For the record, rights are rarely won through congress.
In fairness, that's because congress rarely bothers to try. Do you think that national gay marriage bill would fail if they tried to pass it today?
For the record, rights are rarely won through congress.
Maybe I should go back and read that opinion. I just asked that question because I know a few acquaintances (I knew I misspelled that word) who believe exceptions for rape and incest are wrong.I think you need go back and reread the opinion. The draft opinion is "Roe was 100% wrong, there is no constitutional right to abortion and there never was, this is a matter for the states/federal government to legislate". It's not creating any sort of ban on abortion, it's only saying that abortion can be restricted by the states.
It goes on to uphold the Missouri law in question as being acceptable under the rational basis standard. I don't know what the Missouri law says about rape and incest, I assume abortion is allowed past 15 weeks in that case, that's a standard carve out to abortion laws.
Yes, Roberts wanted to get rid of Trump any way he could, and that is why he forced the elections cases to be either punted as 'no standing, as voting hasn't happened yet' or 'moot, voting already happened' to make sure no case that could challenge the results of the election went anywhere, regardless of merit or standing.It's possible that there might be some hope that since the conservatives didn't support Trump in 2020, they'll back down now. The situation isn't the same though. The election was really dangerous in what it could mean for the legitimacy of the government. The safe bet would be to take the hit and let Biden be President.
Perfect answer except for one thing: Mississippi.I think you need go back and reread the opinion. The draft opinion is "Roe was 100% wrong, there is no constitutional right to abortion and there never was, this is a matter for the states/federal government to legislate". It's not creating any sort of ban on abortion, it's only saying that abortion can be restricted by the states.
It goes on to uphold the Missouri law in question as being acceptable under the rational basis standard. I don't know what the Missouri law says about rape and incest, I assume abortion is allowed past 15 weeks in that case, that's a standard carve out to abortion laws.
Maybe I should go back and read that opinion. I just asked that question because I know a few acquittances who believe exceptions for rape and incest are wrong.
And I definitely know they are going to crow about how this opinion means that abortion is automatically banned nationwide. But since you said that the opinion punts this over to the states and government to decide. Then I am going to have to explain on why the opinion does not exactly do that.
I honestly don't believe rights should be up to a majority vote. That's why they are rights. And Congress would only vote for it now because it is already law. If it wasn't law, it'd get filibustered at best. The only reason it got popular in the first case was another court case in Massachusetts showing that normal families could result from it.In fairness, that's because congress rarely bothers to try. Do you think that national gay marriage bill would fail if they tried to pass it today?
The reason I'm fine with a rape exception is that the mother has no obligation to the kid in such a case. She never consented to anything. It would be good of the mother to not have the abortion, but she has no duty to do this, and evacuations (extracting the fetus to try to keep it alive and growing) don't currently work at such an early time.I'm actually fuzzy on the rational for incest allowances. I strongly question the morality of rape as well, sins of the father and all that, but the rational is understandable as the child was conceived through a violation of consent. But if the incest was consensual, that's....really gross, but I'm not clear why it makes abortion permissible.
I honestly don't believe rights should be up to a majority vote. That's why they are rights. And Congress would only vote for it now because it is already law. If it wasn't law, it'd get filibustered at best. The only reason it got popular in the first case was another court case in Massachusetts showing that normal families could result from it.
And incest is an exception because it's almost always rape, and that rises to near certainty if the woman is willing to tell whoever they need to (presumably law enforcement? IDK) in order to get an abortion. It's also easier to show if a court order is needed for the abortion.
You mean SCOTUS being recognized by a majority vote, or something else?That's fair, though I'd point out it's not entirely reasonable to argue that rights shouldn't be up to a majority vote, so SCOTUS is the correct avenue to argue for their enforcement, once they are recognized by a majority vote.
It's easy to prove rape. Basically it's likely there will be a time crunch (as the woman understandably doesn't want to pregnant any longer than necessary), it facilitates it.Yes, but in that case then it's covered by rape exemptions. I'm not clear on the argument for it when it's not rape.
