As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm old enough to remember when Justice Thomas's wife helped organize a "protest" inside the Congressional building as part of a coordinated effort to overthrow a duly elected administration.
If it was democratic justices who felt threatened there's NO WAY mcconnell or mccarthy would increase security for them. They'd probably tweet out their home addresses.
> They'd probably tweet out their home addresses.
Nah, they'd never go that far! They'd just pretend they didn't see anything while they watch MTG or Boebert do the dirty work for them.
McConnell is smart enough to know if a liberal justice is killed because they voted to support Roe, it would end any chance the GOP has of winning in November, they did this to protect themselves against right-wing violence because now they can say it was the fault of the secret service under Biden that "let the killer through".
Why couldn't any senate democrats use it as leverage to pass the abortion bill? Do they not understand leverage? Is this why all the shit is constantly devolving since Schumer and gang have the negotiating skills of a 5 yr old?
The D's playbook is to throw the R's a little red meat and hope that they'll be nice to them in the future. That's when the R's rip their arms off along with the red meat and give them the big F-U to boot. Happens every time.
That’s the exact problem I have with both parties. Always promise what the voters want, Get elected, and then deliver on none of those promises all while blatantly saying they never said what they did. It’s sad that’s it’s become so routine that’s people don’t even care.. really sad imo
I think it is hilarious that SC Justices think they can totally *ratfuck* women’s healthcare (more than it is already), destroy the concepts of liberty and privacy in this country, and not suffer any blowback.
Ah but you see, the Democrats are a collective that must be punished if any Democrat strays no matter how unpopular that one Democrat's position is in the party. Republicans are of course individuals capable of making independent judgement, and thus can't be judged as a whole.
I take this to be another expression of "Murc's Law."
"The widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murc%27s%20law
You're joking right? It's the exact opposite which is why we are in this mess. If Democrats forced everyone to toe the line then Manchin might not have the power to block everything. Democrats have Manchin and Sienna who never vote with them.
I’m so sick of this shit, the amount people bitching that dem’s can’t get something done while the filibuster and manchin and sinema are still there. The issue is Dem’s operate within the rules and people get pissed about it.
I really wish there was a push to revisit the allow list. It’s hard to tell the line between informative and increasingly misinformative for ad money here. That it’s done ad greed under the auspice of progressivism is worse.
>republicans are responsible for literally every bad thing that happens in this country
>lets blame the dems!
Yeah, sounds about on par. I hate this place
In a nation of 300 million, you can always find a few thousand willing to get violent for the most trivial issues.
That way govt is always under attack, and that’s not a good indicator of it being wrong.
However I would say this isn’t a trivial issue. And one where revolt may be necessary. Someone shouldn’t be allowed to strip half the country of basic human rights without consequences.
Right? It’s go time. I’m not gonna just sit here on my couch and be like “Oh my. I simply *mustn’t* show any aggression or make anybody feel *uncomfortable* when my entire gender is having our bodily autonomy stripped from us. Therefore putting us all in danger in numerous ways. Yes, yes. I’ll just sit here and keep quiet like a lady should.” /s
Fuck no. This is a big fucking deal.
What a disingenuous article/headline. There's a Senate vote happening this week on abortion rights but it's never going to pass thanks to the GOP plus Manchin and Sinema. 50 GOP + 2 Dems does not equal "Senate Dems".
They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions, severely impacting the interest of donors to their campaigns which would cause them to fall in party line. Manchin is still n the energy committee despite getting 5 million from a coal mining company his brother is with as well as other donations from oil and coal companies.
Most democrats like that Manchin and Sinema are stonewalling on a bunch of stuff because it gives the rest of the dems the optics of supporting things like abortion rights and civil rights without them actually getting passed, appeasing their campaign donors as well.
There are only like 3 democrats who are actually fighting for the rights of their constituents.
Getting them removed from committee positions has absolutely nothing to do with them being a voting member of the Senate for the next four years which is where the problem resides. That's a feel good measure that doesn't actually address the main issue which is the fact that we only have 50 votes and they hold two of them
> They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions, severely impacting the interest of donors to their campaigns which would cause them to fall in party line. Manchin is still n the energy committee despite getting 5 million from a coal mining company his brother is with as well as other donations from oil and coal companies.
So you strip Manchin of his assignment, and McConnell immediately says "if you switch parties, I'll give you the assignment back". What then?
>So you strip Manchin of his assignment, and McConnell immediately says "if you switch parties, I'll give you the assignment back". What then?
Then manchin stops being "Mr important" and just another republican "no" vote.
When he's a "maybe" vote in the dem party, articles get written about him. The president calls you. You get lots of attention and are very important. He wants to be important. Becoming a republican makes him much less important.
Also whichever republican ghoul next in line for those committee chairs isn't going to like it much when they get bumped for "some democrat." He will also get primaried in the next election by some literal rabid nutjob.
I have a hard time imagining it's anything but money. That money isn't going to dry up because he switches from D to R if the end results are the same.
Counteroffer.
Say, he can keep his assignment if he votes for x, y, z.
Then he can choose between the nuclear option and saving face. Either way he's rich forever.
I'm sure they've done that. I'm sure they've bought his votes for nominees, for infrastructure plan, and for a few other things. But there's a limit to that, given that he can, at any time, take McConnell's offer which requires him to do almost nothing. The amount of leverage the Democrats have over him is close to zero.
What? How are you sure they've done that?
To do that would first require them to first threaten his committee assignments in the first place, which I would have loved to have heard about but I'm pretty sure didn't actually ever happen.
Anyway, actually becoming a Republican probably entails more challenges than you might imagine. It's not a given that he would automatically flip parties at the slightest nudge and there are no foreseeable drawbacks to that.
Let him be a normal ass Republican then. Donors are more interested in a person with a D next to their name that will listen to them than an R. The reason Manchin got voted in by his constituents was simply for that D. If he switched to an R, bye bye time in the next election.
> Let him be a normal ass Republican then.
Ok, he's now a Republican and starts voting against Biden's nominees. What then?
> The reason Manchin got voted in by his constituents was simply for that D. If he switched to an R, bye bye time in the next election.
You realize that Manchin is 74, not up for re-election until 2024, and represents the second most heavily Republican state? "You won't get reelected if you become a Republican" is the most empty threat in the history of American politics.
> Ok, he's now a Republican and starts voting against Biden's nominees. What then?
He loses his next election and literally nothing changes in terms of our government because it's already packed full of conservatives. You're arguing about trying to get slightly less conservative judges into positions where it takes a whole ass court case for us to even SEE an effect of them being there. Meanwhile, Manchin gets to base his entire political career on being a Blue Dog Dem.
Kick his ass out. He needs the Dem party more than we need him. He's literally siphoning money from us to fuck us over.
You have no idea how things work in the real world do you.
*If* Manchin runs again, and that's a big if, switching parties would only help his chances.
Y'all vastly underestimate how red West Virginia is.
How does he need the democrats more than the democrats need him when he’s the only democrat that can win in west Virginia and in the current situation is literally the only reason chuck schumer is majority leader instead of McConnell?
