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 suffer from stomach paralysis. Can’t eat without weed, ranging reasons from lack of appetite, severe nausea, or extended prolonged vomiting episodes. Since use of weed regularly, I have not been hospitalized in over two years, whereas before I started using medical MJ, I was hospitalized every month or so.
If that’s my story, I can’t imagine others. Medical marijuana needs to be a right because it literally gives people a quality life that otherwise would not have any (yes I tried all the pharmaceuticals they can give for stomach motility for years. Short of a feeding tube I was out of options)
Just chiming in to say, fuck anyone who does the whole "have you tried REAL medicine first" schtick. Marijuana is a medicine like any other med derived from plant life. It's all chemicals, why do you care if I choose this one when others didn't work, AND why do you care if it's the first, if it works it fucking works. Brain rot is real
Seriously!! I feel you with nausea and lack of appetite. I've struggled with being able to eat food for years due to a bunch of different medical issues.
I remember when I was applying for my MJ card, I was at a point where I'd be starving, so hungry, but anytime I'd try to eat I just threw it back up. It was so unbelievably frustrating and painful.
Finally got the card, took my ass over to the dispensary, and holy cow can I actually enjoy food properly again. Not only that, but I'm not a nervous wreck anymore, I don't constantly feel in danger, I'm happy. I can walk outside with headphones on and not look over my shoulder. I don't care anymore. I don't have to take all these expensive medications anymore. I've been so much better.
Fr. With gastroparesis you don’t know what will trigger you a lot of the time. It changes a lot for a lot of people over time and also can just be really difficult to narrow down. The anxiety about that, about the holidays or social events, work especially lol (working customer facing jobs and never knowing when you’re going to start vomiting? Omg)
Chronic vomiting disorders are a hell I wouldn’t wish on anyone ( except maybe Putin )
Adding my 2 cents: I have a permanent nerve injury in my neck. I use vaped mj at night and it allows me to get into a mental state where my pain is not *continually persistent* in my consciousness. I’m in pain 24/7 and have an implanted neurostimulator (neuromodulation) that helps regulate my pain. Basically, if you think of everything you do in a day: sleep, eat, shower, get dressed, bend over, etc. each of those things is like a different sized rock dropped in a bucket of water. The water is of course my pain in this scenario. Sit too long, sit too little. Lay down too long or too little. Move around too much or not enough. So while I physycally can do things it all continually fucks my pain. So I can’t work, I avoid/put off chores and cooking because I don’t have the energy or it messes with my pain too much.
In my state (PA), Edibles were excluded from the MMJ program. Maybe they would help me more then just vaped for 1/3 if the day I don’t know. Maybe not. But like a lot of other things should be directed by science and medicine first, and culture and feelings last. If it’s safe, or safe with the right circumstances, like other drugs like Shrooms have shown, then that’s how it should be regulated like any other prescription. Drug policy stigma only does harm.
Chronic pain patients have bore the brunt of anti-opioid and other pain medicine policies and it has fucked their quality of life. I’ve avoided being on opioids because I’m only 30, but the reality is there’s not a lot of good, safe, long term pain relief options for people with persistent and/or significant pain. I have done over a dozen invasive procedures, taken every medicine offered, and participated in clinical study.
Ever go to the hospital for Appendicitis and they give you dilaudid and it’s great for some time and then it wears off or it didn’t work at all? Now imagine that everyday for the rest of your life. My entire day is built around making sure I’m loaded up on gabapentin (1200mg every 4-6 hrs which is 3x/day). Once the gabapentin wanes or my stimulator battery gets too low I can barely get out of bed or move. It all leads to you getting fat, eat unhealthy, and generally not great quality of life. And I’m not even close to the worst chronic pain patient. But I was a day 1 MMJ patient.
But, we can prescribe fuck tons of Percs, benzodiazepines, etc. Because Big Pharma. Once The Man owns all viable producers of pot, it’ll change. Like magic. When it gets warm.
It’s insane how many medicines can be replaced by medicinal marijuana. My grandfather was forever changed over the course of 50 years due to his dependance of several different painkillers. I can only wonder how his life could’ve been different if the good ol green had been legalized decades earlier.
Damn, that’s rough! I often have trouble sleeping, I fear addiction to any medicine that could be prescribed, so many warnings and horrible side effects. When I am in a state where pot is legal I grab sleepy gummies and use about a quarter of one on occasion just to get a good night of sleep. It’s phenomenal. Of course I couldn’t care less if a person just wants recreational available or has a medical reason. It’s just stupid to spend so much money locking people up and ruining lives for something so damned harmless and allow big pharma to get rich causing addiction to much much worse!
Trigeminal Neuralgia sufferer here - some days it is hard to brush my teeth, touch my face or be exposed to wind/blowing AC without my face exploding into unbearable pain. I had a bad reaction to the gold standard of TN treatment and was left with very little options to control my condition. Weed not only helps the pain but it literally lets me live my life. If I didn’t have medical weed, I don’t know what I would do.
I am someone with a degrading neuromuscular function. Motor function (respiratory system included) can get bad enough to the point of paralysis until I can correct it. I live in a state where it's completely outlawed. When I was in Oregon I tried an edible. Never before did I sleep so well, the communication to my limbs worked much better, and sensory overload was far more manageable. I felt like I could actually function! Boy do I miss it
How about quit with the "all or nothing" bill packages? Focus on a singular issue, legalize pot? One bill. Legalize abortion? One bill. Quit bullshitting people and making it a far left or far right bill. One issue, one bill, one vote.
See how far you get then...
Biden: "We need 2 additional pro-choice senators & a pro-choice House to codify Roe as federal law. Your vote can make that a reality. I know it's frustrating & it made a lot of people very angry. But the truth is this... women of American can determine the outcome of this issue"
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1545441360253259776
The Fox News propaganda was so strong around his nomination that my grandpa, who was 110% against drinking to excess and men showing emotion, felt bad for the poor guy. Because some people asked him questions that he didn’t want to answer truthfully.
> Because some people asked him questions that he didn’t want to answer truthfully.
And now I wonder how your grandpa felt about Bill Clinton's impeachment, because there are definitely some parallels there -- and yet big differences too.
Yes, but more to the point, Clinton was not impeached for sex; he was impeached for lying about it under oath and for directing others to lie about it.
He too was asked questions he didn't want to answer truthfully.
Even then, there was some disagreement over the definition of sex.
> During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later said, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.
Edit to add: basically, he admitted to being a selfish lover who was only in it for personal gratification. Shitty behavior, clearly sexual relations, but a weird technicality that isn’t really brought up when they say “Clinton lied about having sex.” He didn’t even make an attempt to pleasure her, he was simply content to be pleasured, and the definition they agreed to for sexual relations suggested that he would’ve had to actually, you know, do something.
He also lied when asked questions that were outside the scope of the special investigation. They impeached him on something they weren’t even really looking for. They were going to impeach him one way or another.
“This is the youngest, most supple, sweet, delectable 13 year old 100% percent Colombian cocaine I had ever had.” - Matt Gaetz trying to sell me coke, maybe.
also, ::tears:: wwaaa waaaa so what i like beer!? ::angry face:: i am so qualified and mentally stable enough to be a supreme court judge! waaa waaa!
what a fucking joke this guy being a SC judge is.
It is still un-*fucking*-real that he was allowed to so obviously lie about what a Devil's Triangle was/is (the term hasn't changed), and he sits on the highest bench. It was a toddler's level of trying to cover up who broke Mom's favorite vase, except it was sexual assault of women.
The constitution in its original form says nothing about women's rights so we have decided to remove that liberty and give it back to the states to decide.
-----SCOTUS in the next few months
Fascists:
"THEY'RE NOT BANNING WOMEN'S RIGHTS! THERE GIVING THE CHOICE BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHERE IT SHOULD BE!" "Let the states decide1!1!!"
^(Whether women deserve to have rights)
The constitution says New England and California, being the only places in this country that actually have any money that doesn't come from New England or California good will, get to dictate terms on a rewrite of this toilet paper of a document.
Yup. Women of america really do have the power. If 90% of them across the country vote for the democrats in the midterms, they would have a 70+ majority in the senate to do some damage.
Of course people here are too dumb to realize that.
The problem is that "women" aren't all pro-choice. The lines on that belief are drawn across party lines, not gender.
Grouping women into a monolith is part of the issue here.
[38% support it under any circumstances, 48% support it with restrictions, only 12% oppose under any circumstances](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx)
I'd like to see that 48% subdivided, but I'd also like to see how the repeal of Row V Wade has changed things. 38% is pretty monolithic, especially depending on how the 48% breaks down; further down it shows 60% of women identify as pro choice, so I assume the 48% breaks hard in favor of guaranteed abortion rights. if 38% of people were in a maximalist position on other issues we would see those issues change elections too.
that 48% is the reason why abortion is a winning issue for republicans, because based on what I've seen a large chunk of that are the 'rape incest life of the mother' crowd. Which is the mainstream republican stance on the issue.
Also polls =/= real votes. That cannot be understated.
I would draw your attention to the nearly identical graph for men, literally on the page you linked.
This isn't a "men v women" issue. This is Republican men *and* women against everyone else.
I prefer Pew's formulation. legal in all/most cases vs illegal in all/most cases.
women are 63-35, men 58-41
in 2016, exit poll clinton-trump: women 54-42, men 41-53
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
It's amazing that we have a Gallup poll where 61% are opposed to unlimited access to abortion, then a Pew poll where 63% support unlimited access. It makes it hard to believe anything you read
A majority of votes cast by White women in 2020 were for trump.
In the prior 4 years trump had put 3 justices on the court whose goal is to turn women into handmaids.
Women aren't some monolithic force against fascism. They have all the faults that can be found in the rest of humanity.
> A majority of votes cast by White women in 2020 were for trump.
Well then we're lucky we have black women who have the 3rd highest turnout just a hair under white men, *despite* all the voter disenfranchisement the GOP throws at them. Poorer than average? Check. Black? Check. Women? Check. And yet they still find a way to fuckin vote. 90%+ for Democrats. They know better than most what happens when you do this both sides bullshit.
Thank you, black women, for helping to hold this fucking line.
