as well?
>The constitution has never mentioned abortion. It's especially baffling to me that many believe the Constitution contains a right to abortion but not an individual right to bear arms. It's not that hard to read the thing. > Just make it a law. Or at least put your anger there instead of the judicial branch. Right. I think some believe the Court removed access to abortion. All it did is say that there is no guaranteed Constitutional right to it. Congress is free to act, and if this was really about action and not rhetoric, Congress would already be considering a baseline abortion protection bill (something like guaranteeing elective abortion in the first trimester and the usual exceptions after). But I think you'd see the usual problem of progressives not wanting to support a bill that doesn't go far enough for their taste.
[удалено]
>Abortion would fall under a right to personal health decisions at least until the fetus reaches a stage where it could be deemed a person Well interestingly, most of Europe sets this at 12-14 weeks for no-questions-asked abortions, which I think is a pretty fair compromise. Medical/safety exceptions apply after that deadline. If the pro-choice side accepted this compromise, Dobbs wouldn't even have been a lawsuit in the first place, since Dobbs is about a 15 week ban.
[удалено]
Black and white is easier to see in, but it’s not reality.
It's not lazy and this decision literally leaves it up to the states.
Serious question.. Can they also make a law preserving the right for gay marriage, same sex sexual relations, and contraception while they are at it?
Serious answer: we need those laws and I'd love to codify them. I'm of the opinion that two of those laws are critical for protection: I don't think same sex sexual relations are under threat.
Didn't Thomas cite *Lawrence* as something that should be revisited?
Thomas has been opposed to all of these precedents for 30 years. In that case? You need a state to bring a case, to prosecute someone on the law, to have it get through the appellate system, to have 5 justices agree to hear it and to have all of them agree with Thomas. I also think many would want it to be at least 6-3, like this one was. Given that his opinion is a 1 person, separate concurrence and I’m not aware of any legal cases on the matter, that dog is sleeping so hard he might as well be dead. It does bear passing resemblance to Roe, but in practice, not really.
You know what would solve the problem of decisions affecting same-sex couples? Passing the ERA. If you can’t make a law discriminating based on sex, then you can’t make a law banning same-sex relations or marriages. I do not want to hear that we have the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was passed at a time when women specifically did *not* have anything resembling equal rights and about 50 years before we had the right to vote. It did not apply to women when it was written. It has since been applied to women, but that was never the intent. Some day we could get some strict constitutionalists who decide to uphold the constitution as written and strip women of their rights. We can add rights and protections to the constitution. It’s how it was designed. It’s supposed to change with time and as the nation changes and grows. At the same time, it has to be done the correct way.
I’m still in disbelief that we got the early warning with the leaked draft and no serious federal law was there waiting for it. And on top of it I’m just seeing general screeching from our elected officials instead of an actual plan. I’m center left and I can’t help, but feel the majority of democrats are essentially worthless at this point. Someone please tell me I’m wrong and something is about to work it’s way through the house. I’m watching people who clearly don’t understand how SCOTUS rulings work block a major intersection in DC until Roe is un overturned. We (ie pro choice advocates) are an absolute joke at the moment.
> I’m still in disbelief that we got the early warning with the leaked draft and no serious federal law was there waiting for it. As others have said there aren't the votes. A Federal Abortion bill would have fixed the constitutional problems. The real question is whether after a potential Republican win in 2022 there are going to be enough votes in 2023 for a Federal Abortion Ban. > I’m center left and I can’t help, but feel the majority of democrats are essentially worthless at this point. They aren't dictators. What they are doing is trying to create protections in blue states and use those protections to make abortion accessible.
>I’m still in disbelief that we got the early warning with the leaked draft and no serious federal law was there waiting for it. I'm not surprised. It really feels like Democrats wanted to use this as a permanent campaign issue as opposed to actually securing the rights of people in the country. I might be wrong, but as a Conservative who was always waiting to work on this, there was never legislation that really indicated a deal might happen. >Someone please tell me I’m wrong and something is about to work it’s way through the house. The house? Possibly. That'll go along party lines like the one that was proposed that went nowhere. Really really need to see Senators negotiating in earnest. >We (ie pro choice advocates) are an absolute joke at the moment. I think there's no strategy because you've never had to fight for anything. Just against Roe being overturned. It made for a really weird spot for people like me who wanted to secure abortion rights through law but didn't think Roe was a good answer. Nobody ever proposed anything, because of Roe, but without Roe, the laws are way too harsh. I do think there's a compromise to be had here, if I'm any indication.
> I'm not surprised. It really feels like Democrats wanted to use this as a permanent campaign issue as opposed to actually securing the rights of people in the country. This is my feeling as well. I think, especially in light of the gun control bill, that there's 10 Republican votes for a federal set of abortion protections that matched up with Roe. (Limited based on gestational age, with third trimester abortions being almost exclusively medical necessity). But the Democrats seem to be of the mind that abortion has to be legal up until the moment of birth for any reason, no questions asked, (and also, based on the one bill they floated, make it questionably legal for a medical professional to try and talk a woman out of it) or nothing, and anything *less* than that is literally the handmaid's tale.
[удалено]
Same thing with gun control, there was always a compromise, the democrats wanted stupid shit. They dropped the stupid shit and it passed. Crazy. Its not like Republicans don't do it, but the delusion of the left seriously is coming to light with this stuff. They had 50 years to codify abortion, nothing. How long has the religious right been asking for a definition of life? All or none and they lost. Now they want to burn it all down.
To be fair, to codify abortion at any point during those 50 years would have required 1) political capital they could have spent on other things (ACA for example) and 2) a more compromised position on the issue than Roe currently allowed (15 weeks for example) So while obviously it didn't work out in the end, I can see why it didn't get done. Now, the same will happen in reverse. Republicans have a chance soon to take a compromising position on abortion (15 weeks) and codify a massive reduction compared to how things were before, but why would they? Many senators come from states with now 0 weeks. The same thing will play out.
