Every policy starts off the same way. People "might" support a policy. No policy starts off with 100% support, you have to be a moron to think otherwise. I posted the articles to show you that it isn't an outlandish idea and there is public support for it when discussed. However, if you're looking for a ready steady cook version of abolition then you clearly don't know how abolitionism works or why it is such a powerful tool.
Abortion
- Thread starter Pagh Wraith
- Start date
Christ
Again, please state your plan of action? If voting is laughable as you and SweetSquare imply, then what is your path to achieving what would be monumentally more difficult than even adding a few more Justices? Posting memes of Biden eating ice cream is going to move the needle? You are talking about something that doesn't even have more than 1/3 willing to say they might think it's a good idea. We have over 70% that believe marijuana should be legal, 38 states have legalized medical marijuana, and still, the Senate can't pass a decriminalization bill federally. Yet, you laugh at voting but think abolishing the Supreme Court is the way to go?
Please outline your vision for how this might happen in the coming decades. 100 million people having a protest around the country insisting that the Federal government abolishes the Supreme Court and the Senate just saying okay, sure, if people post enough memes we'll do it? The SC is directly enshrined as a branch of government in the constitution. With a constitutional amendment or convention? If voting can't achieve meaningful change, how are you actually going to get rid of the SC?
And what are you going to replace it with? Are you going to still have Appeals courts? Every state does it its own way? What's the vision for a US legal system in this hypothetical world where the SC is just abolished? How are you going to reconstruct the federal legal system?
vote harder, pal. It just might work out for you this time.
Amen.
I can imagine this question being asked multiple times throughout history when certain institutions are so strong they seem permanent. Until they aren't.
It feels like the country is on the brink of a civil war. And probably a few other countries along with that because the division between the left and the right is getting out of hands. Either that or breakaway states in the future. I'd be tired of being around absolute conspiracy theorist morons who become roadblocks in the way of things like vaccines and healthcare policies which is bound to happen as long as the nation is democratic. Just let them make their own country and live by their own stupid rules, at least let the others not be affected by it.
So you have snarky comments but no actual plan of action. No actual suggestions for how that might look? Or how that might work?
The irony here is you and the other guy love to mock voting but how the feck do you expect to abolish the SC without voting?
And before anything could happen, there were actual plans of actions and things that could be done to affect change. Hard questions had to be answered and they aren't being answered here.
Abolishing the SC would be a bigger change constitutionally than anything that has ever happened in the US. It's not unreasonable to ask how people who state it like it's such an obvious solution to a 6-3 conservative majority expect that to be possible? If they mock voting and don't believe voting can ever change things, how do they think the SC would be abolished?
And also quite relevant is what do they expect to replace it with? What is their vision for how the US judicial system is supposed to look after this massive task of abolishing the SC? What's their idea of what an ideal judicial system in the US looks like post-SC?
Before the plans comes the idea. You seem to be asking for way too many specifics for something that isn't yet popular as an idea.
The idea got brought up by two people in this thread who were mocking the suggestion of voting. Instead of voting as a response to the SC overturning Roe v Wade, their immediate suggestion was to abolish the SC instead. It's quite reasonable to ask how they expect to abolish the SC when the mere suggestion of voting brings mockery. Because abolishing the SC would never involve any voting, right?
Also, even in the idea phase, it's pretty obvious and necessary to ask how a post-SC judiciary is supposed to look. There is zero chance of ever gaining even popular support for the idea of abolishing the SC without some post-SC vision for the judiciary.
You are talking with a fundamentalist, do not waste your time.
Of course that abolishing the Supreme Court is impossible. And of course, if that somehow happened, it would be a terrible thing.
precisely my point. it is what abolitionism is all about.
did the nets make you any money, reVan??
Nah, I don't do gambling.
Now let's go to the main point. How can abolishing the supreme court happen and what stopped banning the abortion in deep-red states these past few decades?
you're not that guy pal
Jesus Christ what has this thread denigrated to, so you guys are advocating incitement of civil war just because things don't go your way.
Wonder what you lot had to say about the Warren court who time after time undermined the constitution culminating in the frankly ridiculous roe v wade , maybe those folk should have looked to freak out as well , im sure they were quite capable of it as well.