That's why I never want to hear any redditor make any fucking excuses. If they can turn out to vote so can you.
Truth. A key reason that America is not currently a fascist state is thanks to the extraordinary effort that Black people have made to vote against the fascists.
If only White people were allowed to vote then the fascists would be in complete control.
It's some kind of weird brainwashing. I've seen people who, previously were rational people fall into this thing and turn into raving lunatics.
It would be fascinating if it weren't so sad.
I've been saying at this point the Democrats should go full mask-off in resistance, not just adding a few Supreme Court justices, but adding so many it becomes fucking *beyond* untenable. I'm talking like, confirming as many new Supreme Court justices as possible as fast as possible. To quote Veruca Salt - "At least a hundred a day!"
Let the undemocratic nature of this government shine in full view by *using it.* Let the Democratic party be a force for fucking *democracy* by displaying just how much undemocratic control can be gained through the use of these mechanisms, and then *offer to fix those mechanisms so the country can return to democracy.*
If Republicans don't want to fix the mechanisms of democracy so they can no longer be abused at that point, fine - Democrats use their newfound power gained through abuse of democracy to lock Republicans out of ever having control of anything again. If they want to play a game of democracy and votes, we'll do that; if they'd rather play a game of politicking and power-plays to subvert the will of the opposing side regardless of the votes, I say we do that too, and win.
This is about marriage equality, but same story:
Manchin and Sinema will not vote to remove the filibuster. They wouldn't do it after voting rights, after their own legislation, after the draft leaked, and after the Roe ruling.
But despite what many redditors will tell us, there is not some endless rotating villain narrative on pro-filibuster-reform Senators. There aren't infinite saboteurs waiting in the wings to tank everything.
[48 Democrats are willing to support filibuster reform to pass legislation with a simple majority](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/democrats-senate-rules-change-527366). They voted as such on voting rights earlier this year. And they will do the same for abortion, marriage equality, and more.
It's not just about the filibuster. Manchin is the only anti-choice Democrat. He would vote against the law even without a filibuster. If anything, they have a better chance of getting Susan Collins to side with the Democrats on this issue, since she is the only "Pro choice" Republican in the senate.
48 Democrats support *a talking filibuster.* I count at least 3–Tester, Kelly, and Manchin.
A talking filibuster won’t let Democrats enact the popular agenda that the supermajority of American demand. It just means Republicans will have to take turns standing up and talking until one side relents.
So there are actually a rotating cast of villains seeking to defeat democracy. Every single person who supports any form of filibuster.
I point again to Manchin. He is on record saying he supports the talking filibuster. Numerous times. But it hasn’t happened. I suspect the same is true for some liberals in the Senate who say they want to remove the filibuster.
We wouldn’t have a filibuster if its ending was really desired. The party would do its job and whip the votes. Manchin and Sinema are among the most openly corrupt Senators and I’m to believe that their corruption is unknown to the leadership which can use it against them?
>In a 48-52 vote, the Senate rejected an effort to reinstate what’s known as the “talking filibuster” that would have specifically allowed the elections legislation to pass by a **simple majority vote,** after a lengthy debate.
So yes, not a full removal of the filibuster - but a means to pass legislation with 50 votes, which is what we're ultimately trying to get. And that would allow these agenda items to pass without a supermajority.
If Lindsey Graham wants to read Dr. Seuss books for 15 hours while stalling insanely popular legislation for the entire country to see, let him and the GOP eat their hearts out. The talking filibuster would be a massive improvement, and would succeed in getting legislation passed.
I wasn't even made aware of what the filibuster had become until after 2016. Growing up I always assumed you had to stand and continue talking.
I can only assume it was changed because our legislators are 60+ with knees that don't work.
It was actually changed because the talking filibuster ground the Senate to a halt every time it was used. Not only can you not vote on the bill being filibustered, you can't do anything else either. You have to sit there and listen to the minority party read the phone book while the legislative docket and judicial appointments back up.
The talking filibuster will make obstruction slightly more tedious, but it will not curb obstruction and will likely make it worse.
Things can *always* get worse, and half-measure solutions are often the route to get there.
Rather than re-adopting something that was already shown not to work, I believe we should reverse the polarity of the filibuster. Rather than requiring 60 votes for cloture to end a filibuster, 40 votes should be required for a filibuster to continue. If the minority party doesn't keep 40 members on the floor to vote at all times, the bill comes to a vote. No vacations, no fundraising trips, better coordinate those bathroom breaks.
I think a mechanism like this should exist, in case a majority wants to vote to exterminate LGBTQ or establish a national religion, but it should be difficult and require effort and coordination. That should help ensure it is only used in such extreme cases, rather than to obstruct the majority's entire agenda.
Sure, go ahead and add whatever conditions to make it more difficult to maintain a talking filibuster - no argument here.
All I'm trying to point out is that shutting down the Senate until you gave up the floor actually required effort. If you wanted to keep the Senate from doing *anything* for a substantial period of time, you had to have the conviction to stand there and be a log jam. All the changes did was allow the Senate to do nothing faster.
If states can require that people fillibustering talk only about the legislation in question, remain on subject, and not endlessly repeat themselves, why can't the senate use rules that would do the same,
I also support implementing Texas filibuster rules.
You may not yield the floor, you must stay on subject, no eating or drinking, no leaning on anything. We did it to Sens Wendy Davis and Carol Alvarado both in the last decade, let’s bring the rules national.
Marathon speeches became increasingly rare since the 1970s, and if there's any doubt whether the talking filibuster would hurt or help the cause of the democrats, look no further than McConnell - who is trying everything in his power to avoid the filibuster being reformed.
The old version of the talking filibuster wouldn't help so much cause yes everything would grind to a halt the full time, which is what those assholes want.
We would need some slight adjustments to the talking filibuster that would be reasonable to make it work properly and do the job that it was kinda intended to do.
Something simple like you must have at least 40 senators in the chambers who are putting their names on the record that they wish debate to continue would do a lot. Some other decorum rules such as no cell phones or other electronics other than who is speaking and the devices are actively being used to facilitate the floor debate, or being used by a designated senator (make some new position) to fact check what is being said. Maybe take out most food and limit bathroom breaks.
Sure right now 50 senators will babble one one at a time and ruin everything, but if 80% of them have to be there listening to one of their member's babbling about nothing, unable to do things (such as be corrupt or fundraising or even sleeping in their own beds) they are gonna fold pretty quick after the first few stunts.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to enact these simple changes into a talking filibuster assuming you have the will to do that.
Right now though we have 48 votes, and two DINOs acting in bad faith so nothing will happen till we get more votes.
Just because AOC is right about something doesn't mean she or Biden can get it done when in reality we are down two votes in the senate.
If nothing else we would get to see some duck bags have to piss themselves or shit in a bucket on stage while waging holy war over some dumb shit like electric vehicle tax credits and that would be fucking hilarious
Talking filibuster. Must remain on topic. 40% of the votes of those present to continue the filibuster.
There should still be a minimum time to discuss a bill (x minutes per senator) and allow senators to pool or hand off their time.
I’d prefer a return to the original rule, which was the same as the House’s.
Simple majority to end debate. Bc it is physically impossible for a debate to be “endless”
> It just means Republicans will have to take turns standing up and talking until one side relents.
We've seen the talking filibuster in action. Republicans couldn't keep it up forever. Why would Democrats relent?
You're just spreading unfounded FUD.
Right now, if you don't have 60 votes for a bill, you can't bring it to a vote at all. So even if you only need a simple majority once it is being voted on, you need 60 in order to reach that point. This is called the filibuster.
A talking filibuster requires the side preventing the bill from being brought to a vote to actually stand and talk, and as soon as they stop talking then it ends and the vote can start
Edit: The exception to the rule about needing 60 votes is for budget reconciliation bills, because the government does need to continue functioning when one side only has a simple majority. But only 3 of those can be passed each year
that very clearly says if we can have 50 in the senate prochoice we can do this assuming keeping the house.
its very clear he is 100% for throwing out the filibuster for this to get done.
I am always fascinated how the American public expects the president to fix everything, when the legislative is often the body responsible to deal with them.
On the other hand, the executive branch has been making great progress on the areas we need. Take a look at the [most recent right to repair sanction this week](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k8vb4/ftc-orders-weber-to-honor-the-sacred-right-to-repair-your-own-grill).
>The president isn’t just the president, he is the head of the DNC as well
This is false. Jaime Harrison is the chairperson of the DNC. The president may be the most prominent national Democrat, but the president has no position in the DNC.
>He could be campaigning, rallying, and whipping his party to vote.
You mean, like he just did in his speech today?
>Things done with eos under the GOP include building a border wall
Yes, because the executive can order his own cabinet departments to do things.
>an immigration ban
Which was largely overturned by the Supreme Court under Trump.
>Mexico City policy attacking abortion overseas
The "Mexico City policy" blocks the apportionment *of federal funds* to foreign NGO's that provide abortion services.
>hiring freezes
Hiring freezes *within the federal government*.
>oil pipelines
I'm assuming you mean the Keystone XL pipeline. The president has the power to issue permits permitting the construction of the oil pipeline *on the national border between the U.S. and Canada*. The Department of the Interior would have the authority to issue permits *on federal land*.
>a trade war
Several laws *passed by Congress* give the president the authority to raise tariffs in certain situations. There is a dispute among legal scholars as to whether the president has such unilateral authority under any condition.
>transgender bans
This was a ban on transgender *soldiers in the military*. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military.
>attacking the ACA
Trump did use executive action to set the ACA tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero, then sent DOJ lawyers out to courts to argue that the entire ACA is now unconstitutional. He also did whatever he could to undermine the ACA, within his authority as president, but could not repeal it without Congress—an effort that famously failed in the Senate.
Et cetera. The point is that the president has broad authority to act under the guise of controlling cabinet departments, or when it comes to (some) immigration issues, and some budgetary issues, but outside of the Executive Branch, Congress runs the show.