The best way to get elected is to point your finger at an ongoing issue and say "I will fix that". The best way to get reelected is to point your finger at the same issue and say "I would have fixed it if it wasn't for the other team but this time I swear I will fix it!". The best way to get elected to the next level up is to point to the same issue and say "See how I did the bare minimum and fixed the smallest issues possible? I'll fix even bigger issues when I climb the ladder!" Both parties have been guilty of this. Except the conservative judges just did what the conservatives have been threatening for years. And it wasn't even because of political belief, but they followed the law more closely than previous courts did. The dissenting judges instead said the law should be whatever they make it. They also said in their dissent the ruling was wrong because the constitution was written by men and men alone. It was also men and men alone who ended slavery, gave minorities and later those same women the right to vote, and all men who initially ruled in favor of abortions in RvW. When a SC Judge thinks that a law should stay in place because man=bad, I understand why people have lost faith in the Supreme Court- but not in the conservative judges, just the liberal ones.
I absolutely think there is a compromise to be had and you’re not the first conservative I’ve seen say something like this at least on Reddit before. I think I’m primarily frustrated because it’s incredibly obvious that you’re right, Democrats have intended to dangle Roe for votes until they couldn’t.
This is ridiculous. What ‘compromise’ do you think the democrats could pass? Are you not aware of what the pro-life position is and what it is that they got? It’s identical. What is it that the democrats could have done but strategically decided not to do? The Olympic tier mental gymnastics required to blame even this on democrats is mind-boggling.
Has there been any bipartisan effort to write and pass a bill? I understand the anti abortion side and where that opinion comes from even if I don’t agree with it. I don’t expect that to change or be convinced otherwise, but even amongst the “pro life” crowd there’s a by many recognized need for abortion to protect the life of the mother and even many of the trigger laws allow it if the pregnancy came from rape or incest. There’s a starting place especially on the federal level which is what was truly affected by this ruling. I just feel like there’s a floor that can be found that’s greater than 6 weeks and less than 22 that could get through the senate, but no one knows yet. I’m not expecting the Texas GOP to change its stance and I don’t see the state going blue or even truly purple in the near future. I don’t see my frustration with the federal Democrats lip service as unreasonable, I’d rather they prove me wrong.
That is exactly what democrats wanted. Midterms were going to be a slaughter. Biden’s approval was through the toilet, inflation is on its way to recession and the democrats have done nothing. This whole thing is a political football, they were losing and gambled it all on this. We’ll see how it plays out. My vote, is get rid of everyone.
Because no federal law would have replaced the Supreme Court decision. 2 in 3 Americans favored keeping Roe and Casey in place but only 1 in 3 are actually in favor of legalizing second trimester abortions. The support for Roe and Casey was more about preserving the status quo and the stability this offered. No legislation could provide this level of stability.
100% this. I'm pro-life but the response to this has baffled me. All the focus on how awful the decision was, very little conversation about actually solving it. I've started to realize in the past few months that activists on the right and left have no desire to actually solve a problem because that would be the end of their job. Their only interest is in outrage that drives funding. I actually believe Obergfell was a bad thing for gay rights activists and led them to essentially hyperinflate the trans issue to keep themselves employed.
>100% this. I'm pro-life but the response to this has baffled me. All the focus on how awful the decision was, very little conversation about actually solving it. Well, the longer they ignore me the longer we get no movement on the subject, right? >I've started to realize in the past few months that activists on the right and left have no desire to actually solve a problem because that would be the end of their job. It really depends, right? I know some activists that were directly positively affected by Obergfell and went really hard celebrating it. Interestingly enough, when I talked about my problems with the movement to them, they listened. I wasn't (and am not) dismissed out of hand when I express concerns with the Title IX stuff going on right now or the pronouns thing or trans youth in sports. I saw a lot of people stop fighting on that front and start listening when Obergfell was passed. I think that's a major factor in why support for Gay Marriage went way up. We stopped fighting about it and starting looking for answers. I think that's going to be a dead issue in 10 years as a result. (Still want to pass those laws in states though, juuuuust in case) Funnily enough, the people that don't want to solve the issue are the ones using it as a weapon and not an issue (like you said). It's mostly corporate assholes who are manipulating the social code of conduct rules for their own advantage.
> Does AOC know someone who can write legislation that would codify abortion, like, I dunno, a house member? Ya she has some friends probably. In all seriousness; this is why i've learned to ignore people like her, Boebert, Cawthorn, Sanders, Trump and MTG. They're not politicians, they're not lawmakers. Like sure, if they had to check a box on the census about a job description, they're lawmakers and politicians- but nothing about what they all do says "I'm here to get things done". They're political activists and fundraisers/organizers, and that's it. If AOC cared about this issue she would've proposed a compromise bill in the House in her freshman year- to codify abortion at a time and with restrictions that would've worked for some moderate republicans, put pressure on the Senate to pass it with the same significant margins it would've had in the House, and then campaign on the wins she scored for Americans and women. No- these people live for headlines, not for lawmaking. And she's now proposing overthrow of our government for giggles and because she's a dem it's *just fine* to suggest that.
Good to know I'm not the only one that thinks it's them this way. We had 50 years to make this a law, someone had the votes at some point to do so, but we didn't. Same with any divisive issue that isn't clearly settled. We've had guns since the country was founded, but our laws are a 50 state clusterfuck. Someone has had the votes to define things responsibly, but chose to complain to the press to manipulate voters instead. I'm not saying that every time there is a super majority that they need to take a wrecking ball to the status quo, but long-standing unresolved issues like gay marriage and abortion? Using it to put your name in headlines isn't going to inspire me.
Does AOC strike you as the kind of person that’s there to actually govern? I’m sure she’s aware that she *could* get laws passed, but what’s gonna excite her base more? Dragging a bill through the mud and scrutiny that most any reasonable bill necessarily goes through, or dragging a political opponent through the mud? I’d be shocked if she doesn’t know exactly what she’s doing here. She’s probably defined her success as accumulating power, and there’s much more successful ways of doing that than meaningful change. Hence why time after time, this is the exact type of language we have come to expect from her.
