All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tendrin]

It's the best answer to give right now on that specific question. It is pointless for anyone to run on expanding the court with the margins we currently have. Once people start voting GOP out consistently then you can bring that up.

That is literally what the answer given says, too. Simply declaring he 'doesn't support it' is a mischaracterization designed, once again, to enrage the left into taking anti-democrat positions. In fact, the tweet by ValerioCNN stating the exact same thing as that article's headline is now deleted for that exact reason.

[Tendrin]

Why would your choice for 2024 expand the Court when the fascists already control it.

As for same sex marriage, Thomas asked States to ban it so it will end up in the Court, where they will overturn Obergefell. But before that, they will simply stop allowing gay marriages. It will happen before the end of the year. Stick a pin in that!

The GOP sees ending gay marriage and attacking LGBT rights as the way it can maintain the momentum of its evangelical base, so while the Supreme Court might look at this and say 'we're totally not gonna do that', they totally will in fact do that. Their promise not to is to demand we ignore their own written records after they plainly and clearly engaged in double speak and fabrication on Roe to get their seats in the first place.

[Panfoot]

Yes, it's not feasible to expand the court given the current makeup of the senate, but I don't know, maybe there should be a goal to fix the fucked up **** that just happened? Seems like a pretty surefire way to lose even further to not even entertain one of the few options left, however unlikely it is to ever actually happen?

[Tendrin]

Yes, it's not feasible to expand the court given the current makeup of the senate, but I don't know, maybe there should be a goal to fix the fucked up **** that just happened? Seems like a pretty surefire way to lose even further to not even entertain one of the few options left, however unlikely it is to ever actually happen?

The thing is, they're not refusing to entertain it. Here's the actual answer given, versus the characterization.

roe.jpg

Here's the tweet that went viral saying that they 'don't agree'.

characterization.jpg

[AnakinFlair]

Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

"That is something that the president does not agree with," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday when asked about such a reform. "That is not something that he wants to do."

Tendrin, thanks for posting the actual quote.

I'd like to think that Biden is just playing this close to the chest right now. I mean, it could backfire if he announces his intention to expand the court, and if he announces he wants to end the filibuster, that would probably end up driving Manchin to refuse to work with him at all. So he says nothing, and if he picks up enough seats in the midterms, THEN he can go about expanding the court and limiting or ending the filibuster.

[Tendrin]

The onslaught of anti-LBGTQ bills across the nation’s statehouses aren’t to protect children, or anyone else for that matter. They’re actually to make the lives of LGBTQ youth and adults as miserable as possible. These bills are having that intended effect, regardless of whether or not they’ve actually been passed into law (and some have been).

GLAAD said that new findings show 7 in 10 LGBTQ people experienced discrimination in 2022, a “disturbing” increase of nearly 25% compared to 2020. “They reported discrimination in their daily lives—with family, in the workplace, on social media, in public accommodations, and in interactions with people at their children’s schools.”

But I'm sure the republicans in this thread will just tell us we're overreacting and that this is all rooted in Deep Concerns and not blind hatred that 'reasonable' people strive to offer cover for.

[CaptainEurope]

There are lots of better targets. And there are lots of ways to show that the Dems are doing something to try and protect rights and to stand with woman then stand around singing. It was a photo op moment that didnt do crap but piss off their own base.

Biden immediately promised that they will protect the rights of women from red states to travel to blue states to have an abortion. Democrats in the House has already passed the passed by a 218-to-211 vote the Women’s Health Protection Act, with zero Republican votes.
But sure, the song upset you. Singing in protests is a time honored tradition that Millennials find cringe. Carry on attacking Democrats over cringe.

[CaptainEurope]

I'm sorry, but I am not in the mood to support them given that we've had years, if not decades, to codify Roe knowing that the GOP would kill it when they had the chance, but Democrats always went "eh, not right now" either because they had to cater to the fringe members of their party or because they just didn't feel like it. If apathy is the problem, it's because the Democrats haven't exactly "earned" the right for people to vote for them other than "the other party is worse".

Democrats never had the votes. In the past, there were many more blue dogs than nowadays in the House. And the reason for that is mostly not the party, but the voters: Many States in the US were still leaning so conservative in the 90s and 00s, that more progressive, pro-choice Democrats would not have won those seats. The last attempt was actually killed from extreme ends of both wings of the party, though -the compromise bill created to keep the Blue Dogs happy wasn't progressive enough for some anymore:

Democrats introduced the Freedom of Choice Act in January 1993 and within six months, it was amended, passed out of committee, and teed up for passage in the House and Senate before heading to President Bill Clinton’s desk for his signature.

Then Democratic support for the bill buckled and splintered.

Some supporters said it didn’t include enough protections for teenagers and the poor. Others said it at least advanced the cause. The measure died. It would be the last time Democrats pushed such legislation that far.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...ed/9650536002/

[CaptainEurope]

Biden doesn't support expanding the Supreme Court, White House says

"That is something that the president does not agree with," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One on Saturday when asked about such a reform. "That is not something that he wants to do."

It does only seem like a short term fix to weaken the Trump judges, Alito and Thomas. Who is to say a future court will not have a similar majority? Do you then expand it to 20 judges?

[CaptainEurope]

The thing is, they're not refusing to entertain it. Here's the actual answer given, versus the characterization.

roe.jpg

Here's the tweet that went viral saying that they 'don't agree'.

characterization.jpg

Now the information has gone viral, the damage is done.

[Tendrin]

Now the information has gone viral, the damage is done.

Which is of course the entire point and then we go 'THE DEMS SUCK AT MESSAGING OMG'.