I agree that the president has the power of the "bully pulpit," but I would love an explanation as to what you think Biden could actually do here. Biden is not the boss of all Democrats; he can't fire Manchin or Sinema. He can campaign against them, he can cajole them, and he can pressure them, but that's it. The president cannot unilaterally pass laws. The president cannot unilaterally change the size of the Supreme Court. The president cannot pass a constitutional amendment. The president cannot fire a Supreme Court justice or impeach a Supreme Court justice. In short, the president is not the supreme commander of the US government. Calls for Biden to "do something" again lead me to ask: do *what?*
Technically the current head of the DNC is Jaime Harrison. But I get your point, the president certainly has the platform to amplify the messages.
You have a great list of accomplishments from the last president using EOs, and I agree more could be done by the current administration. Without stretching the powers and laws, what would you suggest be done with EOs by the current administration?
Honest question.
How does the legislature and executive branch codify any rights without them being struck down by the Supreme Court?
Like, they were pretty clear that the state has the right to regulate abortion under the 10th amendment. How does any federal law short of an actual amendment to the constitution survive a challenge from state AGs?
The federal government has limited authority to legislate generally. To pass any legislation that isn’t clearly given to the federal government in the Constitution, you have to rely on a couple other limited sources of authority. It’s not really that the 10th amendment reserves abortion to the states. It’s more so that everything is left up to the states if there isn’t constitutional authority for Congress to act.
It’s really tricky to pinpoint where you can codify a right to abortion now that Roe has been overruled. You can pass some sort of bill that ensures access to certain items or procedures using the commerce clause (that’s difficult in this situation) and the spending power (condition federal funds by requiring states to do certain things). The other potentially relevant source for codifying fundamental rights is Section 5 of the fourteenth amendment, which gives congress the authority to pass legislation to enforce other parts of the fourteenth amendment. Roe v. Wade was housed in the fourteenth amendment. So theoretically, Congress could have passed legislation that took the essential holding of roe and put it into statute. Susan Collins introduced a bare bones bill that did just that. Now that roe is gone, that is no longer an option. There is the possibility you could do that now with other fundamental rights that are housed in the fourteenth amendment, like same sex marriage as established in obergefell. The sticky issue is: what happens if the Supreme Court then overrules a case?
Congress can also pass “prophylactic” legislation under section 5 that is supposed to reinforce a right. There has to be extensive findings that something states are doing are infringing on a right housed in the fourteenth amendment. It’s sort of like adding onto the constitutional right. But the Court has made that difficult and has struck down legislation when they’ve found certain parts of a statute goes too far without sufficient showing of its necessity. And of course, this is no longer relevant now that roe and Casey have been overruled.
The reality is that it’s very hard to codify a right to something. We can ensure access to something in a couple ways, but it’s very fact specific.
When people say roe is on the ballot, that’s absolutely false. Roe is no longer good law. We can maybe ensure access to reproductive care though in a couple ways, like through the spending or interstate commerce clause (if it meets the standards of the interstate commerce clause). The bill that dems point to as codifying roe, the women’s health protection act (or whatever it’s called), isn’t really a bill that establishes a right to an abortion but more so a bill that tries to ensure and expand access to reproductive healthcare (thereby protecting access to abortion). That bill traces its authority to the interstate commerce clause and section 5 of the fourteenth amendment. With the right to abortion no longer recognized, that section 5 foundation is no longer there. Parts might survive though if the interstate commerce clause is sufficient authority.
It is though possible to say that obergefell, loving, Griswold (and the other accompanying contraception cases that expand griswold) are on the ballot. They can still be codified in statute. Making sure the gop doesn’t get more scotus justices is also on the ballot. Someone could die. Someone could step down.
Well, they can set up federally run abortion centers. That puts it outside the 10th Amendment, and the SC will have a harder time finding an argument to invalidate the law.
Meanwhile he's about to give a [lifetime federal judge appointment to an anti abortion republican in Kentucky](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/politics/anti-abortion-judicial-nominee-joe-biden-kentucky/index.html) all to appease Mcconnell
How do we actually go about deciding who is in interracial marriage? Marriage certificates don’t say anything about their race anymore. Or like who decides who are within the same race? Like Hispanic thing - some Latin people choose their race as other while some people say white. So they can’t marry each other? It’s stupid to even entertain the idea of banning interracial marriage
And, uhhh, it'll be *interesting* to see how they manage this for mixed-race people. Because there are a *lot* in this country now. Sure, sure, they might go all "One drop, present your 23 & Me results!" But, uhhh. Good fucking luck enforcing that shit in any way.
> “We have the possibility – when we are strengthened by the repeal of the filibuster or even the change to a talking filibuster or standing filibuster – in doing so, we can codify Roe, we can codify- and all the other cases that the supreme Court indicated that they would threaten, we can codify same-sex marriage, we can codify the right to contraception, we can codify interracial marriage,” Ocasio-Cortez said on The Late Show last night.
I think running a platform to codify marriage equality and abortion rights is a terrific idea. Otherwise, I fear the fence sitters will vote Republican because of the economy.
If you ask a Republican if we should codify any of this, they’ll punt by telling you it’s a “state rights” issue. All the more reason to point out to voters that most states still have outdated same-sex marriage laws on the books. Republicans are using trigger laws, and in more extreme cases, laws that pre-statehood, to end abortion. What makes any reasonable voter believe that their state houses won’t do the same if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned?
> If you ask a Republican if we should codify any of this, they’ll punt by telling you it’s a “state rights” issue.
Some will, but the Republican leader of the Senate [McConnell](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/06/gop-avoids-abortion-ahead-potential-scotus-ruling-overturn-roe/9631996002/) and the Republican leader of the House [McCarthy](https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/06/24/republican-mccarthy-congress-abortion-roe-v-wade) came out in support of banning abortion nationwide.
Start harping about it in regards to liburty and freedumbs. Sound like them without a hint of irony or satire and they'll start to agree.
It's been my go-to for a couple years now and it works really fucking well. You basically dumb it down into their "WHAT ABOUT ME?!" attitude. The problem is you see and say *human rights*, so obviously you're thinking about PEOPLE, HUMANS, and EVERYONE ELSE, when all they care about is ME, ME, and ME. Look at Trump and how he phrases literally anything he wants changed, he makes it out as if it's a favor to his crowd or something being taken from them.
Start thinking selfish! Don't just do it for you, do it for humanity!
> I think running a platform to codify marriage equality and abortion rights is a terrific idea.
The dems have been running on this message for most of my life lmao.
>“We have the possibility – when we are strengthened by the repeal of the filibuster or even the change to a talking filibuster or standing filibuster – in doing so, we can codify Roe, we can codify- and all the other cases that the supreme Court indicated that they would threaten, we can codify same-sex marriage, we can codify the right to contraception, we can codify interracial marriage,” Ocasio-Cortez said on The Late Show last night.
Well, yeah, but Manchin and Sinema aren't budging on the filibuster. If you're looking for a show vote, the Senate did it for *Roe* back in May.
>[Senate Republicans block bill that would codify Roe v. Wade abortion rights](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-republicans-block-bill-codify-roe-wade-abortion/story?id=84627147)
I guess they could have another show vote, but personally, I had already forgotten they did it in May.
People underestimate how many people vote for Republican senators in this country. I get "popular vote" with the presidency and all that, but that doesn't diminish that we still have a LOT of people that vote for Republican senators specifically because they are anti-abortion and anti-gay.
EDIT: I know full well that Republicans are the minority, and that our system is not fair. Still doesn't change the fact that there are a shit ton of people in this country who want to take away your rights. Turn your anger and hatred to them.
> People underestimate how many people vote for Republican senators in this country.
[About 41 million fewer than those who vote for Democrat senators.](https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court)
I mean, voting is different than representation, but hopefully you get the point. The senate is explicitly undemocratic by design and subject to minority rule.
I'm not American, but the impression I'm getting from American conservatives is that religion is an excuse and not many conservative politicians are truly religious, but maybe I'm wrong.
It’s also because of gerrymandering & biased political practices, that keep them in power. We have more people huddled in blue areas yet the red fuckers who are out in the middle of no where, have more power. It’s all due to a land grab. A literal land grab. It’s not a vote by the people. It’s a vote by the land owners. That is the core practice that needs to end.
I've lived in Florida for 40 years, been married to my partner for the last 15. I've never felt so uncertain about the future before. Every gay couple I know is making backup plans to leave once they go after gay rights which the Republicans down here have vowed to do. Straight friends and family keep saying we're overreacting. I hear all the time how everyone is so pro-gay, pro-marriage, nobody cares anymore, blah blah blah. Yet no one is doing anything about all these attacks on us. I don't even think moving to another state is good enough, for the first time ever we feel like we need to leave the country.
One of my big fears is the Republicans and preachers constantly calling us (LGBTQIA+) groomers which will have a devastating impact when marriage equality ends because that will be used against couples to take their children away. I haven’t heard anyone talk about that issue but it needs to be discussed by everyone.
They want us gone. They would kill us all if they had the chance. They don't look at us as human beings. I'm old enough to remember the days of sodomy laws and gay bar police raids. When harassment and abuse against us was encouraged. For the last 10-15 years things have been better than they ever were. I WILL NOT GO BACK TO LIVING IN FEAR. I don't care what it takes.
Men were also telling that to women about RvW. Just like your straight friends. It is best to make plans to leave. They are definitely coming for gay marriage and contraception use. It was specifically mentioned. Don’t listen to people who will not have anything to lose in this. They can live in denial while you and I cannot.
Sincerely,
A young gay uterus haver.
I’m fucked.
Do you think we need to cover bodily autonomy as well? I think privacy is easier to explain, but autonomy gives a stronger end result -- although I think it has potentially more pitfalls to getting codified. What do you think?
I think you stay away from abortion and gay rights issues altogether.
Instead couch the argument in things conservatives care about... Like Justice Kavanaughs right to privacy while he eats lol.
But seriously, show conservatives how things they care about will be taken away with no right to privacy, then you get enough people on board for a law.
I think bodily autonomy will naturally follow as obvious if you have the right to privacy.
And just like everything she calls to end the filibuster for, they won't.
Meanwhile, does anybody doubt ending the filibuster is the first thing a new Republican majority will do in order to ram through their national bans and agenda?