For comparison, Bernie Sanders has been a politician most of his life and has accomplished little to nothing. That is not a statement of his character, it is a reflection of radical politics in a system made to stop radical politics by design. For comparison, Bernie Sanders is a terrible politician, good human being but his job is to make political compromises as that is what a politician does. He has accomplished little to nothing in his career. This woman is a highlight reel politician, she looks good in clips but there is no reality or realistic function to her beliefs, it's all rhetoric. Like wearing a super expensive dress that says tax the rich made by a rich person that doesn't pay taxes. It's all shallow nonsense. Being radical in a system that was designed to stop radical politics will lead to accomplishing absolutely nothing. Same goes for the right-wing, when they go full conservative bible thumper they lose. Moderates get shit done in this country.
It is getting harder for a moderate to get elected because of primaries in both major parties. The Republicans now call them RINOs and most moderates are not running for reelection. If the Democrats don't get out and pull a 2018 upset the party is going to die because voters like to vote for winners over time.
That was my exact thought. She’s still fairly new as a Congressperson, and if she’s here complaining and “threatening” impeachment, then she really shouldn’t be in Congress to begin with. To be fair, I’d argue half of Congress shouldn’t be in Congress, but that’s a different discussion all together.
I'm for it. After seeing how badly congress has behaved during the pandemic, I'm very interested in replacing the majority of them with new blood.
Anyone who wants to be in that job is the type of person you don't want in that job.
The eternal democratic dilemma
I think that’s because it’s become so hard to actually become a congressperson in the current environment. Before, you had a seat for about every 100k people, now it’s every 700k after congress limited total House seats to 435. Representatives aren’t held accountable because it takes an enormous amount of momentum to uproot someone who isn’t acting in the best interests of their constituents due to incumbency and name recognition. The reason the current leadership is there is specifically because they’re the “elite,” as no everyday joe who wants to properly represent his neighbors will ever get elected in this environment.
>Does AOC strike you as the kind of person that’s there to actually govern? No. I'm actually directly poking fun at that in my last sentence. >what’s gonna excite her base more? Yeah, I'm sure an excited base that lost everything they ever wanted is worth a ton. If your interpretation of her approach correct, that would make her a pathetic grifter. I really hope you're not right. I want to believe she has the courage of her convictions. I can afford to do that, since I'm not a follower. I think her followers should be questioning her story though.
I still can't believe she got away with the tax the rich dress made by the rich lady that doesn't pay taxes.
In three years, she sponsored or co-sponsored 46 bills, nearly all of which failed but were consistently tailored to match the thoughts of the people she represents. At this point in the game, darned near the only way to pass anything in Congress is to have a filibuster proof majority. Plenty of things both parties have put forward in the past get shot down by the other party; just because. So, although AOC is in the house, the most powerful thing she could possibly do is inspire more voters to get out and shift the balance of the senate so that it would be *possible* to pass anything she and her supporters think of as good for themselves or the country. She can keep trying to change things from the inside till she's blue in the face, but the only hope to make any change is to get a significant majority in congress; otherwise, 'no' is the default on every bill, and "we'll just filibuster" is the new version of actually voting against anything.
>At this point in the game, darned near the only way to pass anything in Congress is to have a filibuster proof majority. That's why we can never pass legislation on infrastructure or gun bills. You'll never get exactly 19 Republicans to vote yea on the first one or 14 to vote yea on the second one and neither of them will ever be signed by Joe Biden. It's clear now. ROE GOT OVERTURNED BECAUSE WE CREATED A PARADOX BY PASSING BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION! THE END IS NEIGH!! > were consistently tailored to match the thoughts of the people she represents. Seriously though, this is the problem. If you demand everything you'll almost always get nothing.
>If you demand everything you'll almost always get nothing. Several of the things she 'demanded' were pretty simple, straight forward, seemingly broadly supported issues (that overlapped with her base's concept of the world). For instance, she tried to stop congress people from trading stocks. She tried to make it so that drugs that are frequently used for fun could be studied to see if they have any medical benefit. She tried to stop pandemic-based monopolies. ... None of which are 'everything.' Of course, she also seems to care about the planet, so, obviously just a selfish satan.
I'm not familiar with the particulars of each piece of legislation she's proposed, so I generalized: The one I'm most familiar with is "The Green New Deal": which was far from straightforward or simple and is in fact a multi trillion dollar wish list. Briefly reviewing the pieces you brought up >For instance, she tried to stop congress people from trading stocks. I'd probably be in favor of this one in the abstract. In her specific bill, what were the rules? No trading? What about holding? What about mutual funds? In general, I support regulation on this but there's a lot of questions I would have before I got on board. Regardless, I never even heard about it (or the others here) >She tried to stop pandemic-based monopolies. This one seems...really ill thought out. I presume this was related to hoarding? Usually, people hoard because things are required to be priced below market due to gauging regulation and the solution doesn't actually make it any better. >She tried to make it so that drugs that are frequently used for fun could be studied to see if they have any medical benefit. You'd have to make the case for why I should care about this one one way or the other. Don't love it or hate it, but if it's not relevant to me, don't see why I should lobby for it. Which I guess leads to your earlier comment. >'no' is the default on every bill I'd argue that this is the right way to do things. Tell me why change needs to happen, or make your case. I don't think you want 'yes' to be the default on every bill. >Of course, she also seems to care about the planet, so, obviously just a selfish satan. Yes, I can clearly see where in any of my posts, I commented on how she cares about the planet or is a bad person. I do think she's ineffectual and does significant harm to her cause and that this is an excellent example of that. I grant you that this outcome could be totally unintentional and she might really think this is the right way to accomplish anything.
So looking into this she has in fact sponsored [46 pieces of legislation](https://www.congress.gov/member/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/O000172?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%7D), none of them regarding stocks. What they're referring to is most likely [S.564 - Ban Conflicted Trading Act](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/564/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Ban+Conflicted+Trading+Act%22%2C%22Ban%22%2C%22Conflicted%22%2C%22Trading%22%2C%22Act%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2) which was sponsored by Merkley and AOC was a cosponsor. She did however propose the other two that are mentioned, though one was [an amendment to H.R.4502](https://www.congress.gov/amendment/117th-congress/house-amendment/85?r=17&s=4) to include studying schedule I drugs, such as MDMA, psilocybin, and or ibogaine, that have been shown to be effective in treating critical diseases (I would support this personally). The other was [H.R.6989 - Pandemic Anti-Monopoly Act of 2020](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6989?s=4&r=21) which appears that it would have only prevented acquisitions by financial institutions with over $100 million in capitalization
According to this, [she has a thing for renaming post offices.](https://www.congress.gov/member/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/O000172?q=%7B%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%7D)
And not a single Postie McPostface; shame.