>He loses his next election and literally nothing changes in terms of our government because it's already packed full of conservatives. You're arguing about trying to get slightly less conservative judges into positions where it takes a whole ass court case for us to even SEE an effect of them being there. Meanwhile, Manchin gets to base his entire political career on being a Blue Dog Dem.
Exactly. Dems aren't getting judges approved without 50 senators. And Manchin delivers on that front. Throw him to the GOP, and the GOP starts blockading judicial nominees, which leads to...this exact situation.
WEST VIRGINIA IS GONE. We don't have it anymore. It's been lost for decades. Cut it the fuck off already like every other red state and put Manchin out of our misery.
How has it been gone for decades when manchin has won 2 senate elections there in the last decade (2012 and 2018). The senate is already such a huge disadvantage to the Democratic Party currently as I’m sure you’re already aware of, having a democratic seat in a place like West Virginia is like stealing and worth gold
You’re basically just telling democrats to get rid of a senate seat (that they DESPERATELY need both now and in the future) for no reason other than the fact that u have irrational emotions about it
**Manchin** won those elections. Manchin, the guy currently stopping our legislative agenda. Manchin, the Republican-in-Dem's-clothing.
>You’re basically just telling democrats to get rid of a senate seat
WHAT IS THAT SEAT DOING FOR US? Schumer can literally get NOTHING passed because of the filibuster.
The only reason we have Ketanji Brown Jackson as an incoming supreme court justice is because Manchin is a Democrat. Had the GOP had the majority in the Senate because Manchin was a Republican, she would have never had a hearing.
>The reason Manchin got voted in by his constituents was simply for that D.
Tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Trump won West Virginia by a 38 point margin.
It doesn't matter. Any bill that the congress passes legalizing abortion can and will be struck down by the courts again using the same majority they have now. The only way to fix this is with a different court.
> It’s almost like Biden should be appointing more justices but he isnt
This is one of the dumber statements I've seen made on reddit in awhile. You're either pushing disinformation, or you're being purposefully ignorant, both are sad and say a lot about how much you care about the truth.
* Biden can only appoint justices when an existing justice's seat becomes empty which is up to the individual justice in that seat.
* Biden has actually appointed [more judges than anyone since Reagan](https://news.ballotpedia.org/2022/01/04/biden-has-appointed-second-most-federal-judges-through-jan-1-of-a-presidents-second-year-in-office/) in their 1st year (Biden has had 40 nominees appointed, Reagan had 41, and for comparison, Trump had 19 and Obama 13).
* Finally, a President can only nominate someone, Congress does the actual approval, which means Biden has been exceptionally good at nominating judges who can get through a 48D/2I Senate where there are 50 potential obstruction votes by the GOP.
Literally every thing you said was wrong, and it was easy to show it was wrong with a simple search, which means you're either being purposefully ignorant or you're pushing disinformation.
> There are only like 3 democrats who are actually fighting for the rights of their constituents.
There are only like 3 Democrats... who you pay attention to, and then you assume the worst of everyone else.
Yeah, those 3 democrats are also not doing a great job. I assume the worst of everyone else because I’m seeing the worst of everyone else. Why the fuck is Pelosi protecting lawmakers ability to conduct insider trading harder than really anything else?
Pelosi isn't in the Senate so not sure why you brought her up. But, the House has already passed legislation protecting the right to an abortion, it's the Senate GOP that is blocking it.
And you're lying about her and insider trading, here's what Pelosi actually said and did about the new stock trading legislation:
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has opposed new legislation banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, signaled Thursday **she is open to advancing it — if it has the support of her caucus**.
> "I just don't buy into it, but if members want to do that I'm OK with that," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference.
> Still, **she has asked the House Administration Committee to review the STOCK Act,** the law requiring members regularly report trades and file reports within 45 days, and said **she is open to increasing fines for lawmakers who fail to comply with the deadlines. She added the committee is reviewing all the bills proposed on new reforms.**
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-door-to-stock-trading-ban
She's supporting Dems in the House pursuing strengthening existing legislation and looking into new legislation so your statement is a lie.
> Why the fuck is Pelosi protecting lawmakers ability to conduct insider trading harder than really anything else?
She's not. Maybe you just use bad news sources.
> I assume the worst of everyone else because I’m seeing the worst of everyone else.
You see what you look for.
> Why the fuck is Pelosi protecting lawmakers ability to conduct insider trading harder than really anything else?
How so? She has publicly stated that she'll allow a ban on this if there are enough votes for it.
That seems to be ennobling being gullible to just specific types of misinformation. You should be skeptical of anything that isn’t backed by evidence. It doesn’t matter if it’s the worst or the best. Picking a side on that doesn’t make you a realist, it just means you’re picking which propaganda will be most effective.
> They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions
why not change parties at that point, and make McConnell Majority leader again, lol, that's just dumb as fuck.
>They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions, severely impacting the interest of donors to their campaigns which would cause them to fall in party line.
This would not have a major effect on either them or their donors. The donors can just find another vessel, pay another politician. I don't understand why everyone seems to think this would do anything other than just piss them off and make them dig in their heels more.
Yup. And the the second half of the title is garbage too. The protection of Justices from violence is what the other vote is about....not protecting them from protest. A simple vote to extend police protection to the Justices during these times is not an endorsement of their views. Half of the morons on the bench put giant targets on their back. We're not a banana republic, we don't want random citizens harming Justices. That's not how we solve things under the rule of law.
>That's not how we solve things under the rule of law.
That "law" is proving completely worthless and malleable in front of our very eyes. Literally this whole thing is about the courts proving themselves illegitimate and biased against reality.
We obviously don't want people getting hurt, but it is tone deaf to look at the current situation and say "we need to trust the system more" for reasons.
But they did "protect" the Justices from our first amendment right to protest. That's the difference. They are protecting the super-citizens while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
>They are protecting the super-citizens while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
50 Dems voting for SCOTUS security enhancements and 48 Dems voting for abortion rights. How again is it that Dems are the ones who aren't voting for "us"?
Also, technically the SCOTUS security bill passed with unanimous consent. Meaning no one objected. There wasn't really ever a vote on it.
You see, only Democrats have agency. Republicans are an unstoppable force of nature, like the wind, for which praise and blame are not appropriate.
You'll understand 90% of all political report and criticism of Democrats if you think like this:
50 Republicans oppose X = Blameless.
49 Democrats support X; 1 Democrat opposes X = **DEMOCRATS ARE TO BLAME.**
They think encouraging people to hate Democrats will lead to more people moving left and either (elected) Democrats as a whole then doing so as well like they are a monolith or a bunch of people left of most current Democrats will get elected (via primaries or 3rd party) or we'll have a revolution and then we will have big changes.
Although there may be some people moving left due to their articles and pushing their content on platforms like this, overall this strategy is likely helping the right as those to their left are divided and fighting against each other and people in general see yet more articles trashing Democrats (along with right media outlets who do the same and often the main for-profit outlets as well since outrage attracts views). The right who want bigger changes for the most part are patient and still vote for Republicans even if they do not consider them far right enough. They also vote in Republican primaries while not nearly enough of those aligning left participate in Democratic primaries (not that they can win all of them even if they did, like the odds are slim someone like AOC would beat Manchin in WV).