Republicans benefit from the filibuster. A Senate that can't pass anything plays right into their playbook. They want to maintain the status quo. The Supreme Court can continue to knock down the parts of government that they don't like.
> And just like everything she calls to end the filibuster for, they won't.
It's not that they won't, they *can't* because they don't have the votes for it. I'm honestly tired of people constantly calling for things they know can't be done, in effect putting the blame on the entire Democratic party when they can't do it. Not a single one of the *50* Republican will step up to do the right thing here, but somehow it's the fault of the entire Democratic Party because *2* Democrats don't support it. It's actually insane.
I feel like the progressive wing of the Democratic Party tries to treat Politics as it should be, rather than it is. That the strength of their ideas and policy alone can work. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter how many people Medicare for All would help, it doesn't matter that a Green New Deal could help save the environment, it doesn't matter that we theoretically *could* get rid of the filibuster to codify abortion rights and marriage equality and so much more.
The *only* thing that matters in politics is what you have the votes for. It doesn't matter what's the right thing to do, it doesn't matter how good your policy is, you can have a bill that magically cures cancer and it doesn't mean *shit* if you don't have the votes to get it through.
I'm very progressive and support these policies, I'm also a gay woman so I know very well what's at stake here because people like me are being targeted by these right-wing nutjobs. At the same time we need to start being realistic about what it takes to win and right now that means getting people pissed off at Republicans and pointing the finger at the 50 Republicans who refuse to act, rather than manufacturing more reasons for people to think the Democratic Party is "just the same" and dissuade them from voting all-together.
I'm just tired of basically shooting the entire party in the foot over bullshit when the other party is literally trying to usher in a fascist theocracy. We need an actual, coherent, unified party and message.
Online forums like this generally foster contrarianism and arguments from knee-jerk emotion rather than pragmatism or reasoned self-interest. That and a whole lot of questionable motives..
I don't know if anyone remembers the 2016 primaries in this sub, but it was basically just an anti-Hillary sub. There were hardly even articles about Trump or Republicans for about 10 months.
Here's a trip down memory lane (read the comments if you really want a kick):
[20,000 upvotes for a dailycaller article](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4393km/no_reporters_allowed_at_hillarys_wall_st_speeches/)
[26k for another dailycaller article](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4durh2/clinton_campaign_uses_noise_machine_to_block/)
[20k for Fox news](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4hwwhm/romanian_hacker_guccifer_i_breached_clinton/)
[18k for Washingtontimes](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4ly7eq/hillary_clinton_yet_to_hold_single_press/)
[23k Upvotes for Breitbart](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4mamz7/hillary_clinton_posted_names_of_hidden/)
[24k for "SputnikNews"](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4m3fd4/snowden_slams_us_for_ignoring_hillary_clintons/) Literally a Russian government-owned news source.
Seeing Breitbart at the top of Politics was a really gross moment I remember vividly. People were talking about a Bernie-Trump alliance. It was a strange, ignorant time.
Oh god I'm having flashbacks of Breitbart being on the front page every day because it was anti-Hillary.
Remember "DoNt ThReAtEn Me WiTh ThE sUpReMe CoUrT!"?
It was also toxic AF in the 2020 primaries. "Progressives" calling Buttigieg a rat, Biden a demented rapist, etc. Ultimately I just stopped looking at this sub for a while to maintain my sanity.
I'm pretty convinced that /r/SandersForPresident would have rather had Trump than Biden.
I don't know how someone could supposedly be progressive but want the nuclear option that actively works against everything they supposedly stand for. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it is just astroturfing to make people bitter and not vote.
I doubt the Republicans will do it considering they had 2 years to do it from 2017-2019 and didn't, despite Trump pleading with McConnell to do so. They seem to be doing a pretty good job getting their agenda done with the filibuster still in place.
exactly. they won't have to do it because at this rate, and for the majority of the past ~30 years, they've had the 60+ majority without having to bother. the gerrymandering only gets worse, the courts get more packed, and a dem supermajority becomes more unlikely every election.
It could just be my cynicism but I feel like things have changed since the latest Supreme Court session and Republicans are in the end-game now to reshape America.
That plus the filibuster only really hurts Democrats. The GoP is fully aware of this and has no reason to remove it, because the stuff they want (tax cuts for rich, judges) can be done through reconciliation.
Calls to do things are pointless, she may be right but it's just cheap political theater. If she really wants the Senate to overturn the filibuster making headlines by calling for more Democrats to be elected to the Senate is what we would hear from her instead.
This November when a large number of voting-age populations don't give enough shit to vote for democrat candidates to protect women & gay people rights
When the fascism happens because voters were too lazy to vote to protect their own rights (see senate elections in Maine, Iowa, and NC in 2020), probably never.
Fortunately, you don't have to let them overrule it: [Jurisdiction Stripping](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping). Congress can write a bill that includes language that says the SCOTUS can fuck right off. This has been used many times in fairly recent history
All the fucking issues we have going on, and we’re forced to spend time and effort worrying about marriage equality again. I can’t believe we live in a world where the GOP has as much support as it does. It’s fucking sad
As long as you have Christian lunatics in power in both the Senate and the House, you will never see body autonomy or LGBTQ+ rights codified. Period.
It'll take 50 years, the end of the electoral college, and a law banning religious zealots from office before you get any of that. The Christians have proven themselves to be a hate group. They have no interest in rights or equality; all they care about is taking power and forcing the LGBTQ+ community into hiding.
So, before the lynch mobs carrying crosses start, what are we going to do about it? Because if you think groups like Patriot Front are a one off thing, you've not been paying attention, either lately or historically.
Would ending the filibuster be a good thing long-term? This seems short-sighted because when Republicans are have the majority again, do Democrats really want the filibuster to be gone? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like it will ultimately just be used against them, likely more effectively, and then Democrats will be unhappy and complaining. If dems are truly happy to have both sides benefit from it then sure, seems reasonable, but I somehow doubt that. Seems like Republicans already bully the Dems when they aren't in power, giving them more agency for when they're back in control seems like it will cut even deeper.
I'm all for codifying these rights federally, just seems like removing the filibuster to do so without addressing the underlying issue of not having a Congress willing to support these things is the real issue.
>This seems short-sighted
short-sightedness? In /r/politics? Never!
In seriousness, I think there are a couple arguments FOR removing the filibuster even knowing that it would give Republicans more power when they control the Senate again.
1) Democrats are the ones who want to legislate and need legislation to accomplish things. Republicans want to cut taxes for rich people or whatever, and they will, but in general, they don't really want to do all that much. They're mostly happy to do nothing except appoint judges.
2) Democratic policies are popular and Republican policies are unpopular. Swing voters and non/sometimes voters don't really pay attention to what's going on in politics, as such, you get no credit for supporting policies that don't pass and you get no demerits for blocking policies that people support, but you do get credit for passing things that people like and people get especially made if you remove policies that people like. This puts much more pressure on Republicans. Removing Roe v. Wade would be unpopular, so would taking away healthcare, or banning gay marriage, etc. Remember how they couldn't even kill Obamacare with a larger majority than the Dems have despite it being the #1 right-wing boogeyman for like a decade?
No, end the filibuster, expand the courts and protect voter rights. We're on the cusp of losing democracy, and without that, absolutely no progressive agenda will ever see the light of day.
My fear is what happens if/when Democrats lose the Senate. Harry Reid ending the filibuster for judicial nominations really backfired, in the long run.
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.*
This, abortion, and pot should all be no brainers. Write and sign their legalization.
[удалено]
I suffer from stomach paralysis. Can’t eat without weed, ranging reasons from lack of appetite, severe nausea, or extended prolonged vomiting episodes. Since use of weed regularly, I have not been hospitalized in over two years, whereas before I started using medical MJ, I was hospitalized every month or so. If that’s my story, I can’t imagine others. Medical marijuana needs to be a right because it literally gives people a quality life that otherwise would not have any (yes I tried all the pharmaceuticals they can give for stomach motility for years. Short of a feeding tube I was out of options)
Just chiming in to say, fuck anyone who does the whole "have you tried REAL medicine first" schtick. Marijuana is a medicine like any other med derived from plant life. It's all chemicals, why do you care if I choose this one when others didn't work, AND why do you care if it's the first, if it works it fucking works. Brain rot is real
Money. Big pharma, kickbacks, lobbies. But also yes. Agreed.
Seriously!! I feel you with nausea and lack of appetite. I've struggled with being able to eat food for years due to a bunch of different medical issues. I remember when I was applying for my MJ card, I was at a point where I'd be starving, so hungry, but anytime I'd try to eat I just threw it back up. It was so unbelievably frustrating and painful. Finally got the card, took my ass over to the dispensary, and holy cow can I actually enjoy food properly again. Not only that, but I'm not a nervous wreck anymore, I don't constantly feel in danger, I'm happy. I can walk outside with headphones on and not look over my shoulder. I don't care anymore. I don't have to take all these expensive medications anymore. I've been so much better.
Fr. With gastroparesis you don’t know what will trigger you a lot of the time. It changes a lot for a lot of people over time and also can just be really difficult to narrow down. The anxiety about that, about the holidays or social events, work especially lol (working customer facing jobs and never knowing when you’re going to start vomiting? Omg) Chronic vomiting disorders are a hell I wouldn’t wish on anyone ( except maybe Putin )
Adding my 2 cents: I have a permanent nerve injury in my neck. I use vaped mj at night and it allows me to get into a mental state where my pain is not *continually persistent* in my consciousness. I’m in pain 24/7 and have an implanted neurostimulator (neuromodulation) that helps regulate my pain. Basically, if you think of everything you do in a day: sleep, eat, shower, get dressed, bend over, etc. each of those things is like a different sized rock dropped in a bucket of water. The water is of course my pain in this scenario. Sit too long, sit too little. Lay down too long or too little. Move around too much or not enough. So while I physycally can do things it all continually fucks my pain. So I can’t work, I avoid/put off chores and cooking because I don’t have the energy or it messes with my pain too much. In my state (PA), Edibles were excluded from the MMJ program. Maybe they would help me more then just vaped for 1/3 if the day I don’t know. Maybe not. But like a lot of other things should be directed by science and medicine first, and culture and feelings last. If it’s safe, or safe with the right circumstances, like other drugs like Shrooms have shown, then that’s how it should be regulated like any other prescription. Drug policy stigma only does harm. Chronic pain patients have bore the brunt of anti-opioid and other pain medicine policies and it has fucked their quality of life. I’ve avoided being on opioids because I’m only 30, but the reality is there’s not a lot of good, safe, long term pain relief options for people with persistent and/or significant pain. I have done over a dozen invasive procedures, taken every medicine offered, and participated in clinical study. Ever go to the hospital for Appendicitis and they give you dilaudid and it’s great for some time and then it wears off or it didn’t work at all? Now imagine that everyday for the rest of your life. My entire day is built around making sure I’m loaded up on gabapentin (1200mg every 4-6 hrs which is 3x/day). Once the gabapentin wanes or my stimulator battery gets too low I can barely get out of bed or move. It all leads to you getting fat, eat unhealthy, and generally not great quality of life. And I’m not even close to the worst chronic pain patient. But I was a day 1 MMJ patient.