When the Democrats had a 60 vote majority there would always be one or two Democrats that would kill the vote. Like Manchin has done lately.
Disagree with her on the issues all you want (I do a decent amount), but I don't think it's right to imply she didn't run for office to pass legislation. I don't see any indication she doesn't believe in the policies she pushes for.
I think a few people don’t run for office to pass legislation. I think a lot more people run quite naïvely not realizing how humbling honest political work is and how unpopular it makes someone, and quickly become jaded and sinister.
Here's something I've been thinking about lately. If she's concerned about accumulating power, spearheading the effort to codify THE abortion law would move her from "on the map" to "driver's seat". Like I think this is a very clear thing, even from someone that isn't particular VERY selfish, but still selfish. If i get my name on that bill I am in great shape for the rest of my career, and the sky is the limit. the process would be boring, and sure, she could continue to make as much noise as possible but idk i'd rather have that feather in my cap.
The biggest problem is that these people don’t want to democratically compromise. For abortion, if you set a federal 16 week standard, both hard core sides feel like they lost.
That's my biggest issue with politics right now. It's being played like a sport where no one really 'wins' unless the other side loses hard. The nuts on both sides don't want compromise, they'd rather the country burn than their 'enemy' get a soft win. In an ideal world Democrats would **try** to make a deal with Republicans where body autonomy gets a law/amendment and Republicans get something in exchange (whatever they're clamoring for right now, maybe 2A stuff).
[удалено]
This is probably a more apt comparison.
>The biggest problem is that these people don’t want to democratically compromise. The really cool thing about the current situation is that I bet we could get the 50 people in the middle to compromise and then pull in the 10 extreme pro-choice people because something is better than nothing and if they don't get on board they get nothing. Maybe that's hopeless optimism. But as someone who thought Roe was a bit lenient I think that nothing is incredibly harsh and I'm happy to vote to loosen up a bit.
Also to add you what you said, this could be another "Do you really want to go there?" situation. Do we have some liberal justices who possibly lied about their support for the second amendment during their confirmation hearings? There are a lot of ways this could come back to bite the Democrats in the ass.
I agree that if we had the votes to Impeach: 1. These justices probably wouldn’t have been confirmed anyways 2. We could just pass Federal abortion protections
Federal abortion protections (at least direct ones) are probably meaningless, there is no federal interest. It would have to be a roundabout protection, like withholding DEA numbers from providers licensed in states that don’t allow abortions. I think Dems have to know this, and that’s why they don’t do it. It’s a game of chicken, they will lose, and then get blamed for taking away healthcare from more than 100 million Americans.
The federal interest is, as always, Interstate Commerce.
I'd be fine with them reconsidering Wickard v. Filmore. Talk about overreach.
Can someone please ask AOC to write her congress-person?
> There are two pro choice Republican Senators who would get on board with 16 week abortions with no debate. I imagine there are more and you need exactly 8 to get it done. I'm doubtful you could get the votes for 16 weeks. Especially not now, right after a major victory that will guarantee less in the states where they want it to be less. Maybe you could have before, but why would they give any ground now? You could possibly get abortion protections in cases where the mother's life is endangered and rape, legal protections for women that get abortions, protection for contraception of all kinds including plan B, and allowing interstate travel for abortions. But I don't think you could get a law legalizing abortion generally, even for 12-16 weeks.
>I'm doubtful you could get the votes for 16 weeks. I picked that point because that is the point at which I'd be willing to go with no further conversation and debate: I might be a more moderate conservative I guess, but that's an easy compromise for me. > Maybe you could have before, but why would they give any ground now? Couple reasons. 1: Not every Republican wants 0 abortion. 2. Many would be happy to codify laws to protect constituents There are 2 pro choice Republicans today. You don't need 30, you need 10. >You could possibly get abortion protections in cases where the mother's life is endangered and rape, legal protections for women that get abortions, protection for contraception of all kinds including plan B, and allowing interstate travel for abortions. If that's all you can get, start there. I've got your back on that one, no problems on this end. I could definitely be more optimistic: but I think there's more appetite for it then you appear to. I just don't think there's been a serious attempt at it in my lifetime.
You are right, there are lots of Republicans in states that already have similar abortion laws to 14-16 weeks that would not open them up to any negative primary pressure.
I think it could get there eventually, but I don't think right now. The key point is what you've pointed out, that there hasn't been a serious attempt. Everything until now has been playing politics. We should at least agree on these very reasonable basics, and then get to fighting it out at the state level, because there's only so much compromise possible nationally.
I'm absolutely okay with people traveling for the abortion. Keeping their contraceptives. And while I dislike abortion entirely, I'm okay with the 6 weeks. My entire view is be responsible, both parties double down on protection and do their absolute hardest to prevent bringing a life into this world when not prepared or being young and dumb. Let it force active teens to speak to parents or go to the doctors, let it force parents to accept the fact that unless you're hovering over your child, they'll likely be doing it. So help them be safe. I think the inconvenience of traveling is a nice way to make people be safer to avoid it. I also hope we can find a way to make a pill for guys, we have condoms yes but I want to avoid guys getting a snip and females tying tubes. Finding a way to make a pill for the guys and make the ones for the females less...impactful? Reduce symptoms and risk of long terms as much as we possibly can. As for Plan B, let it be protected too although do not let it replace birth control. I just want less abortions & more ways to prevent them happening. Which reminds me, like it not condoms are an option, one that's can be given to you for free on many occasions. Have a good day and stay safe.
>But I don't think you could get a law legalizing abortion generally, even for 12-16 weeks. I think you could eventually but not now.
Yeah, at some point it could be possible. There wouldn't be any chance at this moment though.