Abortion whether leagilized or criminalized needs to be done so under the legislative branch , that's how it should have been from the start but you guys took the expedient route because why not you can't be wrong and now that it hass bitten you in the ass you're freaking out.
Maybe letting it be up to states to legislate it be the better option anyways, but I'll imagine this be to be one of the main issues of the upcoming election, maybe you lot get your wish maybe you won't, its to be seen
Wonder what you lot had to say about the Warren court who time after time undermined the constitution culminating in the frankly ridiculous roe v wade , maybe those folk should have looked to freak out as well , im sure they were quite capable of it as well.
Abortion whether leagilized or criminalized needs to be done so under the legislative branch , that's how it should have been from the start but you guys took the expedient route because why not you can't be wrong and now that it hass bitten you in the ass you're freaking out.
Maybe letting it be up to states to legislate it be the better option anyways, but I'll imagine this be to be one of the main issues of the upcoming election, maybe you lot get your wish maybe you won't, its to be seen
No one is trying to incite civil war in this thread, they are just commenting on the polarizations occurring in my country.
There’s only been one political side advocating for civil war this millennia.
Read further up , what do you think abolishing the Supreme Court will lead to ,just because they overturned an already shitty ruling?
Even Roosevelt balked at the prospect of filling the court after the people got mad out how much of blatant power grab it was.
Supreme Court was never supposed to be like what it is today, making laws , you lot went along with it because it was politically "convenient", this is the result.
OK, so maybe I'm missing something really obvious, what does the american constitution say about abortion?
I'm assuming it says nothing, so why do we need the SC to clarify anything? Why can't congress just legislate and that's it? It seems the SC is just an extra unnecessary step.
And I'm not even getting into having such a powerful entity where people are picked ideologically and then they get that power for life, regardless of how people vote and the congress changes in the decades and decades after they are picked. It sounds totally undemocratic.
I'm assuming it says nothing, so why do we need the SC to clarify anything? Why can't congress just legislate and that's it? It seems the SC is just an extra unnecessary step.
And I'm not even getting into having such a powerful entity where people are picked ideologically and then they get that power for life, regardless of how people vote and the congress changes in the decades and decades after they are picked. It sounds totally undemocratic.
It says nothing, the fathers were probably all against abortion, the American public was against abortion till as recently as mid 60s .
They didn't see a need to include one so there is none, any attempt to enshrine it as a right should be done through the legislative branch by adding a new amendment.
But that's not what happened instead the court made a decision a very tenuous one based on the right to privacy??? And that somehow made it legal.
Respective attempts at passing either a pro choice or pro life ammendment have failed as its just a very risky situation for all involved politically and no one really had the political capital to do so (Ronald may have had enough in his second term and I believe most of the congress was leaning on the pro life side ( a ton of old southern democrats still remained plus all the other Midwest Republicans so in theory it could have been possible) but it didn't happen.
Maybe we finally see one , its to be seen.
Don't be facetious , you lot talked about the abolition of one of the major branches of the government, much different to some scattered acts of violence.
Nothing.
Roe vs Wade was stupid, to be fair. Not cause it was not right, it absolutely was from a moral point of view. However, it essentially amended the constitution, something that should be left to the legislators.
Is there anything in the law that prevents a national referendum in america?
Not in the constitution I believe , but I don't think there has ever been one.
It's there in the state level, you could vote for them alongside the other statewide elections in November.
A) I never said shit about abolishing anything.
B) Your statement implied that the anti-choice movement accepted their "loss" gracefully.
C) It was waaaayyy more than scattered acts of violence. The ones on the list do not consider the emotional trauma inflicted on thousands (millions?) of women.
D) It's a bit personal as my lab mate in college missed being killed/injured by the Birmingham bomb by minutes as he walked by the clinic that day right before it exploded.
So could congress just approve a "roe v wade yes or no" national referendum and that would be law in the entire country? Or do state rights would make it illegal?
That's beyond my knowledge unfortunately.
But I doubt congress would do such a thing, they don't like giving away their power.
My original post was in response to other posts talking about the abolition of the Supreme Court, you responded to that , so I'll assumed it you were negligent of its significance.