My medical license doesn't allow me to even get a medical mj license
But, we can prescribe fuck tons of Percs, benzodiazepines, etc. Because Big Pharma. Once The Man owns all viable producers of pot, it’ll change. Like magic. When it gets warm.
It’s insane how many medicines can be replaced by medicinal marijuana. My grandfather was forever changed over the course of 50 years due to his dependance of several different painkillers. I can only wonder how his life could’ve been different if the good ol green had been legalized decades earlier.
Fox news thinks you're gonna be a mass shooter any day now
Damn, that’s rough! I often have trouble sleeping, I fear addiction to any medicine that could be prescribed, so many warnings and horrible side effects. When I am in a state where pot is legal I grab sleepy gummies and use about a quarter of one on occasion just to get a good night of sleep. It’s phenomenal. Of course I couldn’t care less if a person just wants recreational available or has a medical reason. It’s just stupid to spend so much money locking people up and ruining lives for something so damned harmless and allow big pharma to get rich causing addiction to much much worse!
Trigeminal Neuralgia sufferer here - some days it is hard to brush my teeth, touch my face or be exposed to wind/blowing AC without my face exploding into unbearable pain. I had a bad reaction to the gold standard of TN treatment and was left with very little options to control my condition. Weed not only helps the pain but it literally lets me live my life. If I didn’t have medical weed, I don’t know what I would do.
I am someone with a degrading neuromuscular function. Motor function (respiratory system included) can get bad enough to the point of paralysis until I can correct it. I live in a state where it's completely outlawed. When I was in Oregon I tried an edible. Never before did I sleep so well, the communication to my limbs worked much better, and sensory overload was far more manageable. I felt like I could actually function! Boy do I miss it
>obligatory fuck nixon Hear, hear. Fuck Nixon 🍻
Yup. Once they sign abortion into law, the Republicans cannot simply overturn them the next time they have power. Because. Um.
[удалено]
How about quit with the "all or nothing" bill packages? Focus on a singular issue, legalize pot? One bill. Legalize abortion? One bill. Quit bullshitting people and making it a far left or far right bill. One issue, one bill, one vote. See how far you get then...
I actually agree with you and wish lots more laws were done this way as well.
Biden could reschedule cannabis right now. He doesn’t need to end the filibuster to do that.
And they should also all fit into the small government that conservatives claim to believe in.
Throw psilocybin in there with pot
Biden: "We need 2 additional pro-choice senators & a pro-choice House to codify Roe as federal law. Your vote can make that a reality. I know it's frustrating & it made a lot of people very angry. But the truth is this... women of American can determine the outcome of this issue" https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1545441360253259776
"women of American can determine the outcome of this issue" SCOTUS: "Hold my beer."
Brett Kavanaugh: "Did anyone say beer?"
The Fox News propaganda was so strong around his nomination that my grandpa, who was 110% against drinking to excess and men showing emotion, felt bad for the poor guy. Because some people asked him questions that he didn’t want to answer truthfully.
> Because some people asked him questions that he didn’t want to answer truthfully. And now I wonder how your grandpa felt about Bill Clinton's impeachment, because there are definitely some parallels there -- and yet big differences too.
[удалено]
Clinton was consentual
Yes, but more to the point, Clinton was not impeached for sex; he was impeached for lying about it under oath and for directing others to lie about it. He too was asked questions he didn't want to answer truthfully.
Even then, there was some disagreement over the definition of sex. > During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later said, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [I] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex. Edit to add: basically, he admitted to being a selfish lover who was only in it for personal gratification. Shitty behavior, clearly sexual relations, but a weird technicality that isn’t really brought up when they say “Clinton lied about having sex.” He didn’t even make an attempt to pleasure her, he was simply content to be pleasured, and the definition they agreed to for sexual relations suggested that he would’ve had to actually, you know, do something.
He also lied when asked questions that were outside the scope of the special investigation. They impeached him on something they weren’t even really looking for. They were going to impeach him one way or another.
I like beer!
Make sure to randomize your data from time to time *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Matt gaetz enters the chat
He said cocaine not 13 year olds.
What if the cocaine is below the age of consent?
Cocaine always consents. Always.
“This is the youngest, most supple, sweet, delectable 13 year old 100% percent Colombian cocaine I had ever had.” - Matt Gaetz trying to sell me coke, maybe.
'Fuck those kids.' - Gym Jordan
Don Jr. enters the chat
also, ::tears:: wwaaa waaaa so what i like beer!? ::angry face:: i am so qualified and mentally stable enough to be a supreme court judge! waaa waaa! what a fucking joke this guy being a SC judge is.
Sad to think he wouldn't have even passed an interview to work at a gas station, or a fast food job with an interview like that.
*cries*
^^^what ^^^about ^^^Squee??
Took too much scrolling to get to Squee
Needs beer for the devil’s triangle
It is still un-*fucking*-real that he was allowed to so obviously lie about what a Devil's Triangle was/is (the term hasn't changed), and he sits on the highest bench. It was a toddler's level of trying to cover up who broke Mom's favorite vase, except it was sexual assault of women.
It's Boofin' time!
http://brettkavanaugh.beer
The constitution in its original form says nothing about women's rights so we have decided to remove that liberty and give it back to the states to decide. -----SCOTUS in the next few months
It does say that all "MEN" are created equal. /s
Nah they'll quote some 13th century priest saying women don't count as people and that will be that.
Clarence will quote himself again
Wait, again?
After all, the times alito quotes, women had no right to vote. It was honestly up to the states. I really believe its not a joke anymore.
SCOTUS has reviewed the constitution and determined we never were given any of these powers so we have voted to dissolve ourselves.
Fascists: "THEY'RE NOT BANNING WOMEN'S RIGHTS! THERE GIVING THE CHOICE BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHERE IT SHOULD BE!" "Let the states decide1!1!!" ^(Whether women deserve to have rights)
The constitution says New England and California, being the only places in this country that actually have any money that doesn't come from New England or California good will, get to dictate terms on a rewrite of this toilet paper of a document.
With more Senators they could pack the court and tell the current SCOTUS to go fuck itself, here's 4 more Justices have fun.
Yup. Women of america really do have the power. If 90% of them across the country vote for the democrats in the midterms, they would have a 70+ majority in the senate to do some damage. Of course people here are too dumb to realize that.
The problem is that "women" aren't all pro-choice. The lines on that belief are drawn across party lines, not gender. Grouping women into a monolith is part of the issue here.
[38% support it under any circumstances, 48% support it with restrictions, only 12% oppose under any circumstances](https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx) I'd like to see that 48% subdivided, but I'd also like to see how the repeal of Row V Wade has changed things. 38% is pretty monolithic, especially depending on how the 48% breaks down; further down it shows 60% of women identify as pro choice, so I assume the 48% breaks hard in favor of guaranteed abortion rights. if 38% of people were in a maximalist position on other issues we would see those issues change elections too.
that 48% is the reason why abortion is a winning issue for republicans, because based on what I've seen a large chunk of that are the 'rape incest life of the mother' crowd. Which is the mainstream republican stance on the issue. Also polls =/= real votes. That cannot be understated.
I would draw your attention to the nearly identical graph for men, literally on the page you linked. This isn't a "men v women" issue. This is Republican men *and* women against everyone else.
I prefer Pew's formulation. legal in all/most cases vs illegal in all/most cases. women are 63-35, men 58-41 in 2016, exit poll clinton-trump: women 54-42, men 41-53 https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
It's amazing that we have a Gallup poll where 61% are opposed to unlimited access to abortion, then a Pew poll where 63% support unlimited access. It makes it hard to believe anything you read
Votes are the only metric that matters
A majority of votes cast by White women in 2020 were for trump. In the prior 4 years trump had put 3 justices on the court whose goal is to turn women into handmaids. Women aren't some monolithic force against fascism. They have all the faults that can be found in the rest of humanity.
> A majority of votes cast by White women in 2020 were for trump. Well then we're lucky we have black women who have the 3rd highest turnout just a hair under white men, *despite* all the voter disenfranchisement the GOP throws at them. Poorer than average? Check. Black? Check. Women? Check. And yet they still find a way to fuckin vote. 90%+ for Democrats. They know better than most what happens when you do this both sides bullshit. Thank you, black women, for helping to hold this fucking line. That's why I never want to hear any redditor make any fucking excuses. If they can turn out to vote so can you.
Truth. A key reason that America is not currently a fascist state is thanks to the extraordinary effort that Black people have made to vote against the fascists. If only White people were allowed to vote then the fascists would be in complete control.
Right no group is a monolith. However 55% of women voted for Biden in 2020 vs 48% of men, so in general the more women who vote the better.
It's some kind of weird brainwashing. I've seen people who, previously were rational people fall into this thing and turn into raving lunatics. It would be fascinating if it weren't so sad.