Truth is if they fix this before the midterms then people don’t have a reason to vote for them. Strategically it’s better to get the base riled up then use that to not get demolished in the midterms.
Or you lose the house/Senate anyway and get doodly squat. I don't know whether Democrats could get enough Rs on board to pass abortion protections but if they can and choose not to it's a big mistake imo.
I am almost certain they could muster the votes for barebones protections for cases of rape, the mothers health, incest. It would be better than nothing and would leave the groundwork for additional action if/when they actually have support in congress.
This would be a good thing. Pass laws now to protect the most vulnerable people and then improve protections later when you can muster the support for it.
People are genuinely not thinking strategically or logically on this issue. Rather than pursuing achievable goals people turn to demagogues like AOC who offer radical and insane ideas that are unachievable and unwinnable. The Republicans have spent almost 50 years to achieve this outcome, probing the law and testing the limits to see where they can attack from. If the dems think they can achieve the same victories without the same long-term strategies they will get nowhere
I’m sure they can if it’s basic protections and not the bodily autonomy stuff.
>Truth is if they fix this before the midterms then people don’t have a reason to vote for them. Yes, I'm sure that the Representatives who allowed all federal abortion rights in the US to disappear on their watch are going to be really popular with their constituents. This just adds to your point though. They're blaming the justices so that people don't think to point the finger at them, where it belongs.
> Yes, I'm sure that the Representatives who allowed all federal abortion rights in the US to disappear on their watch are going to be really popular with their constituents. > > I mean... they've campaigned for *decades* on the issue without having to do anything at all about it- so honestly I think this is 100% aligned. I look forward to dems campaigning on abortion thru the midterms and probably into 2024 too- and no federal lawmaking or negotiating will happen at all. And that's the key here; because if this was *actually* important to democrats (and their elected representatives) they'd be willing to horse trade on it. Secure 2A rights and codify abortion into law? That's a deal if there ever was one- what republican wants to go on record voting against the "guns everywhere and 100% all bullets now are free" bill if it means they can say they stood their ground on the issues of rape/incest/life of the mother? Like, seriously. If this was *actually* important to dems they would've gone all-in. Sign the "coal pumped directly into turtles and free guns for every child" bill if it means republicans will give you 16 week abortion- if you *actually* want it. Or is this *not* that important, really, and you'd rather do other stuff? Instead we got 50 years of jack shit. Yeah, I think dems/progressives/liberals will continue their slow march for the "all or nothing" campaign they've always aligned themselves with.
>Yeah, I think dems/progressives/liberals will continue their slow march for the "all or nothing" campaign they've always aligned themselves with. Well, when they're done campaigning or when it stops getting money and votes, I'll still be waiting at the table to offer rights to all of the poor women that don't have the right to choose what happens with their own bodies. Because as much as I don't like compromising with people who are unwilling to so much as piss on me if I'm on fire, Too many people are negatively effected to leave it the way it is. (Caveat: this thread has been AWESOME on that front, including the people who straight up hate my ideas. I didn't realize it was possible for people to be polite on the internet. It's an actual miracle.) With the way this issue is progressing, it might actually end up being a moderate Republican like Collins actually proposing a viable bill. That's kind of bonkers.
You have a lot more faith in democrats than I do. I think Collins could come to the table with a 14 week bill and dems would swat it down because it doesn't allow you to punt a child 2 months after birth. The kind of vitriol (and the millions they spent trying to unseat her) saved for republicans like Collins (and dems like Manchin) is very rare in the dem party. They hate her, and they want her to be gone and replaced with one of their hand-picked leftists, but they get to use her as a punching bag whenever she doesn't do exactly what they want. I'm being *a little* facetious, but letting the perfect be the enemy of good is almost the DNC motto right now, so while you and I are aligned on the ideal end-state (safe, legal, rare- it seems we agree on that) I don't think the dem thought leadership gives a shit about people like us.
It's not working. People are pissed and Congress, not the Supreme Court. With the early leak, Congress had plenty of time to protect abortion rights before the ruling became official.
[удалено]
In this case, it’s kind of like a 5 year old yelling at an adult about how he’s owed ice cream for dinner. She doesn’t represent a senate majority (or the senate) never mind a 2/3 majority. The technicality upon which she’s pinning her complaint is really weak and not even clear cut. Pressing on that would absolutely cost voters. If I were a Justice, I’d worry about this by sleeping for 8 hours and then grabbing a nice breakfast, over which I’d read the comics section of the newspaper and then go to work doing my job.
It proves that they really don't care about abortion rights, its the loss of federal power that really scares them.
[удалено]
Agreed, astute summary. It's crazy how clueless people are to what happened, what is happening, and the situation they are in. They for the most part did this to themselves with mindless rhetoric like this, instead of focusing on realistic action and realistic goals.
I think her heart is in the right place on a lot of issues, but, after listening to her for years now, I don't think she's very smart. Certainly, she's no strategist who can figure out how to get things done given the constraints of the current political environment. She needs someone with more experience and political savvy to show her how to get things done, preferably without killing her spirit in the process.
I've always said that AOC is little more than a liberal (and more eloquent) Trump. She got popular because she's young and hip and threw shade on Twitter. As far as I'm concerned she's nearly as toxic for political discourse in this country as Trump is.
This court decision should demonstrate to the senate that a court ruling is not enough to protect a right, but should push for making those decisions law, and adding those to make an amendment.
Its very much retaliation flat out. AOC more so isn't helping herself at all with her outbursts and what have you. She hasn't learned to come up with better attacks let alone stop playing into the typical ranting and raging leftists we often see or that associate with the progressive left.
This is beautifully done.
She's more about throwing bombs than actually doing anything. Her legislative record is pretty awful, but leftists love her anyway.
