Holy Crap, They Actually Did It

[Centerfield]

Democracy only lasted as long as it did because there used to be some form of accountability. With partisan news and social media, it's gone.

We're fucked until truth matters again.

[kcmets]

Democracy only lasted as long as it did because there used to be some form of accountability. With partisan news and social media, it's gone.

We're fucked until truth matters again.

Pretty much. Word for word.

[Ceetar]

truth never mattered, but thanks to things like social media, we're much more aware of what's going on.

[batmagadanleadoff]

During their confirmation hearings, didn't Kavanaugh and Barrett (and maybe Gorsuch) state under oath that they felt Roe-v-Wade was settled precedent?
If so, aren't they guilty of perjury? And I don't think the statute of limitations has run out on that yet.
There is no appeal on this ruling, but they have to be stopped on further impinging on our rights.

Their comments aren't actionable. First of all, technically they weren't lying. At the time of their comments, Roe was established precedent. They should've been asked if they thought Roe was decided correctly or asked how they'd vote if they had to decide Roe. Nobody asked those questions. Still, if their decisions today were ever made into the subject of hearings or investigations, as farfetched as that would be, they'd, among other things, be allowed to say that since their confirmation hearings, they changed their minds.

Of course, they were misleading their Democratic questioners. They knew damn well they'd overrule Roe if given the chance. Coney Barett, straight from The Handmaid's Tale, practically had that tattooed on her fucking forehead. But Roe was precedent on the day they were questioned. That doesn't prevent a case from being overruled. Otherwise, we'd be forever stuck with bad decisions, or anachronistic decisions, or decisions that had gone stale over time. This notion of stare decisis is not so simple. On the one hand, we want stability in our laws. But we'd also like to overrule decisions that are bad or that might've once made sense but no longer do.

[Lefty Specialist]

Yeah, they knew exactly where they stood. To say oytherwise is just lying. The first thing that has to be done is get a few more Democratic senators and hold the house. Then nuke the filibuster.

Next on the agenda is outlawing same-sex marriage and contraception. Thomas came right out today and said those cases were wrongly decided, so they're just warming up.

[Ceetar]

Nuking the filibuster, expanding the court (or the senate), even codifying abortion rights... there are few candidates vowing to do this, and the democrats as a 'unit', or their leadership, certainly aren't.

[Lefty Specialist]

Also important: making DC a state. Currently their pro-choice laws could be wiped out by a Republican Congress.

[whippoorwill]

My husband texted me at work. I can’t believe they had the balls to do this.
What will they do next? This court has really overstepped themselves and what can we do?

I saw contraceptives mentioned in a post above. Good god.
And if they were to outlaw same sex marriage would that mean our same sex married friends become outlaws?

All these things that seemed unthinkable are now possible.
What a country.

[Ceetar]

yes, probably in Texas for instance. Having a no longer valid marriage license is a good public record for them to go after people for sodomy laws, for illegal tax filing laws, etc. Spouses may lose healthcare, etc.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nuking the filibuster, expanding the court (or the senate) ....

They can expand the Senate by bringing in new states to the US. Each state gets two senators. And that should be an extreme Dem priority, about as practically high up on their list as possible. But nary a word about this tactic from the meek party. The only other way to expand the Senate, and it's not gonna happen this other way without a violent and bloody revolution, is to amend the Constitution to change the way the Senate is comprised. Ideally, representation in the Senate would be proportional to each state's population, the same way the House of Representative is made up.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Good ol' Charley sums it up in one paragraph.

'If This Doesn't Light a Fire Under Our Base's Ass, I Don't Know What Will'

Rep. Jim McGovern reacts to the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Excerpt (last paragraph):

“Win elections,” Jim McGovern said. “If this doesn’t light a fire under our base’s ass, I don’t know what will.” He went back into the Capitol and voted for the gun bill, which is even money to be ruled unconstitutional if it ever gets judged across the street.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/p ... -mcgovern/

[Lefty Specialist]

Nuking the filibuster, expanding the court (or the senate) ....

They can expand the Senate by bringing in new states to the US. Each state gets two senators. And that should be an extreme Dem priority, about as practically high up on their list as possible. But nary a word about this tactic from the meek party. The only other way to expand the Senate, and it's not gonna happen this other way without a violent and bloody revolution, is to amend the Constitution to change the way the Senate is comprised. Ideally, representation in the Senate would be proportional to each state's population, the same way the House of Representative is made up.

Every Democrat needs to be running on getting rid of the filibuster. Everything else follows from that- expanding the court, codifying Roe, DC statehood. You need to hold every Senate seat and flip PA, WI and NC. Doable, but not easy. Holding the House got a little easier this week, too.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Nuking the filibuster, expanding the court (or the senate) ....

They can expand the Senate by bringing in new states to the US. Each state gets two senators. And that should be an extreme Dem priority, about as practically high up on their list as possible. But nary a word about this tactic from the meek party. The only other way to expand the Senate, and it's not gonna happen this other way without a violent and bloody revolution, is to amend the Constitution to change the way the Senate is comprised. Ideally, representation in the Senate would be proportional to each state's population, the same way the House of Representative is made up.