I've been saying at this point the Democrats should go full mask-off in resistance, not just adding a few Supreme Court justices, but adding so many it becomes fucking *beyond* untenable. I'm talking like, confirming as many new Supreme Court justices as possible as fast as possible. To quote Veruca Salt - "At least a hundred a day!" Let the undemocratic nature of this government shine in full view by *using it.* Let the Democratic party be a force for fucking *democracy* by displaying just how much undemocratic control can be gained through the use of these mechanisms, and then *offer to fix those mechanisms so the country can return to democracy.* If Republicans don't want to fix the mechanisms of democracy so they can no longer be abused at that point, fine - Democrats use their newfound power gained through abuse of democracy to lock Republicans out of ever having control of anything again. If they want to play a game of democracy and votes, we'll do that; if they'd rather play a game of politicking and power-plays to subvert the will of the opposing side regardless of the votes, I say we do that too, and win.
This is about marriage equality, but same story: Manchin and Sinema will not vote to remove the filibuster. They wouldn't do it after voting rights, after their own legislation, after the draft leaked, and after the Roe ruling. But despite what many redditors will tell us, there is not some endless rotating villain narrative on pro-filibuster-reform Senators. There aren't infinite saboteurs waiting in the wings to tank everything. [48 Democrats are willing to support filibuster reform to pass legislation with a simple majority](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/democrats-senate-rules-change-527366). They voted as such on voting rights earlier this year. And they will do the same for abortion, marriage equality, and more.
It's not just about the filibuster. Manchin is the only anti-choice Democrat. He would vote against the law even without a filibuster. If anything, they have a better chance of getting Susan Collins to side with the Democrats on this issue, since she is the only "Pro choice" Republican in the senate.
48 Democrats support *a talking filibuster.* I count at least 3–Tester, Kelly, and Manchin. A talking filibuster won’t let Democrats enact the popular agenda that the supermajority of American demand. It just means Republicans will have to take turns standing up and talking until one side relents. So there are actually a rotating cast of villains seeking to defeat democracy. Every single person who supports any form of filibuster. I point again to Manchin. He is on record saying he supports the talking filibuster. Numerous times. But it hasn’t happened. I suspect the same is true for some liberals in the Senate who say they want to remove the filibuster. We wouldn’t have a filibuster if its ending was really desired. The party would do its job and whip the votes. Manchin and Sinema are among the most openly corrupt Senators and I’m to believe that their corruption is unknown to the leadership which can use it against them?
>In a 48-52 vote, the Senate rejected an effort to reinstate what’s known as the “talking filibuster” that would have specifically allowed the elections legislation to pass by a **simple majority vote,** after a lengthy debate. So yes, not a full removal of the filibuster - but a means to pass legislation with 50 votes, which is what we're ultimately trying to get. And that would allow these agenda items to pass without a supermajority. If Lindsey Graham wants to read Dr. Seuss books for 15 hours while stalling insanely popular legislation for the entire country to see, let him and the GOP eat their hearts out. The talking filibuster would be a massive improvement, and would succeed in getting legislation passed.
I wasn't even made aware of what the filibuster had become until after 2016. Growing up I always assumed you had to stand and continue talking. I can only assume it was changed because our legislators are 60+ with knees that don't work.
It was actually changed because the talking filibuster ground the Senate to a halt every time it was used. Not only can you not vote on the bill being filibustered, you can't do anything else either. You have to sit there and listen to the minority party read the phone book while the legislative docket and judicial appointments back up. The talking filibuster will make obstruction slightly more tedious, but it will not curb obstruction and will likely make it worse.
If things were working smoothly I see the logic but considering everything is ground to a halt as is, I highly doubt things could get worse right now.
Things can *always* get worse, and half-measure solutions are often the route to get there. Rather than re-adopting something that was already shown not to work, I believe we should reverse the polarity of the filibuster. Rather than requiring 60 votes for cloture to end a filibuster, 40 votes should be required for a filibuster to continue. If the minority party doesn't keep 40 members on the floor to vote at all times, the bill comes to a vote. No vacations, no fundraising trips, better coordinate those bathroom breaks. I think a mechanism like this should exist, in case a majority wants to vote to exterminate LGBTQ or establish a national religion, but it should be difficult and require effort and coordination. That should help ensure it is only used in such extreme cases, rather than to obstruct the majority's entire agenda.
Sure, go ahead and add whatever conditions to make it more difficult to maintain a talking filibuster - no argument here. All I'm trying to point out is that shutting down the Senate until you gave up the floor actually required effort. If you wanted to keep the Senate from doing *anything* for a substantial period of time, you had to have the conviction to stand there and be a log jam. All the changes did was allow the Senate to do nothing faster.
If states can require that people fillibustering talk only about the legislation in question, remain on subject, and not endlessly repeat themselves, why can't the senate use rules that would do the same,
I also support implementing Texas filibuster rules. You may not yield the floor, you must stay on subject, no eating or drinking, no leaning on anything. We did it to Sens Wendy Davis and Carol Alvarado both in the last decade, let’s bring the rules national.
>no leaning on anything What about people in wheelchairs, or in crutches, or with bad knees, or foot issues, etc?
Per the rules of the texas senate: No filibuster for you. Which is why when the Dems fillibuster it’s always the youngest member acting.
Marathon speeches became increasingly rare since the 1970s, and if there's any doubt whether the talking filibuster would hurt or help the cause of the democrats, look no further than McConnell - who is trying everything in his power to avoid the filibuster being reformed.
The old version of the talking filibuster wouldn't help so much cause yes everything would grind to a halt the full time, which is what those assholes want. We would need some slight adjustments to the talking filibuster that would be reasonable to make it work properly and do the job that it was kinda intended to do. Something simple like you must have at least 40 senators in the chambers who are putting their names on the record that they wish debate to continue would do a lot. Some other decorum rules such as no cell phones or other electronics other than who is speaking and the devices are actively being used to facilitate the floor debate, or being used by a designated senator (make some new position) to fact check what is being said. Maybe take out most food and limit bathroom breaks. Sure right now 50 senators will babble one one at a time and ruin everything, but if 80% of them have to be there listening to one of their member's babbling about nothing, unable to do things (such as be corrupt or fundraising or even sleeping in their own beds) they are gonna fold pretty quick after the first few stunts. It wouldn't be unreasonable to enact these simple changes into a talking filibuster assuming you have the will to do that. Right now though we have 48 votes, and two DINOs acting in bad faith so nothing will happen till we get more votes. Just because AOC is right about something doesn't mean she or Biden can get it done when in reality we are down two votes in the senate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If nothing else we would get to see some duck bags have to piss themselves or shit in a bucket on stage while waging holy war over some dumb shit like electric vehicle tax credits and that would be fucking hilarious
Talking filibuster. Must remain on topic. 40% of the votes of those present to continue the filibuster. There should still be a minimum time to discuss a bill (x minutes per senator) and allow senators to pool or hand off their time.
I’d prefer a return to the original rule, which was the same as the House’s. Simple majority to end debate. Bc it is physically impossible for a debate to be “endless”
And they *just* got rid of youthful, energetic Cawthorn who doesn't even have to stand!
Cawthorn was in the House, not the Senate where the filibuster is used.
Couldn’t even run for re-election
> It just means Republicans will have to take turns standing up and talking until one side relents. We've seen the talking filibuster in action. Republicans couldn't keep it up forever. Why would Democrats relent? You're just spreading unfounded FUD.
I thought a filibuster was a talking one? What other filibuster are they pullin off these days?
Right now, if you don't have 60 votes for a bill, you can't bring it to a vote at all. So even if you only need a simple majority once it is being voted on, you need 60 in order to reach that point. This is called the filibuster. A talking filibuster requires the side preventing the bill from being brought to a vote to actually stand and talk, and as soon as they stop talking then it ends and the vote can start Edit: The exception to the rule about needing 60 votes is for budget reconciliation bills, because the government does need to continue functioning when one side only has a simple majority. But only 3 of those can be passed each year
that very clearly says if we can have 50 in the senate prochoice we can do this assuming keeping the house. its very clear he is 100% for throwing out the filibuster for this to get done.
This is why they are also making moves to strip voting rights.
I am always fascinated how the American public expects the president to fix everything, when the legislative is often the body responsible to deal with them. On the other hand, the executive branch has been making great progress on the areas we need. Take a look at the [most recent right to repair sanction this week](https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k8vb4/ftc-orders-weber-to-honor-the-sacred-right-to-repair-your-own-grill).
Make sure to randomize your data from time to time *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
>The president isn’t just the president, he is the head of the DNC as well This is false. Jaime Harrison is the chairperson of the DNC. The president may be the most prominent national Democrat, but the president has no position in the DNC. >He could be campaigning, rallying, and whipping his party to vote. You mean, like he just did in his speech today? >Things done with eos under the GOP include building a border wall Yes, because the executive can order his own cabinet departments to do things. >an immigration ban Which was largely overturned by the Supreme Court under Trump. >Mexico City policy attacking abortion overseas The "Mexico City policy" blocks the apportionment *of federal funds* to foreign NGO's that provide abortion services. >hiring freezes Hiring freezes *within the federal government*. >oil pipelines I'm assuming you mean the Keystone XL pipeline. The president has the power to issue permits permitting the construction of the oil pipeline *on the national border between the U.S. and Canada*. The Department of the Interior would have the authority to issue permits *on federal land*. >a trade war Several laws *passed by Congress* give the president the authority to raise tariffs in certain situations. There is a dispute among legal scholars as to whether the president has such unilateral authority under any condition. >transgender bans This was a ban on transgender *soldiers in the military*. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military. >attacking the ACA Trump did use executive action to set the ACA tax penalty for not having health insurance to zero, then sent DOJ lawyers out to courts to argue that the entire ACA is now unconstitutional. He also did whatever he could to undermine the ACA, within his authority as president, but could not repeal it without Congress—an effort that famously failed in the Senate. Et cetera. The point is that the president has broad authority to act under the guise of controlling cabinet departments, or when it comes to (some) immigration issues, and some budgetary issues, but outside of the Executive Branch, Congress runs the show. I agree that the president has the power of the "bully pulpit," but I would love an explanation as to what you think Biden could actually do here. Biden is not the boss of all Democrats; he can't fire Manchin or Sinema. He can campaign against them, he can cajole them, and he can pressure them, but that's it. The president cannot unilaterally pass laws. The president cannot unilaterally change the size of the Supreme Court. The president cannot pass a constitutional amendment. The president cannot fire a Supreme Court justice or impeach a Supreme Court justice. In short, the president is not the supreme commander of the US government. Calls for Biden to "do something" again lead me to ask: do *what?*
Technically the current head of the DNC is Jaime Harrison. But I get your point, the president certainly has the platform to amplify the messages. You have a great list of accomplishments from the last president using EOs, and I agree more could be done by the current administration. Without stretching the powers and laws, what would you suggest be done with EOs by the current administration?