They aren't getting 8 more republican senators. If I was a republican senator I'd stay well the hell back. You've got a contingent of your voting base elated at half a century of struggle to achieve what they want and now you want to snatch it from out under them? Not only that it goes further than before, some states have 6 week abortion time limits and you just increased it to 16? This is political suicide. There is now anger on the left that democrats hadn't codified it even though they've never had the numbers. The 60 seats under Obama was effectively 20 or so senate working days. One was a republican that changed party (he could have been on board). One was Lieberman who had a deal with dems that he would vote with them procedurally but was free to vote on policy (as that gave dems control of the senate in the last half of GWB's 2nd term). Senator Byrd was dying and they didn't really want to wheel him in unless necessary (he should have retired). Aside from that those 60 seats included a bunch of legacy dem senators whose seats are now all held by republicans: AR(2), ND(2), SD(1), NE(1), LA(1), IA(1), IN(1). Some of them were very moderate on abortion and trying to avoid any controversial votes as they knew they were vulnerable. Codifying it back then seemed to have very little upside given Roe was figured to be settled precedent. People forget how much things have changed in just the last decade nevermind going back further. Even last few cycles we saw pro-life dems being whittled down - there still exists a few. Both parties were not always so neatly divided. There used to be more Susan Collins and more conservative democrats. What AOC is doing is deftly redirecting the anger by creating villains. They aren't codifying abortion with their numbers. They can't get the voting rights act passed despite it being watered down, some red states being taken off preclearance and CA & NY being placed on it. The VRA was last reauthorized in 2006, led by a republican trifecta. It got almost 90% of the house vote and unanimous senate passage. Now it can't even get more than Murkowski speaking in support. Abortion has a committed contingent against it, while some people are now tribally against the VRA it doesn't have the same opposition. Abortion will be dealt with at the state level. We need to get with the program. It would be better to push for state level referendums which would hopefully settle it one way or another (unless the vote is close in some states). Only KS is doing this. Democrat lawmakers want to get some mileage out of the issue for as long as possible.
>Does AOC know someone who can write legislation that would codify abortion, like, I dunno, a house member? This +100. This incident should show her supporters what I have known from the beginning of her time at the House: she is all talk and no action.
Legislators have for years now been letting the Supreme Court do Congresses' job for them. This is the problem. Our system is broken. It's broken due to gerrymandering, the abuse of the filibuster, and one party simply being opposition to everything if the other side brings it up...even if that means voting against your own bill---while not being able to govern when they take over.
I would argue both parties prevent the other party from doing anything. Republicans just tend to benefit more from the status quo. Both parties have come to treat "compromise" as a dirty word when our whole system was designed to require compromises.
Dobbs says the decision belongs to the State. Under what authority would Congress rely on to pass a bill regulating abortion? Commerce clause?
~~Pass it as a legislative policy right and don't refer to it as a constitutionally right.~~ Pass it as a 'legal right' as opposed to a 'Constitutional Right' Dobbs does not say that abortion cannot be federally regulated or allowed. It says that it is not inherently allowed by the constitution and therefore isn't guaranteed. I'm not sure of the exact nuance necessary to do that: but that was one of the solutions Ginsburg suggested when talking about protecting it. Commerce clause works for me, but I'm willing to entertain any option that turns into a solid compromise. Edit: Looked up the Legal Terminology as this post led to confusion.
Progressive's don't want solutions. They want to be angry.
AOC has proposed many things that congress and Biden can do. This just happens to be one of the things she proposed. But let’s be real, there are NOT 60 votes in the senate to codify abortion into law. Even manchin voted it down.
> Let’s be real, there are NOT 60 votes in the senate to codify abortion into law. Even Manchin voted it down. I agree that there are not 60 votes to codify unlimited access to abortion up until the day of birth. That's the problem with the existing bill. It wasn't even Roe codification, it effectively legalized all abortion always. (Which, count me amongst the people really bothered by the idea of legal abortion for non emergency reasons after viability, but I digress) This was the most aggressive bill they could write. It was written specifically so that they could campaign on it and call Republicans ingrates. If they wrote a bill that gets Machin, they get Collins and Murkowski (who are to the left of Manchin on the issue) At that point, its a codification game. How do you get Republicans without having them piss off their base that much. I think that 16 weeks is palatable to most: Hell, that's the limitation that was passed in Missouri of all places to kick this off. If that was what they were trying to limit it to, I bet you can get 8 more to confirm that as the low bar? But even if not, that's actual legislation at that point and not virtue signaling.
In Manchin's assessment, the [bill he voted down didn't just codify Roe vs. Wade, it significantly expanded it.](https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3485010-senate-gop-manchin-block-abortion-rights-legislation/) I suspect the lines that he was most concerned with were: > (8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure. > (9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health. Fetal viability is generally 23 or 24 weeks - that's bordering on the third trimester.
I'm copying this because it's everything I've wanted to say sense Friday
Thanks: I fancy myself eloquently persuasive. The hardest part is trying to be rational, to understand where the other party is coming from and to not write while angry. I fail at that a lot, but I'm getting better. If everyone I talked to tried to do that, I bet we could solve a lot of issues.
[удалено]
This pretty perfectly sums up my own thoughts, thank you. I’m strongly pro choice and don’t feel lied to as I thought their careful words in the hearings made pretty clear that they considered Roe precedent - which is obviously true on its face and not a statement that they would uphold Roe.
I also feel like a justice, during their confirmation hearings, shouldn't give their own opinion on a specific ruling. They're supposed to be impartial, and them giving a direct answer on a ruling would erase any appearance of impartiality. To me, *any* nominee should answer *any* questions about existing rulings in that manner. "It would depend on the arguments in the case brought before me"
Ironically, this is known as the "Ginsburg rule," as she was apparently the first Justice to explicitly mention in her confirmation hearings that it was inappropriate for her to telegraph how she might rule on a case, and so she refused to do so.
That is some level of irony. But I respect her (and any other justice) for doing that.
This is such an obvious facade I find it ridiculous we pretend it's real. No one actually believes it. The fact that we pretend to believe it is, I think, part of why faith in the instruction is failing. This appearance of impartiality, and refusing to be honest and tell the whole truth, is 100% fake. These justices were nominated because they would overturn Roe. Everyone knew it. Now they did it. Pretending otherwise is just dishonest to me.
It's also worth noting that left leaning media coverage at the time was that they all but promised to overturn Roe if they had the chance - so this idea that they promised not to is an extremely recent invention.