No one will accept their loss gracefully but of you think what transpired over there is anything close to an act of civil war you're being dishonest.
I can't comment on the third one as I'm not very well informed on the subject, I also wish you're friend well.
There is nothing about referendums in the US constitution, and you cannot change the constitution by a referendum. The constitution can be changed only if 2/3 of congress (or 2/3 of states) ask for a new amendment and then 3/4 of states ratify it. That is how it was amended 27 times.
Having a bill for abortion in the constitution essentially make abortion as bullet-proof as it can be, but doing that is impossible considering that 26/50 states actually want to criminalize abortion. The next best thing (if Roe vs Wade gets overturned) is for the congress to pass a federal law that legalizes abortion. However, that has several problems: a) doing such a law requires the Democrats to break the filibuster which is hard to be done with Manchin and Sinema and potentially extremely dangerous for the future (as we saw with Dems breaking the filibuster for judicial appointments), b) states might complain that this is states territory, not federal government, complain in supreme court who might side with states, c) GOP might overturn it the next time around, and considering the precedent, criminalize the abortion in federal level.
Roe vs Wade gave the highest protection cause it essentially was a federal law that states couldn't do anything against it. Until the Supreme Court changed, in which case, the abortion decision goes back to the state level.
Feel like the Dems do not have a clear path to do anything here. Even if somehow Thomas dies, I am extremely skeptical that Roberts would vote to overturn a decision made by his own court. The only reason why Roberts does not vote for overturning Roe vs Wade is cause it is an established precedent, not because he thinks that the decision is either legally or morally correct.
Thanks for the explanation.
Assuming these (https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-court-should-uphold-roe-post-abc-poll-finds/) numbers would translate to a popular vote, do you personally find the current system democratic?
A minority of people deciding something so important in direct opposition to the majority doesn't sound very democratic.
Obviously, note. If it is not 1 person, 1 vote, then I do not see how it is Democratic. When Wyoming with half a million of people has the same power of choosing SCOTUS as California with 40m people, and when those undemocratically selected SCOTUS can overturn laws, then how it is Democratic?
May i ask you something, this whole thing aside , someone like Lincoln would have never become the president under the popular vote system, he only got 40 percent of the vote, the combined democratic candidates got about 50.
I think its fair to say that the system has served this country well.
Yes. Exactly my point. Men are responsible for an ejaculation and women are personally and individually responsible for everything after. Yet the law wants to prevent women having control over their own body.
As for 35 weeks? Not sure what your point is.
That could be argued and maybe you are right. Not necessarily saying it is right or wrong, just not democratic.
Also, things have changed.
You do realize that Lincoln would be a democrat these days? Things do & can change.
He literally wanted to add a Christian amendment to the the constitution before his untimely death, if you think he would be anything like a Democrat these days you would be up for a rude awakening.
Personally I think its a fine system , im aware of the frustrations regarding it's limitation.
Overall I just don't like the whole revisionism regarding it , in fact it probably benefited the Democrats more in the 20th century ever since the reconstruction ended because democrats would run north Korean numbers in the south allowing them to focus on the other parts of the union something that the Republicans could not afford, and yet to my knowledge there never was a strong movement in gop to abolish it back then, yet the moment Nixon had a larger percentage wise victory in the ec compared to his pv percentage, democrats called for reform.
How sadly unsurprising, lots of men arguing about what women can do with their own bodies.
Wibble i don't want go stretch this discussion any longer so this will be my last post arguing about it but I don't find your argument about man not being able to have their opinions on the matter very compelling, first of it it reminds me a lot about the arguments against female suffrage( how could woman involve themselves in manly things such as war and politics hur dur , you get my point).
Secondly you set a precedent that only works if you're already pro choice(a woman's body her choice) something which is simply refuted by the opposing side(the woman can't take the choice to terminate the life of the unborn as his/her right to live trumps the mothers right to choose)
Finally the statistics show that there really isn't a meaningful difference among man and woman regarding attitudes toward abortion (in fact the first poll i found on the subject on pew shows it to be pretty even in those regards).
There are many compelling arguments in favor of abortion that I a fervent anti abortionist can acknowledge, this isn't one its counterproductive and simply leads to more toxicity by trying to gather guard the subject.
That's all.