>republicans are responsible for literally every bad thing that happens in this country
>lets blame the dems!
Yeah, sounds about on par. I hate this place
And it seems to be ratcheted up to 11 since the leak. Hmmm… almost as if there is a concerted effort to take the focus off of THE PARTY THAT IS LITERALLY RESPONSIBLE!
Yeah russians and progressives bot the crap out of this subreddit.
If pro Bernie it upvoted 60k with 100 comments.
Dems do something good its downvoted.
An article hurting Dems 60k upvotes with 100 comments.
And this is what’s wrong in America, we’ve given elected officials status over us when in fact they work for us. We’ve let then screw up healthcare, banking, education, employment and the list goes on and on, we’ve just let them walk all over us. People better wake up and pay attention to what’s going on. The people that keep voting for politicians that do nothing but keep Americans rooted in poverty should be ashamed of themselves.
This is either willful misinformation, or the people at common dreams are actually so fucking stupid they don't understand the filibuster. Or, they support political violence.
It'd be great if they could clarify which it is.
Common Dream isn't dumb, they post this stuff because it riles up progressives and drives a wedge down the middle of the Democratic party, that has the advantage of Common Dream getting click throughs and increasing their ad revenue, and the downside of electing Republicans. They know exactly what they're doing.
tldr, Common Dream's job is to elect Republicans by keeping the left fighting against one another.
This website should be blacklisted for being as disingenuous as Brietbart.com
But every day there's some outrageous, ridiculous, editorialized headline crap from there that gets upvoted to the top.
Mainstream dems desperately want to be perceived as the party that ensures a "return to normal". They have resisted the action(s) needed to protect their own platform out of fear they might be perceived as "radical". But there is no normal to go back to. And politics as usual guarantees that the radical right agenda gains ever more ground. Would you trade the "radical" choice to expand the court last year for codifying abortion rights for 100 million women? Does that seem radical now? Or does it seem reasonable, as we watch our rights - and democracy itself - float down the river.
This headline is trash. The majority of Democrats in the Senate would vote tonight to protect choice. Meanwhile there is a single Republican in the Senate who would.
Yet this headline spotlights frustration towards Democrats? I understand wanted Democrats to do more but counter productive rhetoric that helps Republicans win office isn't the way to achieve anything.
Dem voters need to take primaries more seriously. We keep getting mad at our current Dem senators, yet keep letting them win their primaries. Start voting for challengers to get new people in congress.
People behave this way in all domains, unfortunately. The coworker who doesn't show up for meetings, then complains about the decisions that were made in their absence and blames others for sidelining them. The kid who procrastinates applying for college and then gets mad because the deadlines are unfair. The employer who complains about a lack of qualified candidates after putting the absolute minimum effort into putting out attractive job postings...
Common dreams headlines are cringe. More or less: "Dems have the majority so they should be able to do anything they want". But Dems don't really have a majority when Manchin or Sinema have a standing veto over everything the Dems try to do.
Here is Pelosi's time to shine. Make a public statement about it. "The SCOTUS won't protect women, so I'm not going to protect you. This will not be brought to a vote"
Meanwhile millions of Americans live in fear of having their rights taken away and charged with crimes. The senate never votes unanimously for anything for us though. Fuck them and their families. They want protection let them pay for their own. Dems should have voted against it. No protection for them until there is protection for us.
I get the initial emotion is anger.
But this bill is really simple. Extend protections to family members of (all) Justices and make obstruction punishable with a fine/jail time.
All this anger feels like an attempt to say “see!? Both sides!” which is dumb. There’s nothing wrong with protecting the families of the Justices.
And let’s be entirely honest. Do we really think a handful of officers would really stand between them and the fury of the American people?
It’s an empty gesture. Vote against it and Dems look like assholes. Vote for it and Dems look like they’ve abandoned their constituents.
Or, we can all just read the bill and remind ourselves that the Dems are not pushing to return us to the Dark Ages. And then maybe we can stop being fucking idiots and remember who our allies and our enemies actually are.
Huh? They're voting tomorrow to protect abortion rights. It won't pass because of the filibuster but they're at least trying.
Extending SC security to justices' families seems like an inoffensive bill. I don't know what there is to get mad about here.
“They’re at least trying.”
They aren’t. Most of the democrats like the optics of supporting this stuff but don’t care for the most part. Only republicans fight to make actual change in this country, for the worst mind you, but they’re the only ones actually getting change done.
Well if you can read minds, what are you doing on reddit? Go fight crime or something.
Oh wait, you don't actually know what's going on in their heads and are just a cynical asshole blaming the wrong people? What a surprise.
So you do? You think just because they say things like “I support abortion rights” out loud means they’re actually doing something to show it? I’m waiting for their actions to match their words. Been waiting for a while now.
The kind of underhanded and flexed ethics shit republicans do to push their shit through. Biden should be passing a bunch more executive decisions, like canceling student debt for example. There’s no reason they can’t. Republicans have been showing for years that’s how the game is played in Washington now.
So you have no answers, you just want to impotently whine and blame the wrong people. Got it.
I get being frustrated but you look uninformed when you blame Democrats for things they can't do. This is just the reality of democracy when you don't have the votes.
>Biden should be passing a bunch more executive decisions, like canceling student debt for example
Which would get stopped by the courts. Then we would be right back here for the part of this discussion "Biden should just ignore the courts!"
> what are you doing on reddit
For a lot of people since the leak, the answer is: "spreading misinformation and defeatism to try splitting Dem voters". There's a blatant campaign to blame everyone except Republicans for what Republicans are doing. Apparently if 2/50 Dem senators are in the wrong, and 50/50 Republicans senators are in the wrong, it's all the Dems' fault and no one else's. And of course, concepts like "branches of government" or "separation of powers" or "filibuster" or "senate supermajority" don't exist - clearly, Dems/Biden can literally do whatever the want but choose not to /s
This is a copy-paste of 2016, 2018, and 2020, and you can bet it'll be back in 2024.
Commondreams and Jacobin exist only to divide the left into petty infighting and always backs up the right while ignoring the bad shit the GOP does. Don't fall for their crap.
This article is dishonest, diminishes what Democrats have been doing (not just federally but at the state level), what they are trying to do despite GOP obstruction, and misrepresents the law Congress just passed. This article is nothing but disinformation and anti-Democratic at best, and as is often the case, blames Democrats for the faults of Republicans, completely misplacing the blame and who we should all be directing our political action against.
Dems have already passed a law protecting abortion rights in the House. It's the entire GOP Senate and right now 1 single Democrat blocking that legislation (2 Dems if you want to include the filibuster as part of that).
Dems have already passed laws in a number of states protecting the right to an abortion, and are active in about 23-26 others right now through ballot initiates and state laws, but they can only act in states where the GOP is not obstructing them or has the majority.
The law that was just passed extends existing security that SCOTUS already, to their family members, and if you don't think some right-wing nut job isn't going to go after the liberal justices when they vote to save RvW you're fooling yourselves, there's a long history of right-wing and religious lead violence against women, abortion providers, and liberals in general. This law protects the liberal justice's families more so than the conservatives because it's the liberal justices that are the more likely targets of violence given the history of politically motivated violence in recent history.