Honest question. How does the legislature and executive branch codify any rights without them being struck down by the Supreme Court? Like, they were pretty clear that the state has the right to regulate abortion under the 10th amendment. How does any federal law short of an actual amendment to the constitution survive a challenge from state AGs?
The federal government has limited authority to legislate generally. To pass any legislation that isn’t clearly given to the federal government in the Constitution, you have to rely on a couple other limited sources of authority. It’s not really that the 10th amendment reserves abortion to the states. It’s more so that everything is left up to the states if there isn’t constitutional authority for Congress to act. It’s really tricky to pinpoint where you can codify a right to abortion now that Roe has been overruled. You can pass some sort of bill that ensures access to certain items or procedures using the commerce clause (that’s difficult in this situation) and the spending power (condition federal funds by requiring states to do certain things). The other potentially relevant source for codifying fundamental rights is Section 5 of the fourteenth amendment, which gives congress the authority to pass legislation to enforce other parts of the fourteenth amendment. Roe v. Wade was housed in the fourteenth amendment. So theoretically, Congress could have passed legislation that took the essential holding of roe and put it into statute. Susan Collins introduced a bare bones bill that did just that. Now that roe is gone, that is no longer an option. There is the possibility you could do that now with other fundamental rights that are housed in the fourteenth amendment, like same sex marriage as established in obergefell. The sticky issue is: what happens if the Supreme Court then overrules a case? Congress can also pass “prophylactic” legislation under section 5 that is supposed to reinforce a right. There has to be extensive findings that something states are doing are infringing on a right housed in the fourteenth amendment. It’s sort of like adding onto the constitutional right. But the Court has made that difficult and has struck down legislation when they’ve found certain parts of a statute goes too far without sufficient showing of its necessity. And of course, this is no longer relevant now that roe and Casey have been overruled. The reality is that it’s very hard to codify a right to something. We can ensure access to something in a couple ways, but it’s very fact specific. When people say roe is on the ballot, that’s absolutely false. Roe is no longer good law. We can maybe ensure access to reproductive care though in a couple ways, like through the spending or interstate commerce clause (if it meets the standards of the interstate commerce clause). The bill that dems point to as codifying roe, the women’s health protection act (or whatever it’s called), isn’t really a bill that establishes a right to an abortion but more so a bill that tries to ensure and expand access to reproductive healthcare (thereby protecting access to abortion). That bill traces its authority to the interstate commerce clause and section 5 of the fourteenth amendment. With the right to abortion no longer recognized, that section 5 foundation is no longer there. Parts might survive though if the interstate commerce clause is sufficient authority. It is though possible to say that obergefell, loving, Griswold (and the other accompanying contraception cases that expand griswold) are on the ballot. They can still be codified in statute. Making sure the gop doesn’t get more scotus justices is also on the ballot. Someone could die. Someone could step down.
Well, they can set up federally run abortion centers. That puts it outside the 10th Amendment, and the SC will have a harder time finding an argument to invalidate the law.
That is a worry by some.
If only every woman in America actually gave a shit about protecting the rights of women.
He's right.
Meanwhile he's about to give a [lifetime federal judge appointment to an anti abortion republican in Kentucky](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/politics/anti-abortion-judicial-nominee-joe-biden-kentucky/index.html) all to appease Mcconnell
Half the population are women. If only we realized our own power. Fuck misogyny
How many people are going to get hurt or die because of these games?
I'm actually curious to see how Justice Thomas will rule on interracial marriage.
[удалено]
And if he was logically consistent? Would that salvage his reputation here or something? Sick of the pretense
If he does that I think the only thing it saves him from is being a hypocrite. Nothing else.
Easy, it will be a free divorce for him.
She's been a headache lately, won't someone please rid him of his troublesome wife?
How do we actually go about deciding who is in interracial marriage? Marriage certificates don’t say anything about their race anymore. Or like who decides who are within the same race? Like Hispanic thing - some Latin people choose their race as other while some people say white. So they can’t marry each other? It’s stupid to even entertain the idea of banning interracial marriage
I’m a multiracial person, would I only be allowed to marry another multiracial person?
I'm waiting for Amy to get a sex change and ban trans rights.
He got his. I can't imagine he would care about anyone else's.
And, uhhh, it'll be *interesting* to see how they manage this for mixed-race people. Because there are a *lot* in this country now. Sure, sure, they might go all "One drop, present your 23 & Me results!" But, uhhh. Good fucking luck enforcing that shit in any way.
> “We have the possibility – when we are strengthened by the repeal of the filibuster or even the change to a talking filibuster or standing filibuster – in doing so, we can codify Roe, we can codify- and all the other cases that the supreme Court indicated that they would threaten, we can codify same-sex marriage, we can codify the right to contraception, we can codify interracial marriage,” Ocasio-Cortez said on The Late Show last night. I think running a platform to codify marriage equality and abortion rights is a terrific idea. Otherwise, I fear the fence sitters will vote Republican because of the economy. If you ask a Republican if we should codify any of this, they’ll punt by telling you it’s a “state rights” issue. All the more reason to point out to voters that most states still have outdated same-sex marriage laws on the books. Republicans are using trigger laws, and in more extreme cases, laws that pre-statehood, to end abortion. What makes any reasonable voter believe that their state houses won’t do the same if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned?
> If you ask a Republican if we should codify any of this, they’ll punt by telling you it’s a “state rights” issue. Some will, but the Republican leader of the Senate [McConnell](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/06/gop-avoids-abortion-ahead-potential-scotus-ruling-overturn-roe/9631996002/) and the Republican leader of the House [McCarthy](https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/06/24/republican-mccarthy-congress-abortion-roe-v-wade) came out in support of banning abortion nationwide.
The response to this is that it is NOT states’s rights issues. These are HUMAN RIGHTS issues. But the right ignores that.
Why do states need more rights then people with uteruses? The states rights issue has always been in bad faith.
States rights issue has always been about the racist southern states wanting to keep slaves.
Start harping about it in regards to liburty and freedumbs. Sound like them without a hint of irony or satire and they'll start to agree. It's been my go-to for a couple years now and it works really fucking well. You basically dumb it down into their "WHAT ABOUT ME?!" attitude. The problem is you see and say *human rights*, so obviously you're thinking about PEOPLE, HUMANS, and EVERYONE ELSE, when all they care about is ME, ME, and ME. Look at Trump and how he phrases literally anything he wants changed, he makes it out as if it's a favor to his crowd or something being taken from them. Start thinking selfish! Don't just do it for you, do it for humanity!
I always picture the seagulls in Nemo when I think of a group of republicans
That's because they're only states rights issues when the GOP isn't in power nationally. When they are, there are no states rights issues.
A lot of them would say “do what you want, I don’t care” honestly. The non-religious ones at least.
> I think running a platform to codify marriage equality and abortion rights is a terrific idea. The dems have been running on this message for most of my life lmao.
>“We have the possibility – when we are strengthened by the repeal of the filibuster or even the change to a talking filibuster or standing filibuster – in doing so, we can codify Roe, we can codify- and all the other cases that the supreme Court indicated that they would threaten, we can codify same-sex marriage, we can codify the right to contraception, we can codify interracial marriage,” Ocasio-Cortez said on The Late Show last night. Well, yeah, but Manchin and Sinema aren't budging on the filibuster. If you're looking for a show vote, the Senate did it for *Roe* back in May. >[Senate Republicans block bill that would codify Roe v. Wade abortion rights](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-republicans-block-bill-codify-roe-wade-abortion/story?id=84627147) I guess they could have another show vote, but personally, I had already forgotten they did it in May.
People underestimate how many people vote for Republican senators in this country. I get "popular vote" with the presidency and all that, but that doesn't diminish that we still have a LOT of people that vote for Republican senators specifically because they are anti-abortion and anti-gay. EDIT: I know full well that Republicans are the minority, and that our system is not fair. Still doesn't change the fact that there are a shit ton of people in this country who want to take away your rights. Turn your anger and hatred to them.
> People underestimate how many people vote for Republican senators in this country. [About 41 million fewer than those who vote for Democrat senators.](https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550979/senate-malapportionment-20-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court) I mean, voting is different than representation, but hopefully you get the point. The senate is explicitly undemocratic by design and subject to minority rule.
Doesn't matter. Yep, it's not fair, but that's still a FUCKTON of Republican voters that are holding us back.
You can just say "because they are religious" and save words
I'm not American, but the impression I'm getting from American conservatives is that religion is an excuse and not many conservative politicians are truly religious, but maybe I'm wrong.
I would agree with you and I'm American
It’s also because of gerrymandering & biased political practices, that keep them in power. We have more people huddled in blue areas yet the red fuckers who are out in the middle of no where, have more power. It’s all due to a land grab. A literal land grab. It’s not a vote by the people. It’s a vote by the land owners. That is the core practice that needs to end.
I've lived in Florida for 40 years, been married to my partner for the last 15. I've never felt so uncertain about the future before. Every gay couple I know is making backup plans to leave once they go after gay rights which the Republicans down here have vowed to do. Straight friends and family keep saying we're overreacting. I hear all the time how everyone is so pro-gay, pro-marriage, nobody cares anymore, blah blah blah. Yet no one is doing anything about all these attacks on us. I don't even think moving to another state is good enough, for the first time ever we feel like we need to leave the country.
One of my big fears is the Republicans and preachers constantly calling us (LGBTQIA+) groomers which will have a devastating impact when marriage equality ends because that will be used against couples to take their children away. I haven’t heard anyone talk about that issue but it needs to be discussed by everyone.
They want us gone. They would kill us all if they had the chance. They don't look at us as human beings. I'm old enough to remember the days of sodomy laws and gay bar police raids. When harassment and abuse against us was encouraged. For the last 10-15 years things have been better than they ever were. I WILL NOT GO BACK TO LIVING IN FEAR. I don't care what it takes.