It's hard to be 'good' at messaging when this is what the press does when you're less than perfect.

[worstblogever]

Which is of course the entire point and then we go 'THE DEMS SUCK AT MESSAGING OMG'.

It's hard to be 'good' at messaging when this is what the press does when you're less than perfect.

Seeing some idjits blaming Democrats for Roe v Wade being overturned is like... They told you. They begged you to support them at the polls so they could stop this from happening for YEARS.

"Oh, but they could have codified it into law in '09"

The had a supermajority for only a few months, at best, because of the GOP kicking and screaming with the filibuster and pushing recount after recount so that a 60th Democratic Senator wouldn't be sworn in from Minnesota.

Then, they had to work on what they could, knowing that only one... ONE defection on any bill would see the whole thing tanked. And for those with memory loss, Joe Manchin was still in West Virginia, and dragging his feet on most bills of consequence against a 60 seat majority. And nuking the filibuster or changing the rules? Harry Reid wasn't about to do that, because he still believed in some sort of ridiculous honor code that wasn't a game of Mitch McConnell moving goalposts.

That's it. That's where the problems were. One stubborn, ancient Senate Majority leader who believed in the fairness of the Senate vs. McConnell's fanatacism and desire to use the court to set up an authoritarian minority, and a few stubborn "moderates" who didn't have the courage to pass everything for fear Glenn Beck and Fox News would make the Tea Party riot even more than passing healthcare did. That's what was happening 12 years ago in the miniscule window of time where maybe they could have done it.

The other side, meanwhile, has been dead-set on actually doing this and stripping women of their rights for five f***ing decades. Versus six months where maybe they could have passed something to protect something that everyone on the right was conceding were "settled law" until a few months ago, when they pulled the pin.

It's just the latest example of people trying to lay blame on the Democrats for not being able to stop a ship from sinking while the GOP actively are drilling holes in the hull... rather than blame the GOP for doing that.

[Tendrin]

And the whole idea that 'codifying' Roe means any-fucking-thing in the first place. Yeah, sure, the federal government can pass a law. You really think that the supreme court supermajority won't just overturn that? Really? Of course it fucking will. It's a nakedly partisan operation, now, and it's hardly going to let the federal government undo what it just did, no matter how tendentious a reason it requires. I mean, they tried to overturn Obamacare on /the placement of a period/.

We tried to warn people that the supreme court was the entire ballgame, that a conservative supermajority of this sort would do *exactly* what it's doing, and would take us back to a pre-new-deal construction of the federal government, and people yelled at us for saying so, but the Republicans got it. They were willing to go all in with whatever it took to get that majority, no matter who they had to hold their nose and vote for years on end, and they did it. And now some of the same folks who said 'don't blackmail us with the supreme court!' now want us to do the even more politically difficult task of expanding it for the first time in ninety years when they couldn't be bothered to cast their vote to prevent it from being needed in the first place.

And now women will die, and countless others will suffer unnecessarily, because of what the GOP has done, all for the sake of a supposed child they'll never give one **** about except in the abstract.

[worstblogever]

And the whole idea that 'codifying' Roe means any-fucking-thing in the first place. Yeah, sure, the federal government can pass a law. You really think that the supreme court supermajority won't just overturn that? Really? Of course it fucking will. It's a nakedly partisan operation, now, and it's hardly going to let the federal government undo what it just did, no matter how tendentious a reason it requires. I mean, they tried to overturn Obamacare on /the placement of a period/.

We tried to warn people that the supreme court was the entire ballgame, that a conservative supermajority of this sort would do *exactly* what it's doing, and would take us back to a pre-new-deal construction of the federal government, and people yelled at us for saying so, but the Republicans got it. They were willing to go all in with whatever it took to get majority, no matter who they had to hold their nose and vote for years on end, and they did it.

And now women will die because of it.

Unless Democrats somehow managed to get SIX MORE Senators able to pass a Constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights in that small window of time that they had 60, we wouldn't be where we are right now. And even then, there would have been some who would have blinked and not joined in lockstep. Only one party has acted like a cult on abortion and unflinchingly voted to take those rights away, time and again, for five decades.

I'm just... why anyone in the GOP thinks that they haven't installed a court that will take away any right they have, unless it's in the original constitution (especially guns) at this point... THEY'RE LITERALLY DOING THAT AND OPENLY SAYING THEY ARE.

[Tendrin]

Unless Democrats somehow managed to get SIX MORE Senators able to pass a Constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights in that small window of time that they had 60, we wouldn't be where we are right now. And even then, there would have been some who would have blinked and not joined in lockstep. Only one party has acted like a cult on abortion and unflinchingly voted to take those rights away, time and again, for five decades.

I'm just... why anyone in the GOP thinks that they haven't installed a court that will take away any right they have, unless it's in the original constitution (especially guns) at this point... THEY'RE LITERALLY DOING THAT AND OPENLY SAYING THEY ARE.

There are only a few things we can do at this point.

Protest is one, yes. The next is look for organizations already supporting women and support them as they build to protect women in the current situation, and then support them. As the GOP passes laws to criminalize women seeking health care, we will need to engage in civil disobedience whenever possible to protect them, and we can no longer afford to continue to bow to the threats of domestic terrorism. We must also turn out in every election from now on, in numbers, to continually to protect the critically vulnerable women and minorities that the GOP must continue to target to continue energizing their own sadistic base for as long as we can.

People seem to think that you elect someone, shout 'do something', and things change. It doesn't work like that. People think this has an ending -- it doesn't. This *never ends*.