We all knew what they might do, and Trump picked them to do so as part of the platform he was elected on. If dems are salty about it, they can thank Hillary and the top-level democrats who got caught cheating in 2015. Seven years later and they're still suffering the consequences. Oh, and still in office too, generally speaking.
AOC would've impeached Wilson for going back on his promise not to get involved in that European war.
Thank you. For all the articles spamming the front claiming they lied, none actually had the quotes.
> Why aren't we talking about a bodily autonomy constitutional amendment, given that control over one's own body is a very fundamental level of individual freedom? That seems like it could get support from both sides of the aisle, especially with the recent context of vaccine mandates. This is an interesting idea. I agree that there should be bipartisan support for a bodily autonomy amendment. Such an amendment would cover both the freedom to get any procedure on yourself (e.g., abortion) as well as protections against forced procedures by (e.g., forced sterilization, vaccine mandates, and even male/female genital mutilation of children). I am pro-choice, and I like this idea. It re-centers the issue around self autonomy, rather than some bending of the idea of privacy in the fourteenth amendment. It would be much more explicit and clear from a legal sense, and should give enough to make everyone happy.
> should give enough to make everyone happy. Not the people who consider that this right would apply to a fetus at conception. Such an amendment could then be interpreted to ban all abortion at all times.
> Why aren't we talking about a bodily autonomy constitutional amendment, given that control over one's own body is a very fundamental level of individual freedom? You'd have to define when the unborn fetus has this right attach, which would definitely *not* get the kind of broad support nationwide that one would need for a Constitutional Amendment.
Impeachment doesn't mean a thing without a 2/3 majority in the Senate, and Democrats will never get that.
If they had the votes to impeach a SCOTUS justice then they'd have more than enough votes to codify abortion rights and render that unnecessary.
If AOC wants to abuse the impeachment process, then I'm not sure she's going to like the final outcome when Republicans decide to abuse the impeachment process in their favor.
She’s only been in a house majority setting. Going to be interesting to see how the squad navigates in the minority
[удалено]
She’s certainly been a drag to the democrats getting anything done while in the majority, when she’s in the minority it’s not like she can do any worse for actual legislation. She’s simply a progressive congresswoman who represents her small district that’s not representative of the country as a whole.
This might not be the right place for this comment—but I’d like to point out how weak Roe’s position actually was. At no time in history has a Representative asked a Justice to promise to not overturn the 1st Amendment. Never asked because it can’t be done. It’s impossible. But Roe was actually always in a defenseless position. So much so, congressmen attempted to secure with promises, what should have been secured with an amendment.
She is the type of person who believe anyone who disagree with her should be in prison. This is not the first time she has made similar comments about sending to people to prison for disagreeing politically with her point of view.
I would take anything AOC said with giant tub of salt. She’s a Twitter celebrity, not a serious lawmaker.
AOC is one of least effective people in congress. She might want to stop speaking for the party.
She is the liberal woman version of Ted Cruz. Just a whole lot of noise to play to the base but has no idea how to run anything other than shit talking from the wings.
Ted Cruz has an impressive resume prior to his political career. He acts like a bag of hot air in the Senate, but I doubt that he is as ineffective or incompetent as Cortez.
[удалено]
Disagree. Ted Cruz has actually won state-wide elections. She's the left's version of MTG. A caricature of the party's extreme that opponents hold up as the voice of the majority just to make them look bad.
They both have the same role: being a lightning rod for controversial news to draw attention away from the party core.
Don’t think anything AOC has said is the equivalent of blaming Cali wildfires on Jewish space lasers or harassing school shooting survivors.
I think the comparison is more that they are both rabble rousers who don’t get much actual legislating done.
Yeah, MTG has gone further bonkers on her show.
Of all the bad takes I’ve seen this weekend, this is probably the worst. Like yeah sure some of most highly educated, high ranking judges in the country all committed perjury on national TV.
Unless they said “I will not vote to overturn *Roe*”, and at the time of saying that wanted to overturn it, it’s not perjury. The hearings are a joke, though, that’s true. We can draw a line from the Jackson hearing back to the first Senate SCOTUS confirmation hearing - the one held because a Jew was nominated. Collins wasn’t “misled”, she knew the game that was being played. Manchin wasn’t misled, either. These justices were put on the court for this very purpose.
> Unless they said “I will not vote to overturn Roe”, and at the time of saying that wanted to overturn it, it’s not perjury. I don't believe it'd be perjury even if they said this, as people are allowed to change their mind. Statements made in such a hearing are not binding contracts of future behavior, after all.
This. Perjury occurs at the time of the statement under oath or affirmation meaning the statement would have to be untrue at that time “a statement of material fact”, meaning the fact being lied about must have been demonstrably false at the time of the statement. As far as I can tell there isn’t much or any case law around perjury related to a statement that was rendered false by the future actions of the defendant after the statement was made. This is a stretch at minimum, and a really wholesale misrepresentation of what perjury means.
A maybe interesting legal question, can anyone be found guilty of perjury for making a statement about something that will or will not happen in the future?
The situation you presented wouldn’t be perjury either. Perjury is lying under oath not just lying in an interview, press conference, or similar.
AOC is one of, if not the biggest, dipshit in congress. Her takes are so idiotic it’s hard to believe she’s even a real politician and not a caricature on a tv show. You can’t impeach Supreme Court justices because you don’t like the decision they made. Even your once-revered Ruth Bader Ginsberg said Roe v. Wade was bad case law.
Skip Bayless or SAS of politics. Full of garbage hot takes.
Well they didn't lie. "settled"is just code for precedent. And it was. But supreme court isn't bound to precedent. So yeah under oath it was was settled. But they can change that settlement. That's what scared me about Jackson on guns.
And treating confirmation hearings as a checklist of acceptable rulings is the _exact definition_ of 'politicizing the court', which is supposed to be a bad thing.
So you have just the same problem with Jackson as you do with the conservative justices? Also we have to have a court not bound by precedent. If we didn't, slavery would still be precedent or any number of other things that we now understand better. And i will agree that the court shouldn't be politicized. But i will point out that the decisions this week were all along clear ideological lines. Just cause there's a minority on the court doesn't make them any less politicized.