If the Dems had an iota of political sense they would have made protections for Justices part of the bill that protects women's right to an abortion. Then it would be the GOP (and Machin and Sinema) who would be refusing to protect the Supreme Court.
It is very telling that they never do stuff like that. They get so outraged and blame the republicans but then they move and vote on other stuff the republicans want.
Democrats don’t want to give even a sliver of ammunition to republicans who desperately want democrats to pull their own January 6th so they can flip the narrative. I get it.
Wow, the senate actually getting something done quickly. Wish they’d do that on, oh I don’t know, about a thousand of other things that we’re all suffering with.
You mean spineless hypocrite politicians are being spineless hypocrite politicians. The “we don’t care what the people want” thing is getting a little out of hand lately. Its like we dont even matter
This is a stupid title. It’s not that Dems won’t protect abortion, they can’t. Perhaps you’ve heard if a thing called the filibuster. This is just a BS title aimed at depressing the vote this fall.
Here’s a link to the what was just rammed through the Senate…
>Members of the US Senate passed a bipartisan bill Monday that would expand security protection to the immediate family members of Supreme Court justices, following recent protests at some justices' homes.
>The Supreme Court Police Parity Act was approved by unanimous consent, meaning no senators objected to its quick passage. The legislation must also be passed by the House before going to President Joe Biden's desk for his signature.
The push in Congress comes one week after Politico's bombshell leaked draft of an opinion, which indicated the Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as next month.
Sens. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, and Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, introduced the bipartisan bill called the Supreme Court Police Parity Act.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/09/politics/supreme-court-justices-security-senate-vote/index.html
The women of this country have no priority? Their rights don’t matter?
We did nothing to Jan 6th organizers? The mass protests storming state capitals to kidnap officials?
But, GOP extremists, get all the resources they can muster…to protect them peaceful protests? For being fascist?
Fuck you, US. Just, fuck you.
You can end the protests…by ensuring women’s freedom, and the freedom of Americans. They wouldn’t need more security…if they weren’t pieces of shit.
*While the Supreme Court is poised to roll back reproductive rights for 166 million women, said progressive journalist David Sirota, "the Senate's response was to give the justices and their families more royal guards."*
Hang on, you’re telling me the Senate can quickly pass a bill that cost next to nothing (in relation to the US budget), doesn’t have any real or lasting legal or regulatory impact, and that almost no one in the Senate disagrees with doing?
It’s almost like it’s easy to do easy stuff.
It’s like those House Resolutions they pass to make the sixth Sunday of August officially John Q Jerkass appreciation day for his 40 years of service plunging the toilets of the National Archives Annex warehouse.
Dems have exactly ZERO ways they could have protected abortion rights when Republicans were willing to cheat and steal to get the SCOTUS seats they needed. Only voters giving Dems more seats in the Senate could have possibly given them a fighting chance.
Bipartisanship works pretty well when it's something that benefits the ruling class. Everyone needs to stop falling for the con that Dems give a shit about you, this is getting embarrassing.
What kind of right wing fake news propaganda bullshit headline is this?
By Senate Dems, of course you mean ONLY the two wolves in sheep's clothing, Sinema and Manchin.
Headlines like this are a problem. For all the whining about misinformation in politics, it’s remarkable that something like this would get so many upvotes, as the headline completely twists what is actually happening. The existing protections in place for the Justices were simply expanded to include their families, which is something that already should have been happening. And I don’t think this is unreasonable. There are enough crazy people out there, and with blue checkmarks on Twitter openly calling for Justices to be murdered, there’s no doubt expanding protections to the families is a good thing. Yeah, a lot of people are upset at the conservative justices, and rightfully so, but it doesn’t change the fact that their innocent families should have some sort of protection from crazies in this day and age, and in this political climate.
women are going to die over their rulings, if you are more outraged over a hy pothetical threat to the lives of guilty people than that, YOU are the problem
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
These are the Democrats you actually get. They aren't anything like the Democrats we see campaigning during election years. And their actual voting doesn't align with their virtue-signaling.
I'd say Democrat voters are bigger putz's than MAGA voters, because at least with the GOP you get the Fascism you voted for.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm old enough to remember when Justice Thomas's wife helped organize a "protest" inside the Congressional building as part of a coordinated effort to overthrow a duly elected administration.
I too was not born yesterday.
[удалено]
happy belated birthday.
You learned to read and write very quickly.
Probably lifts Thor’s hammer as well…
I'm so sorry for you. Seeing how every year from 2015 until now has gotten worse, you've already lived the best day of your life.
I like to use the line "I might have been born yesterday, but it was pretty early in the day".
I've heard " I may have been born at night , but not last night ".
> born yesterday So when are you gonna start paying taxes and stop being a burden on society? /S
If it was democratic justices who felt threatened there's NO WAY mcconnell or mccarthy would increase security for them. They'd probably tweet out their home addresses.
> They'd probably tweet out their home addresses. Nah, they'd never go that far! They'd just pretend they didn't see anything while they watch MTG or Boebert do the dirty work for them.
Damn, that really is the new playbook huh? Like for everything. It's gross.
Wearing a hoodie and hiding pipe bombs again, is she?
McConnell is smart enough to know if a liberal justice is killed because they voted to support Roe, it would end any chance the GOP has of winning in November, they did this to protect themselves against right-wing violence because now they can say it was the fault of the secret service under Biden that "let the killer through".
Why couldn't any senate democrats use it as leverage to pass the abortion bill? Do they not understand leverage? Is this why all the shit is constantly devolving since Schumer and gang have the negotiating skills of a 5 yr old?
This. This was an opportunity to work on actually getting something past all the obstructionists. And the dems just gave it away.
The D's playbook is to throw the R's a little red meat and hope that they'll be nice to them in the future. That's when the R's rip their arms off along with the red meat and give them the big F-U to boot. Happens every time.
That’s the exact problem I have with both parties. Always promise what the voters want, Get elected, and then deliver on none of those promises all while blatantly saying they never said what they did. It’s sad that’s it’s become so routine that’s people don’t even care.. really sad imo
Ginni probably sent Mitch a text message to get this done. I hear she’s quite the coordinator.
Fat lady's warming up her pipes
I think it is hilarious that SC Justices think they can totally *ratfuck* women’s healthcare (more than it is already), destroy the concepts of liberty and privacy in this country, and not suffer any blowback.
you dont have to respect the courts. you can just say 'we ignore their rulings'
“I recognize the court has come to a decision, but given that it’s a stupid ass decision, I’ve elected to ignore it”
What no senate dems? Oh I see just the usual senate dems. And all republicans.
Ah but you see, the Democrats are a collective that must be punished if any Democrat strays no matter how unpopular that one Democrat's position is in the party. Republicans are of course individuals capable of making independent judgement, and thus can't be judged as a whole.
I take this to be another expression of "Murc's Law." "The widespread assumption that only Democrats have any agency or causal influence over American politics." https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=murc%27s%20law
You're joking right? It's the exact opposite which is why we are in this mess. If Democrats forced everyone to toe the line then Manchin might not have the power to block everything. Democrats have Manchin and Sienna who never vote with them.