You mean SCOTUS being recognized by a majority vote, or something else?
Fair, but they are as close to telling if something violates rights as we got. I'd prefer some magic genie that just says "It violates rights", but we don't have that. The Supreme court at least makes an honest attempt at it, and usually succeeds. Majority vote doesn't even make the attempt.SCOTUS cases are resolved via majority vote.
They can only "enact abortion" if they have the willpower to kill the filibuster, and if they do that there's much less need to pack the courts rather than go on a legislative tear. God knows there's enough backlog on both sides of the aisle that would pass and never be held unconstitutional by even a hostile SC.I hate giving blackpills, but this is a big one. I hope I'm wrong, but democrats are set to win big, then enact abortion at the federal level and pack the court.
They nearly do have the willpower to gut the fillibuster, and they will by the next election. We (conservatives and libertarians) don't have the institutional power to withstand a full on fight.They can only "enact abortion" if they have the willpower to gut the filibuster, and if they do that there's much less need to pack the courts rather than go on a legislative tear. God knows there's enough backlog on both sides of the aisle that would pass and never be held unconstitutional by even a hostile SC.
Just one problem and it is this. Remember what a certain Democrat once said.Fair, but they are as close to telling if something violates rights as we got. I'd prefer some magic genie that just says "It violates rights", but we don't have that. The Supreme court at least makes an honest attempt at it, and usually succeeds. Majority vote doesn't even make the attempt.
And yeah, I think this is going to lead to bad stuff down the line based on voting alone. The democrats will finally rip down all the institutions after this. There will be no peace, and they'll get a majority vote to pack congress and other things.
Conservatives were winning the culture battle for the first time in my lifetime. This might just send it back. This achieves 0 new voters for republicans, all the pro lifers now got what they want, and can check out. This gets tons of money for democrats, especially for state house races.
I hate giving blackpills, but this is a big one. I hope I'm wrong, but democrats are set to win big, then enact abortion at the federal level and pack the court.
The economy is in the shitter right now. The left may go bonkers over the repeal of Roe. But that does not put food in their belly when shelves are bare. Or put gas in their SUVs wh
They nearly do have the willpower to gut the fillibuster, and they will by the next election.
Sure, and I wouldn't be that surprised if they do kill the filibuster if they still hold Congress in January. But my thinking is that, if the filibuster is dead, they would have plenty to occupy themselves with via legislation rather than risk the infighting that would result from court-packing. Even the New Dealers at the height of their power had problems with that on this question, as I recall.They nearly do have the willpower to gut the fillibuster, and they will by the next election. We (conservatives and libertarians) don't have the institutional power to withstand a full on fight.
Just one problem and it is this. Remember what a certain Democrat once said.
It's the economy stupid.
The economy is in the shitter right now. The left may go bonkers over the repeal of Roe. But that does not put food in their belly when shelves are bare. Or put gas in their SUVs when gas is over $4 dollars.
That's not certain. They have 2 definite No votes against nuking the filibuster, and so because getting rid of the filibuster is a no go, the other 48 can say whatever they want to posture for the base, without having to make any hard decisions. If the didn't have that safety margin, a number of those Yes votes might tun out to be Nos.
If they kill the filibuster, the first thing they'll do is force abortion through federally.Sure, and I wouldn't be that surprised if they do kill the filibuster if they still hold Congress in January. But my thinking is that, if the filibuster is dead, they would have plenty to occupy themselves with via legislation rather than risk the infighting that would result from court-packing. Even the New Dealers at the height of their power had problems with that on this question, as I recall.
Or maybe they can't even agree on killing the filibuster. But I don't see a world where they aren't willing to kill the filibuster but are willing to pack the court.
If they kill the filibuster, the first thing they'll do is force abortion through federally.
But thanks for giving me some hope. I should be happy right now, but I'm just terrified of the democrats going full on war.