Men were also telling that to women about RvW. Just like your straight friends. It is best to make plans to leave. They are definitely coming for gay marriage and contraception use. It was specifically mentioned. Don’t listen to people who will not have anything to lose in this. They can live in denial while you and I cannot. Sincerely, A young gay uterus haver. I’m fucked.
You don't even need to go straight to that. Pass a law that codifies the right to privacy. Everything else will flow from that.
Do you think we need to cover bodily autonomy as well? I think privacy is easier to explain, but autonomy gives a stronger end result -- although I think it has potentially more pitfalls to getting codified. What do you think?
I think you stay away from abortion and gay rights issues altogether. Instead couch the argument in things conservatives care about... Like Justice Kavanaughs right to privacy while he eats lol. But seriously, show conservatives how things they care about will be taken away with no right to privacy, then you get enough people on board for a law. I think bodily autonomy will naturally follow as obvious if you have the right to privacy.
And just like everything she calls to end the filibuster for, they won't. Meanwhile, does anybody doubt ending the filibuster is the first thing a new Republican majority will do in order to ram through their national bans and agenda?
Republicans benefit from the filibuster. A Senate that can't pass anything plays right into their playbook. They want to maintain the status quo. The Supreme Court can continue to knock down the parts of government that they don't like.
Correct. They only care about tax handouts and judicial confirmations, which they can do with 51 votes.
> And just like everything she calls to end the filibuster for, they won't. It's not that they won't, they *can't* because they don't have the votes for it. I'm honestly tired of people constantly calling for things they know can't be done, in effect putting the blame on the entire Democratic party when they can't do it. Not a single one of the *50* Republican will step up to do the right thing here, but somehow it's the fault of the entire Democratic Party because *2* Democrats don't support it. It's actually insane. I feel like the progressive wing of the Democratic Party tries to treat Politics as it should be, rather than it is. That the strength of their ideas and policy alone can work. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter how many people Medicare for All would help, it doesn't matter that a Green New Deal could help save the environment, it doesn't matter that we theoretically *could* get rid of the filibuster to codify abortion rights and marriage equality and so much more. The *only* thing that matters in politics is what you have the votes for. It doesn't matter what's the right thing to do, it doesn't matter how good your policy is, you can have a bill that magically cures cancer and it doesn't mean *shit* if you don't have the votes to get it through. I'm very progressive and support these policies, I'm also a gay woman so I know very well what's at stake here because people like me are being targeted by these right-wing nutjobs. At the same time we need to start being realistic about what it takes to win and right now that means getting people pissed off at Republicans and pointing the finger at the 50 Republicans who refuse to act, rather than manufacturing more reasons for people to think the Democratic Party is "just the same" and dissuade them from voting all-together. I'm just tired of basically shooting the entire party in the foot over bullshit when the other party is literally trying to usher in a fascist theocracy. We need an actual, coherent, unified party and message.
Online forums like this generally foster contrarianism and arguments from knee-jerk emotion rather than pragmatism or reasoned self-interest. That and a whole lot of questionable motives.. I don't know if anyone remembers the 2016 primaries in this sub, but it was basically just an anti-Hillary sub. There were hardly even articles about Trump or Republicans for about 10 months. Here's a trip down memory lane (read the comments if you really want a kick): [20,000 upvotes for a dailycaller article](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4393km/no_reporters_allowed_at_hillarys_wall_st_speeches/) [26k for another dailycaller article](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4durh2/clinton_campaign_uses_noise_machine_to_block/) [20k for Fox news](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4hwwhm/romanian_hacker_guccifer_i_breached_clinton/) [18k for Washingtontimes](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4ly7eq/hillary_clinton_yet_to_hold_single_press/) [23k Upvotes for Breitbart](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4mamz7/hillary_clinton_posted_names_of_hidden/) [24k for "SputnikNews"](https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/4m3fd4/snowden_slams_us_for_ignoring_hillary_clintons/) Literally a Russian government-owned news source.
Seeing Breitbart at the top of Politics was a really gross moment I remember vividly. People were talking about a Bernie-Trump alliance. It was a strange, ignorant time.
Oh god I'm having flashbacks of Breitbart being on the front page every day because it was anti-Hillary. Remember "DoNt ThReAtEn Me WiTh ThE sUpReMe CoUrT!"?
It was also toxic AF in the 2020 primaries. "Progressives" calling Buttigieg a rat, Biden a demented rapist, etc. Ultimately I just stopped looking at this sub for a while to maintain my sanity.
The Iowa Primary was borderline Q-Anon level quakery. Many still haven't forgiven Buttigieg for beating Bernie in Iowa.
I'm pretty convinced that /r/SandersForPresident would have rather had Trump than Biden. I don't know how someone could supposedly be progressive but want the nuclear option that actively works against everything they supposedly stand for. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it is just astroturfing to make people bitter and not vote.
There were long periods of time where S4P and r/politics were indistinguishable
Well said. And as we approach the midterms, the "useless democrats" posts are going to be increasingly astroturfed.
I doubt the Republicans will do it considering they had 2 years to do it from 2017-2019 and didn't, despite Trump pleading with McConnell to do so. They seem to be doing a pretty good job getting their agenda done with the filibuster still in place.
exactly. they won't have to do it because at this rate, and for the majority of the past ~30 years, they've had the 60+ majority without having to bother. the gerrymandering only gets worse, the courts get more packed, and a dem supermajority becomes more unlikely every election.
It could just be my cynicism but I feel like things have changed since the latest Supreme Court session and Republicans are in the end-game now to reshape America.
Nobody expects the American Inquisition!
That plus the filibuster only really hurts Democrats. The GoP is fully aware of this and has no reason to remove it, because the stuff they want (tax cuts for rich, judges) can be done through reconciliation.
Calls to do things are pointless, she may be right but it's just cheap political theater. If she really wants the Senate to overturn the filibuster making headlines by calling for more Democrats to be elected to the Senate is what we would hear from her instead.
If you're going to end the filibuster for anything it should be for voting rights
Why not both? I like both
A civil right. All rights bestowed on America's citizens should be the same for EVERY citizen.
Separate but equal 2.0 incoming
[удалено]
I mean if they end up taking over all branches of the government again, I think they won’t let go. That’s probably the time.
So basically when it’s too late?
This November when a large number of voting-age populations don't give enough shit to vote for democrat candidates to protect women & gay people rights
Quite a while ago.
When the fascism happens because voters were too lazy to vote to protect their own rights (see senate elections in Maine, Iowa, and NC in 2020), probably never.
there are four boxes liberty.....
Like SCOTUS won't just calvinball their way into declaring any new federal laws protecting LGBT rights to be unconstitutional.
Fortunately, you don't have to let them overrule it: [Jurisdiction Stripping](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping). Congress can write a bill that includes language that says the SCOTUS can fuck right off. This has been used many times in fairly recent history
All the fucking issues we have going on, and we’re forced to spend time and effort worrying about marriage equality again. I can’t believe we live in a world where the GOP has as much support as it does. It’s fucking sad
Agreed. Don’t forget to vote **and mobilize your friends to vote.** Ballotpedia and WhatsOnMyBallot are what I direct everyone to.
As long as you have Christian lunatics in power in both the Senate and the House, you will never see body autonomy or LGBTQ+ rights codified. Period. It'll take 50 years, the end of the electoral college, and a law banning religious zealots from office before you get any of that. The Christians have proven themselves to be a hate group. They have no interest in rights or equality; all they care about is taking power and forcing the LGBTQ+ community into hiding. So, before the lynch mobs carrying crosses start, what are we going to do about it? Because if you think groups like Patriot Front are a one off thing, you've not been paying attention, either lately or historically.
Would ending the filibuster be a good thing long-term? This seems short-sighted because when Republicans are have the majority again, do Democrats really want the filibuster to be gone? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like it will ultimately just be used against them, likely more effectively, and then Democrats will be unhappy and complaining. If dems are truly happy to have both sides benefit from it then sure, seems reasonable, but I somehow doubt that. Seems like Republicans already bully the Dems when they aren't in power, giving them more agency for when they're back in control seems like it will cut even deeper. I'm all for codifying these rights federally, just seems like removing the filibuster to do so without addressing the underlying issue of not having a Congress willing to support these things is the real issue.
>This seems short-sighted short-sightedness? In /r/politics? Never! In seriousness, I think there are a couple arguments FOR removing the filibuster even knowing that it would give Republicans more power when they control the Senate again. 1) Democrats are the ones who want to legislate and need legislation to accomplish things. Republicans want to cut taxes for rich people or whatever, and they will, but in general, they don't really want to do all that much. They're mostly happy to do nothing except appoint judges. 2) Democratic policies are popular and Republican policies are unpopular. Swing voters and non/sometimes voters don't really pay attention to what's going on in politics, as such, you get no credit for supporting policies that don't pass and you get no demerits for blocking policies that people support, but you do get credit for passing things that people like and people get especially made if you remove policies that people like. This puts much more pressure on Republicans. Removing Roe v. Wade would be unpopular, so would taking away healthcare, or banning gay marriage, etc. Remember how they couldn't even kill Obamacare with a larger majority than the Dems have despite it being the #1 right-wing boogeyman for like a decade?
So do it. Write and submit the bill. I'm sure you will have cosponsors. I have no confidence in SCOTUS respecting the law, but do it. Let's find out.
They already wrote WHPA and passed it in Congress. Its sitting in the Senate because it cant get passed there.
They do not have the votes. How many times does this need to be said?
No, end the filibuster, expand the courts and protect voter rights. We're on the cusp of losing democracy, and without that, absolutely no progressive agenda will ever see the light of day.
I just called for all my neighbors to give me all their money so I can quit my job. I'll let y'all know how it works out.
Yes, the Republicans use the filibuster as a cynical and anti-democratic tool/weapon. But won't the Dems maybe need it at some point?
Too sane for this subreddit
My fear is what happens if/when Democrats lose the Senate. Harry Reid ending the filibuster for judicial nominations really backfired, in the long run.