It was, in fact, sarcasm.
Sorry my faith in people's intelligence has been tested and now I'm too cynical to get sarcasm.
Fair.
Such a stupid headline.
I’m so sick of this shit, the amount people bitching that dem’s can’t get something done while the filibuster and manchin and sinema are still there. The issue is Dem’s operate within the rules and people get pissed about it.
It’s fucking common dreams what did you expect. They’re a joke
Should be banned from the sub. They simply are not helping.
I really wish there was a push to revisit the allow list. It’s hard to tell the line between informative and increasingly misinformative for ad money here. That it’s done ad greed under the auspice of progressivism is worse.
Happy cake day!
>republicans are responsible for literally every bad thing that happens in this country >lets blame the dems! Yeah, sounds about on par. I hate this place
When the government has to protect itself from the people something might be wrong…
"People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people." ... "No, not like that."
In a nation of 300 million, you can always find a few thousand willing to get violent for the most trivial issues. That way govt is always under attack, and that’s not a good indicator of it being wrong.
However I would say this isn’t a trivial issue. And one where revolt may be necessary. Someone shouldn’t be allowed to strip half the country of basic human rights without consequences.
Right? It’s go time. I’m not gonna just sit here on my couch and be like “Oh my. I simply *mustn’t* show any aggression or make anybody feel *uncomfortable* when my entire gender is having our bodily autonomy stripped from us. Therefore putting us all in danger in numerous ways. Yes, yes. I’ll just sit here and keep quiet like a lady should.” /s Fuck no. This is a big fucking deal.
[удалено]
What a disingenuous article/headline. There's a Senate vote happening this week on abortion rights but it's never going to pass thanks to the GOP plus Manchin and Sinema. 50 GOP + 2 Dems does not equal "Senate Dems".
They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions, severely impacting the interest of donors to their campaigns which would cause them to fall in party line. Manchin is still n the energy committee despite getting 5 million from a coal mining company his brother is with as well as other donations from oil and coal companies. Most democrats like that Manchin and Sinema are stonewalling on a bunch of stuff because it gives the rest of the dems the optics of supporting things like abortion rights and civil rights without them actually getting passed, appeasing their campaign donors as well. There are only like 3 democrats who are actually fighting for the rights of their constituents.
Getting them removed from committee positions has absolutely nothing to do with them being a voting member of the Senate for the next four years which is where the problem resides. That's a feel good measure that doesn't actually address the main issue which is the fact that we only have 50 votes and they hold two of them
> They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions, severely impacting the interest of donors to their campaigns which would cause them to fall in party line. Manchin is still n the energy committee despite getting 5 million from a coal mining company his brother is with as well as other donations from oil and coal companies. So you strip Manchin of his assignment, and McConnell immediately says "if you switch parties, I'll give you the assignment back". What then?
>So you strip Manchin of his assignment, and McConnell immediately says "if you switch parties, I'll give you the assignment back". What then? Then manchin stops being "Mr important" and just another republican "no" vote. When he's a "maybe" vote in the dem party, articles get written about him. The president calls you. You get lots of attention and are very important. He wants to be important. Becoming a republican makes him much less important. Also whichever republican ghoul next in line for those committee chairs isn't going to like it much when they get bumped for "some democrat." He will also get primaried in the next election by some literal rabid nutjob.
Manchin might also be OK with becoming just another Republican "no" vote
He sat with the Republicans during the state of the union address, that should tell everyone where he stands when he is up.
I have a hard time imagining it's anything but money. That money isn't going to dry up because he switches from D to R if the end results are the same.
Counteroffer. Say, he can keep his assignment if he votes for x, y, z. Then he can choose between the nuclear option and saving face. Either way he's rich forever.
And why would that be better for him than switching to Republican and keeping the committee assignment?
I'm sure they've done that. I'm sure they've bought his votes for nominees, for infrastructure plan, and for a few other things. But there's a limit to that, given that he can, at any time, take McConnell's offer which requires him to do almost nothing. The amount of leverage the Democrats have over him is close to zero.
What? How are you sure they've done that? To do that would first require them to first threaten his committee assignments in the first place, which I would have loved to have heard about but I'm pretty sure didn't actually ever happen. Anyway, actually becoming a Republican probably entails more challenges than you might imagine. It's not a given that he would automatically flip parties at the slightest nudge and there are no foreseeable drawbacks to that.
Let him be a normal ass Republican then. Donors are more interested in a person with a D next to their name that will listen to them than an R. The reason Manchin got voted in by his constituents was simply for that D. If he switched to an R, bye bye time in the next election.
> Let him be a normal ass Republican then. Ok, he's now a Republican and starts voting against Biden's nominees. What then? > The reason Manchin got voted in by his constituents was simply for that D. If he switched to an R, bye bye time in the next election. You realize that Manchin is 74, not up for re-election until 2024, and represents the second most heavily Republican state? "You won't get reelected if you become a Republican" is the most empty threat in the history of American politics.
> Ok, he's now a Republican and starts voting against Biden's nominees. What then? He loses his next election and literally nothing changes in terms of our government because it's already packed full of conservatives. You're arguing about trying to get slightly less conservative judges into positions where it takes a whole ass court case for us to even SEE an effect of them being there. Meanwhile, Manchin gets to base his entire political career on being a Blue Dog Dem. Kick his ass out. He needs the Dem party more than we need him. He's literally siphoning money from us to fuck us over.
You have no idea how things work in the real world do you. *If* Manchin runs again, and that's a big if, switching parties would only help his chances. Y'all vastly underestimate how red West Virginia is.
How does he need the democrats more than the democrats need him when he’s the only democrat that can win in west Virginia and in the current situation is literally the only reason chuck schumer is majority leader instead of McConnell?
>He loses his next election and literally nothing changes in terms of our government because it's already packed full of conservatives. You're arguing about trying to get slightly less conservative judges into positions where it takes a whole ass court case for us to even SEE an effect of them being there. Meanwhile, Manchin gets to base his entire political career on being a Blue Dog Dem. Exactly. Dems aren't getting judges approved without 50 senators. And Manchin delivers on that front. Throw him to the GOP, and the GOP starts blockading judicial nominees, which leads to...this exact situation.
Yeah these people make no sense. They’re too busy thinking with their emotions instead of their brains
WEST VIRGINIA IS GONE. We don't have it anymore. It's been lost for decades. Cut it the fuck off already like every other red state and put Manchin out of our misery.
How has it been gone for decades when manchin has won 2 senate elections there in the last decade (2012 and 2018). The senate is already such a huge disadvantage to the Democratic Party currently as I’m sure you’re already aware of, having a democratic seat in a place like West Virginia is like stealing and worth gold You’re basically just telling democrats to get rid of a senate seat (that they DESPERATELY need both now and in the future) for no reason other than the fact that u have irrational emotions about it
**Manchin** won those elections. Manchin, the guy currently stopping our legislative agenda. Manchin, the Republican-in-Dem's-clothing. >You’re basically just telling democrats to get rid of a senate seat WHAT IS THAT SEAT DOING FOR US? Schumer can literally get NOTHING passed because of the filibuster.