Every Democrat needs to be running on getting rid of the filibuster. Everything else follows from that- expanding the court, codifying Roe, DC statehood. You need to hold every Senate seat and flip PA, WI and NC. Doable, but not easy. Holding the House got a little easier this week, too.

Yeah, that filibuster is a real logjam. But if the Dems conquer that, the floodgates open.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

truth never mattered, but thanks to things like social media, we're much more aware of what's going on.

Gah. Were it not for social media becoming weaponized by bad actors McConnells bullshit never has a chance to happen

[Ceetar]

he would've just done it, and the media would've covered it as they did, both sidesing it. Moscow Mitch didn't do anything with social media, he merely refused to do his job and run the senate, and as a result bills didn't get passed, justices didn't get approved. That was all regardless of social media. As was the Times and all the rest of the 'regular' media doing the "BUT HER EMAILS" thing with zero journalistic integrity the days before the election.

You can keep going back. Maybe if we'd had social media like now in 2004, the backlash to war crimes would've been LOUD instead of being mostly ignored by a media happy to allow Bush war crimes his way to reelection, when a failure like 9/11 happening on your watch should barely have let him finish his initial stolen term. (A failure, btw, that may have been aided by Steve Cohen's buddy lawyer that he got to whitewash the Mets front office last year)

No, social media isn't making everything more hyper partisan, it's making it harder to ignore the marginalized.

[Willets Point]

Anyone not calling for ending the filibuster, expanding the Court, and then passing a raft of legislation to codify rights covering everything from abortion to voting is telling you that they personally feel that they would be ok under full fascist rule.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Wanna know when the filibuster gets eliminated? When the GOP sweeps back into power. How. else is the GOP gonna pass a nation-wide abortion ban? Then they can also kill Obamacare without having to go through the reconciliation process.

And maybe, just maybe, then the Dems'll get off of their fucking asses. When it's too late by like 100 miles.

At least we're finally getting sensible discussions on the cable news shows. At least the Dem pundits, some of them anyways, are understanding that priority A-1 is to expand the Supreme Court. History is not gonna be kind to Manchin and Sinema.

[TransMonk]

Biden still does not agree with court expansion or changing filibuster per Tweets today.

I don’t give him as much blame as most for the state of the country right now, but he is grossly out of touch with how boxed in his party is right now.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Biden still does not agree with court expansion or changing filibuster per Tweets today.

What then, would the Dem plan be, if killing the filibuster and then expanding the Supreme Court are both off the table? Is Biden hoping to get a 60 seat Senate majority this November? And even then, if killing the filibuster is off the table, then Biden's gonna need at least 62 senators because Manchin and Sinema. And then what? Pass filibuster proof Dem legislation that some lower court wackadoo wingnut judge is gonna stay anyways? And then the Supremes won't lift the stay while that law and the challenge to it makes its way up the chain where, in the end, this Trump court will destroy it? Is that the plan?

[TransMonk]

I think the current Dem blueprint is to build a time machine and go back to 2014.

It has about the same chance of succeeding as any of their current plans.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I think the current Dem blueprint is to build a time machine and go back to 2014.

lol. I guess if killing the filibuster and expanding the court are off the table, the Dems are gonna hope for bipartisan support, which has no chance as far as a voting rights bill is concerned. And it'd be too late for 2022 anyways, even if they miraculously passed one soon. The courts would, at the very least, issue a stay for the midterms on grounds that you can't apply new voting laws so close to the actual election. It's unlikely that Dems would get any bipartisan support for a voting rights bill, even for 2023 or 2024. And if they did, again, SCOTUS would kill it. That court abhors voting rights, the suppression of which, is a keystone of the GOP platform anyways.

There's really no way around the issue. Reform the courts by whatever means necessary, even it means busting norms, or suffer grave consequences. The GOP intends to repeal the entire 20th century.

[MFS62]

Well, at least she's honest about it.

U.S. Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois, speaking at a rally Saturday night with former President Donald Trump, called the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade a “victory for white life.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-poli ... hite-life/

[MFS62]

I'm proud to live in Connecticut.
Connecticut was already viewed as a leader on abortion rights, but two new laws on the books, effective today, will expand the types of medical providers who can provide aspiration abortions, the most common type of in-clinic abortions, and provide a legal safe harbor to providers and patients against lawsuits from anti-abortion states.
Later

[MFS62]

This should bee an interesting court test to see if Texas believes what it says:
https://www.today.com/parents/moms/preg ... -rcna37461

A woman, driving in an HOV lane, was given a ticket for driving alone. She says her unborn baby is a "person" according to Texas law. The case goes to court shortly.
Stay tuned.
Later

[Ceetar]

hopefully someone makes sure she appeals this (though can you appeal traffic court?) all the way up. Obviously the supreme court will just strike it down because they have no morals, but.. I dunno, is there a but? or is it just tilting at windmills at this point?