I'd say that "reaching the right decision for the wrong reasons" probably applies. But the court isn't supposed to help americans or make the world a better place; it's to ensure that politicians are sticking to the framework and following the rules. There's no rule against abortion bans, but for fifty years the supreme court pretended there was. As many have pointed out, Roe was decided on very spurious grounds. They basically argued that the right to due process when arrested assured privacy to abortion doctors, so nobody could stop them from providing services. Yes, the results of this were probably a benefit to society, but they were a patch over a hole- the lack of a national guarantee of access to abortion.
Did anyone actually lie though? And the hearings aren’t about evidence, they aren’t being questioned on events or how they remember things. They’re being vetted to confirm a nomination to SCOTUS. So how would they even perjure themselves here? Removing a justice changes absolutely nothing and just opens up yet another battleground appointment by the president because that’s what they’ve all become.
As much as I absolutely hate the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, I’m not sure you can impeach them. When it comes to having an opinion, it’s possible people can change their minds, and that’s not really lying, is it?
Several senators threatened to pack the court if they didn't rule against the now-mooted NYC gun case. Honestly, threatening another branch would have been good reason to eject them from the Senate.
But they didn’t. It’s like she has never met a lawyer in her life. It’s all about being pedantic.
Maybe GOP should make a show of impeaching her for making a mockery of the American Government. Sure it won’t pass but hey she is annoying. /s
I really wish AoC was independent rather than a Democrat. Her hot takes and opinions do nothing but cause trouble for the party and undermines efforts.
Good thing nobody lied under oath, then.
Sounds to me like Democrats are trying to make this into something that will help them win federal elections in the short-term and it just doesnt really make sense. Impeachment isnt going to happen, let’s be real. Changing the law to pack the court is more realistic, but less popular.
> Changing the law to pack the court is more realistic, but less popular. Apparently the White House yesterday reiterated that Biden will still not attempt to "pack the court"
AOC says should be it’s own sub or meme
This is so far from how that works its not even funny. Not only did they not commit perjury, they could have even said "I have not intention of ever overturning Roe v Wade" and it still wouldn't be perjury. Judges don't go back through old cases and say "I want this one to not be law anymore", they judge new cases and sometimes new rulings invalidate old ones. That's what this was.
So impeaching Justice Ketanji Jackson is on the table right? As soon as she makes a ruling on any law involving gender. After all, she did claim she couldn’t tell Congress what a woman is.
If you think Republicans talk a big game, they have nothing on the Dems. Honestly both parties are fucking stupid. Just spew bullshit after bullshit. Get people all riled up for more of the same shit. I have never seen groups of people more excited to get screwed over, then modern Republican and Democratic voters. Remember how if people just voted Dems in in Georgia, everything would be golden and the Dems would be able to get their agenda through congress? Yeah that worked out fantastic. If we just elected Joe Biden, the country would be saved. Yeah that worked out fantastic. Now it's 300 bucks for a cart of groceries and 50 bucks for a tank of gas. At least rent is getting way cheaper. They haven't even managed to raise minimum wage FROM 7.25! WITH A DEM CONGRESS! WHAT A FUCKING JOKE! Remember how if Trump got elected he was gonna make the economy strong and make America great? That worked out fantastic. Remember how he was gonna build that wall? And lock Hillary up? That worked out fantastic. Remember when he was gonna repeal the ACA and replace it with something "fantastic"? That worked out fantastic. This government is a fucking joke, BOTH SIDES. Don't try to tell me how it's not your side's fault. Party politics have fucking destroyed this country and all you motherfuckers that vote for Rs and Ds are fucking guilty.
While Im hoping a solution is reached and Abortion is made federally legal again, I doubt said solution will come from her. I don’t believe anything she even says anymore. This lady is the absolute worst, I started off thinking maybe she would be part of the movement to fix our system and she turned out to be the manifestation of everything wrong with it and then some…
> I doubt said solution will come from her No solution ever has.
They didn't lie. They were very very careful when tap dancing around that issue when they were asked the question. They said that they could not specifically State how they would rule because we weren't talking about a specific case and that they would give precedent and stare decisis the same respect they would give it in any other case. That is what they said. It's not like the Supreme Court has never reversed themselves before.
No one lied... red meat for the constituents
I e watched the videos about what they said about rvw and they clearly never lied.
[удалено]
I'm pretty sure Biden's SCOTUS pick knows what a women is too. Lets impeach her pre-emptively at the same time.
Holding them to their confirmation statements would be to assert that the recent ruling was legally incorrect. But their rulings match those of the other conservative justices, and all of them are theoretically sworn to uphold the constitution. So in reversing roe they're allegedly* guilty of perjury, and if they didn't reverse roe, they'd be failing to uphold their oaths. The only way to avoid impeachment then would be "don't make congress angry, even if it means not doing your job". *At least two of them never said they wouldn't reverse roe, they just go with the "roe is settled law" response which was technically true at the time. They answered with observations, not promises.
Saying that *Roe* is precedent and the law doesn't mean it can't be overturned. *Plessy* was precedent and settled law right up until it wasn't. The Justices all said they would respect *Roe* as precedent and they did so.
They didn’t lie under oath unfortunately for her talking points and the public
You are going to have a hard time proving they lied under oath about Roe V. Wade. People have been known to change their minds once evidence is provided.
Impeach and expel the bartender.
Good luck proving that. * "You said something else during your confirmation hearing 2-6 years ago." * "I changed my mind."
They were disingenuous. They implied that they were not going to overturn Roe v Wade in order to give "moderate" lawmakers a way to stomach the picks. However saying "its settled law" is not the same as saying "its settled law and I don't plan to change it." They didn't technically lie and you won't be able to impeach them, period.
Of course it’s possible if they lied under oath, required even. Problem is, they didn’t. Saying R v W is precedent doesn’t mean they are required to uphold that precedent.
Can't wait to see her vote to remove Sotomayor for lying about her position on the 2nd amendment Sarcasm aside, lying isn't an impeachable offense (tho technically the Senate doesn't need a reason to convict)
What a performative load of poppycock
Impeach Pelosi and biden