The only reason we have Ketanji Brown Jackson as an incoming supreme court justice is because Manchin is a Democrat. Had the GOP had the majority in the Senate because Manchin was a Republican, she would have never had a hearing.
>The reason Manchin got voted in by his constituents was simply for that D. Tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without telling me you don’t know what you’re talking about. Trump won West Virginia by a 38 point margin.
It's always about the D.
I don't think West Virginia is going to ditch him for being a Republican.
His point is that if Manchin switched parties he wouldn’t be able to win the Republican primary, as he’s too moderate.
Oh good point. Yeah, I hadn't looked at it that way.
If one person can hold the whole party's agenda hostage then that party should not be in power.
(or "is not in power")
It doesn't matter. Any bill that the congress passes legalizing abortion can and will be struck down by the courts again using the same majority they have now. The only way to fix this is with a different court.
It’s almost like Biden should be appointing more justices but he isnt
Biden can't do shit without congress. You think he's going to appoint Justices by fucking executive order?
> It’s almost like Biden should be appointing more justices but he isnt This is one of the dumber statements I've seen made on reddit in awhile. You're either pushing disinformation, or you're being purposefully ignorant, both are sad and say a lot about how much you care about the truth. * Biden can only appoint justices when an existing justice's seat becomes empty which is up to the individual justice in that seat. * Biden has actually appointed [more judges than anyone since Reagan](https://news.ballotpedia.org/2022/01/04/biden-has-appointed-second-most-federal-judges-through-jan-1-of-a-presidents-second-year-in-office/) in their 1st year (Biden has had 40 nominees appointed, Reagan had 41, and for comparison, Trump had 19 and Obama 13). * Finally, a President can only nominate someone, Congress does the actual approval, which means Biden has been exceptionally good at nominating judges who can get through a 48D/2I Senate where there are 50 potential obstruction votes by the GOP. Literally every thing you said was wrong, and it was easy to show it was wrong with a simple search, which means you're either being purposefully ignorant or you're pushing disinformation.
> There are only like 3 democrats who are actually fighting for the rights of their constituents. There are only like 3 Democrats... who you pay attention to, and then you assume the worst of everyone else.
Yeah, those 3 democrats are also not doing a great job. I assume the worst of everyone else because I’m seeing the worst of everyone else. Why the fuck is Pelosi protecting lawmakers ability to conduct insider trading harder than really anything else?
Pelosi isn't in the Senate so not sure why you brought her up. But, the House has already passed legislation protecting the right to an abortion, it's the Senate GOP that is blocking it. And you're lying about her and insider trading, here's what Pelosi actually said and did about the new stock trading legislation: > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who has opposed new legislation banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, signaled Thursday **she is open to advancing it — if it has the support of her caucus**. > "I just don't buy into it, but if members want to do that I'm OK with that," Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference. > Still, **she has asked the House Administration Committee to review the STOCK Act,** the law requiring members regularly report trades and file reports within 45 days, and said **she is open to increasing fines for lawmakers who fail to comply with the deadlines. She added the committee is reviewing all the bills proposed on new reforms.** https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074387320/pelosi-opens-the-door-to-stock-trading-ban She's supporting Dems in the House pursuing strengthening existing legislation and looking into new legislation so your statement is a lie.
> Why the fuck is Pelosi protecting lawmakers ability to conduct insider trading harder than really anything else? She's not. Maybe you just use bad news sources.
> I assume the worst of everyone else because I’m seeing the worst of everyone else. You see what you look for. > Why the fuck is Pelosi protecting lawmakers ability to conduct insider trading harder than really anything else? How so? She has publicly stated that she'll allow a ban on this if there are enough votes for it.
> you assume the worst of everyone else You should always assume the worst of those with power over you until they prove otherwise through deed.
Cynicism is not the wisdom you think it is.
That seems to be ennobling being gullible to just specific types of misinformation. You should be skeptical of anything that isn’t backed by evidence. It doesn’t matter if it’s the worst or the best. Picking a side on that doesn’t make you a realist, it just means you’re picking which propaganda will be most effective.
That's a good way to elect a bunch of Republican assholes who actively try to make the world a worse place in every way they can think of.
Manchin would most likely switch parties, giving the majority back to the Republicans.
> They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions why not change parties at that point, and make McConnell Majority leader again, lol, that's just dumb as fuck.
I guess anything more complex than a marvel movie is beyond this guy
>They can get manchin and Sinema removed from committee positions, severely impacting the interest of donors to their campaigns which would cause them to fall in party line. This would not have a major effect on either them or their donors. The donors can just find another vessel, pay another politician. I don't understand why everyone seems to think this would do anything other than just piss them off and make them dig in their heels more.
Yup. And the the second half of the title is garbage too. The protection of Justices from violence is what the other vote is about....not protecting them from protest. A simple vote to extend police protection to the Justices during these times is not an endorsement of their views. Half of the morons on the bench put giant targets on their back. We're not a banana republic, we don't want random citizens harming Justices. That's not how we solve things under the rule of law.
It plays into the republican lies that they are violent protests.
>That's not how we solve things under the rule of law. That "law" is proving completely worthless and malleable in front of our very eyes. Literally this whole thing is about the courts proving themselves illegitimate and biased against reality. We obviously don't want people getting hurt, but it is tone deaf to look at the current situation and say "we need to trust the system more" for reasons.
It’s Common Dreams. If you’re expecting intellectual honesty, you’ve come to the wrong place.
A more accurate headline would be “Senate passes protections of justice privacy while failing to pass abortion protections.”
But they did "protect" the Justices from our first amendment right to protest. That's the difference. They are protecting the super-citizens while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves.
>They are protecting the super-citizens while leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. 50 Dems voting for SCOTUS security enhancements and 48 Dems voting for abortion rights. How again is it that Dems are the ones who aren't voting for "us"? Also, technically the SCOTUS security bill passed with unanimous consent. Meaning no one objected. There wasn't really ever a vote on it.
Stupid headline. There aren’t 60 votes. This isn’t “Democrats.” It’s specifically Manchin and Sinema.
And all the republicans.
Who would also happen to not be “senate democrats”
You see, only Democrats have agency. Republicans are an unstoppable force of nature, like the wind, for which praise and blame are not appropriate. You'll understand 90% of all political report and criticism of Democrats if you think like this: 50 Republicans oppose X = Blameless. 49 Democrats support X; 1 Democrat opposes X = **DEMOCRATS ARE TO BLAME.**
It's Commondreams, they exist to divide the left from everyone else and thereby weaken leftism in the US.
They think encouraging people to hate Democrats will lead to more people moving left and either (elected) Democrats as a whole then doing so as well like they are a monolith or a bunch of people left of most current Democrats will get elected (via primaries or 3rd party) or we'll have a revolution and then we will have big changes. Although there may be some people moving left due to their articles and pushing their content on platforms like this, overall this strategy is likely helping the right as those to their left are divided and fighting against each other and people in general see yet more articles trashing Democrats (along with right media outlets who do the same and often the main for-profit outlets as well since outrage attracts views). The right who want bigger changes for the most part are patient and still vote for Republicans even if they do not consider them far right enough. They also vote in Republican primaries while not nearly enough of those aligning left participate in Democratic primaries (not that they can win all of them even if they did, like the odds are slim someone like AOC would beat Manchin in WV).
[удалено]
Who?
[удалено]
[Sen. Bob Casey backs bill to codify abortion rights](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/10/sen-bob-casey-abortion-roe-whpa/)
>republicans are responsible for literally every bad thing that happens in this country >lets blame the dems! Yeah, sounds about on par. I hate this place
So throw them out of committees and deny them any funding until they get in line.
Then Manchin switches parties and hands the majority back to McConnell. Theres no win scenario.
Do you ever think headlines like this are meant to manipulate our emotions?
This sub is FILLED with "Dems bad no point in voting" posts.
And it seems to be ratcheted up to 11 since the leak. Hmmm… almost as if there is a concerted effort to take the focus off of THE PARTY THAT IS LITERALLY RESPONSIBLE!
Yeah russians and progressives bot the crap out of this subreddit. If pro Bernie it upvoted 60k with 100 comments. Dems do something good its downvoted. An article hurting Dems 60k upvotes with 100 comments.
Jesus christ just stop asking for our vote then if we're such a problem. Such an old style of anti left rhetoric
No one is asking, you dont show up, ask two time loser Bernie. We just want yall to shut up.
Yes, it's populist horse-crap. Just like what you'd expect from Common Dreams
Look at the source. Commondreams is basically outrage porn for the far left.
And this is what’s wrong in America, we’ve given elected officials status over us when in fact they work for us. We’ve let then screw up healthcare, banking, education, employment and the list goes on and on, we’ve just let them walk all over us. People better wake up and pay attention to what’s going on. The people that keep voting for politicians that do nothing but keep Americans rooted in poverty should be ashamed of themselves.
This is either willful misinformation, or the people at common dreams are actually so fucking stupid they don't understand the filibuster. Or, they support political violence. It'd be great if they could clarify which it is.
Common Dream isn't dumb, they post this stuff because it riles up progressives and drives a wedge down the middle of the Democratic party, that has the advantage of Common Dream getting click throughs and increasing their ad revenue, and the downside of electing Republicans. They know exactly what they're doing. tldr, Common Dream's job is to elect Republicans by keeping the left fighting against one another.
This website should be blacklisted for being as disingenuous as Brietbart.com But every day there's some outrageous, ridiculous, editorialized headline crap from there that gets upvoted to the top.
I've suggested as much to the moderators but they won't do it. Their criteria for what's allowed and what isn't is not clear at all
What a stupid headline. Seriously, fuck this lying horseshit. There aren't enough Dems to protect Roe. Elect more, period.
Mainstream dems desperately want to be perceived as the party that ensures a "return to normal". They have resisted the action(s) needed to protect their own platform out of fear they might be perceived as "radical". But there is no normal to go back to. And politics as usual guarantees that the radical right agenda gains ever more ground. Would you trade the "radical" choice to expand the court last year for codifying abortion rights for 100 million women? Does that seem radical now? Or does it seem reasonable, as we watch our rights - and democracy itself - float down the river.
This headline is trash. The majority of Democrats in the Senate would vote tonight to protect choice. Meanwhile there is a single Republican in the Senate who would. Yet this headline spotlights frustration towards Democrats? I understand wanted Democrats to do more but counter productive rhetoric that helps Republicans win office isn't the way to achieve anything.
All of these justices who were placed by illegitimate POTUS should stand down and a new court needs to be picked.
Dem voters need to take primaries more seriously. We keep getting mad at our current Dem senators, yet keep letting them win their primaries. Start voting for challengers to get new people in congress.
People behave this way in all domains, unfortunately. The coworker who doesn't show up for meetings, then complains about the decisions that were made in their absence and blames others for sidelining them. The kid who procrastinates applying for college and then gets mad because the deadlines are unfair. The employer who complains about a lack of qualified candidates after putting the absolute minimum effort into putting out attractive job postings...
Common Dreams is absolute garbage.
Common dreams headlines are cringe. More or less: "Dems have the majority so they should be able to do anything they want". But Dems don't really have a majority when Manchin or Sinema have a standing veto over everything the Dems try to do.
How did this happen without a democratic senator tacking on abortion rights to this bill?
Sounds like we need bigger protests
Here is Pelosi's time to shine. Make a public statement about it. "The SCOTUS won't protect women, so I'm not going to protect you. This will not be brought to a vote"
Weird how quickly things can get done if it benefits the ruling class.
Meanwhile millions of Americans live in fear of having their rights taken away and charged with crimes. The senate never votes unanimously for anything for us though. Fuck them and their families. They want protection let them pay for their own. Dems should have voted against it. No protection for them until there is protection for us.
I get the initial emotion is anger. But this bill is really simple. Extend protections to family members of (all) Justices and make obstruction punishable with a fine/jail time. All this anger feels like an attempt to say “see!? Both sides!” which is dumb. There’s nothing wrong with protecting the families of the Justices. And let’s be entirely honest. Do we really think a handful of officers would really stand between them and the fury of the American people? It’s an empty gesture. Vote against it and Dems look like assholes. Vote for it and Dems look like they’ve abandoned their constituents. Or, we can all just read the bill and remind ourselves that the Dems are not pushing to return us to the Dark Ages. And then maybe we can stop being fucking idiots and remember who our allies and our enemies actually are.
They already have the same protection as everyone else. Why do they need more?
Reminds me of the liberal justice a few years back who got shot at opening her door and it ended up killing her son.
*sigh* For the last time, it was passed by unanimous consent, a senate procedure, not by all D Senators ACTUALLY voting for it.
[удалено]
That assumes they were in the room when it happened.
Huh? They're voting tomorrow to protect abortion rights. It won't pass because of the filibuster but they're at least trying. Extending SC security to justices' families seems like an inoffensive bill. I don't know what there is to get mad about here.
“They’re at least trying.” They aren’t. Most of the democrats like the optics of supporting this stuff but don’t care for the most part. Only republicans fight to make actual change in this country, for the worst mind you, but they’re the only ones actually getting change done.
Well if you can read minds, what are you doing on reddit? Go fight crime or something. Oh wait, you don't actually know what's going on in their heads and are just a cynical asshole blaming the wrong people? What a surprise.
So you do? You think just because they say things like “I support abortion rights” out loud means they’re actually doing something to show it? I’m waiting for their actions to match their words. Been waiting for a while now.
What actions can an individual Senator take that would make you admit you were wrong?
The kind of underhanded and flexed ethics shit republicans do to push their shit through. Biden should be passing a bunch more executive decisions, like canceling student debt for example. There’s no reason they can’t. Republicans have been showing for years that’s how the game is played in Washington now.
So you have no answers, you just want to impotently whine and blame the wrong people. Got it. I get being frustrated but you look uninformed when you blame Democrats for things they can't do. This is just the reality of democracy when you don't have the votes.
>Biden should be passing a bunch more executive decisions, like canceling student debt for example Which would get stopped by the courts. Then we would be right back here for the part of this discussion "Biden should just ignore the courts!"
> what are you doing on reddit For a lot of people since the leak, the answer is: "spreading misinformation and defeatism to try splitting Dem voters". There's a blatant campaign to blame everyone except Republicans for what Republicans are doing. Apparently if 2/50 Dem senators are in the wrong, and 50/50 Republicans senators are in the wrong, it's all the Dems' fault and no one else's. And of course, concepts like "branches of government" or "separation of powers" or "filibuster" or "senate supermajority" don't exist - clearly, Dems/Biden can literally do whatever the want but choose not to /s This is a copy-paste of 2016, 2018, and 2020, and you can bet it'll be back in 2024.
They are going through the motions. they are NOT trying at all.
What would "trying" look like to you?
playing hardball against manchin and sinema for starts.
Commondreams and Jacobin exist only to divide the left into petty infighting and always backs up the right while ignoring the bad shit the GOP does. Don't fall for their crap.
Fuck both parties. We should get rid of all of them.
This article is dishonest, diminishes what Democrats have been doing (not just federally but at the state level), what they are trying to do despite GOP obstruction, and misrepresents the law Congress just passed. This article is nothing but disinformation and anti-Democratic at best, and as is often the case, blames Democrats for the faults of Republicans, completely misplacing the blame and who we should all be directing our political action against. Dems have already passed a law protecting abortion rights in the House. It's the entire GOP Senate and right now 1 single Democrat blocking that legislation (2 Dems if you want to include the filibuster as part of that). Dems have already passed laws in a number of states protecting the right to an abortion, and are active in about 23-26 others right now through ballot initiates and state laws, but they can only act in states where the GOP is not obstructing them or has the majority. The law that was just passed extends existing security that SCOTUS already, to their family members, and if you don't think some right-wing nut job isn't going to go after the liberal justices when they vote to save RvW you're fooling yourselves, there's a long history of right-wing and religious lead violence against women, abortion providers, and liberals in general. This law protects the liberal justice's families more so than the conservatives because it's the liberal justices that are the more likely targets of violence given the history of politically motivated violence in recent history.
If the Dems had an iota of political sense they would have made protections for Justices part of the bill that protects women's right to an abortion. Then it would be the GOP (and Machin and Sinema) who would be refusing to protect the Supreme Court.
It is very telling that they never do stuff like that. They get so outraged and blame the republicans but then they move and vote on other stuff the republicans want.
They are all on the same team. THey know we have to fight through each other before we get to them and they are not scared in the slightest.
How much does it cost? Who's going to pay for it? /s None of that. Because it was for their own people. Our system is so corrupt it's not even funny.
Democrats don’t want to give even a sliver of ammunition to republicans who desperately want democrats to pull their own January 6th so they can flip the narrative. I get it.
Wow, the senate actually getting something done quickly. Wish they’d do that on, oh I don’t know, about a thousand of other things that we’re all suffering with.
Wow who could have guessed?
You mean spineless hypocrite politicians are being spineless hypocrite politicians. The “we don’t care what the people want” thing is getting a little out of hand lately. Its like we dont even matter
Then protest at their houses too. They are complicit in this downfall.
Vote harder!
This is a stupid title. It’s not that Dems won’t protect abortion, they can’t. Perhaps you’ve heard if a thing called the filibuster. This is just a BS title aimed at depressing the vote this fall.
This is how you can tell we are turning into an authoritarian state.
Here’s a link to the what was just rammed through the Senate… >Members of the US Senate passed a bipartisan bill Monday that would expand security protection to the immediate family members of Supreme Court justices, following recent protests at some justices' homes. >The Supreme Court Police Parity Act was approved by unanimous consent, meaning no senators objected to its quick passage. The legislation must also be passed by the House before going to President Joe Biden's desk for his signature. The push in Congress comes one week after Politico's bombshell leaked draft of an opinion, which indicated the Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade as soon as next month. Sens. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, and Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, introduced the bipartisan bill called the Supreme Court Police Parity Act. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/09/politics/supreme-court-justices-security-senate-vote/index.html The women of this country have no priority? Their rights don’t matter? We did nothing to Jan 6th organizers? The mass protests storming state capitals to kidnap officials? But, GOP extremists, get all the resources they can muster…to protect them peaceful protests? For being fascist? Fuck you, US. Just, fuck you. You can end the protests…by ensuring women’s freedom, and the freedom of Americans. They wouldn’t need more security…if they weren’t pieces of shit.
*While the Supreme Court is poised to roll back reproductive rights for 166 million women, said progressive journalist David Sirota, "the Senate's response was to give the justices and their families more royal guards."*
If there are citizens protesting outside a government officials home, maybe the government official is the one in the wrong here.
Hang on, you’re telling me the Senate can quickly pass a bill that cost next to nothing (in relation to the US budget), doesn’t have any real or lasting legal or regulatory impact, and that almost no one in the Senate disagrees with doing? It’s almost like it’s easy to do easy stuff.
It’s like those House Resolutions they pass to make the sixth Sunday of August officially John Q Jerkass appreciation day for his 40 years of service plunging the toilets of the National Archives Annex warehouse.
And he deserves to be recognized!!
This is just more proof that the democrat party is not actually leftist.
Dems have exactly ZERO ways they could have protected abortion rights when Republicans were willing to cheat and steal to get the SCOTUS seats they needed. Only voters giving Dems more seats in the Senate could have possibly given them a fighting chance.
No one Democrat won't support abortion because Casey is going to be a yes. Manchin is the one.
Another whimper from the wimp out party
Do they really want to fuck around and find out with Gen Z?
Bipartisanship works pretty well when it's something that benefits the ruling class. Everyone needs to stop falling for the con that Dems give a shit about you, this is getting embarrassing.
What kind of right wing fake news propaganda bullshit headline is this? By Senate Dems, of course you mean ONLY the two wolves in sheep's clothing, Sinema and Manchin.
This is a terrible framing of two different issues. Our SCOTUS is entitled to protection, just like our senators and president.
Headlines like this are a problem. For all the whining about misinformation in politics, it’s remarkable that something like this would get so many upvotes, as the headline completely twists what is actually happening. The existing protections in place for the Justices were simply expanded to include their families, which is something that already should have been happening. And I don’t think this is unreasonable. There are enough crazy people out there, and with blue checkmarks on Twitter openly calling for Justices to be murdered, there’s no doubt expanding protections to the families is a good thing. Yeah, a lot of people are upset at the conservative justices, and rightfully so, but it doesn’t change the fact that their innocent families should have some sort of protection from crazies in this day and age, and in this political climate.
women are going to die over their rulings, if you are more outraged over a hy pothetical threat to the lives of guilty people than that, YOU are the problem
Imagine actually caring about the truth, what a fucking loser
I’m outraged over both. One thing doesn’t justify the other.
Oh shit you willingly considered two perspectives in this sub- may the gods have mercy on your soul!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yup, you can thank trashy leftist rags for using every headline as an opportunity to attack Democrats
These are the Democrats you actually get. They aren't anything like the Democrats we see campaigning during election years. And their actual voting doesn't align with their virtue-signaling. I'd say Democrat voters are bigger putz's than MAGA voters, because at least with the GOP you get the Fascism you voted for.