A key I use to understanding puzzles like this is: People do what they want to do. What have they done? Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.It feels like Democrats owe their people an apology for being bad at their jobs - they had a long time to codify Roe v. Wade, defend a balanced court, get RBG to step down, etc. Instead they got played and trounced. “Help undo our failures!” is not a compelling rallying cry.
— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) June 24, 2022
So Yang is only half way there. Apologies are not enough. They would necessarily be premised on an assurance that Democrats really did mean to do what they said they wanted. It's just as bad as a plea for votes to "undo our failures." If you use my key, these were not failures. These were achievements — achievements of ends that were kept hidden.
***
A reading from the book of Matthew:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
Hillary lost. Her fault.
I tend to agree with Yang, but only on reflection. As I looked into the issue of abortion over the past 15 or so years I was struck by the decision of the court how in Roe, they rejected the idea of equal protection in the 14th Amendment for the fetus, but applied it to only the woman. Leaving unanswered the most basic question when does life (and the protection of the 14th Amendment) actually come into play?
The Burger court took the role of the legislature away (which has now been returned to the states). In the interim years no one on the left made any serious attempts to put the issue to rest with an amendment to the Constitution that would have actually codified the rights of a woman, or a fetus. It was always a battle they didn't want to fight.
Sadly, for us, the Constitution is becoming a historical artifact, and not the living document the founders believed it to be. We used to modify it about every 20 or so years. The last amendment, the 27th, took two hundred years to be ratified.
Don’t understand Yang’s points.
Roe was not codified because the votes were not there. It would have required some first trimester limitations to get public support and that is not what D’s want.
Balanced Supreme Court. Huh. It was only in the last few years that it tilted right. Up till then it was a left leaning court..
Ruth resigning. The left made her an icon even though she was not a Roe fan. How could they destroy their own creation?
The D job, like the R job, is to enact the will of the people. There is no “job” beyond that. The people in most parts of the country don’t want what the D’s are selling. They saw what Obama wanted to do and said- no thanks. We’ve been slowly moving right since. End of story.
When Republicans controlled the House/Senate and Barrack Obama was president, they'd pass a bill to repeal Obamacare and Obama would veto it. Then Donald Trump is elected, and they have no bill in sight to send to him. Paul Ryan talked a good game about passing the Republican agenda, but little got done. Tax reform passed, but that was about it.
"Help undo our failures!" is not a compelling rallying cry.
He's not wrong. (On the other hand, the people he's attacking actually got elected, which is more than Yang has ever done.)
The left:
Keep people angry.
Democrat voters don’t translate failures to the politicians they keep putting back in office over and over. If they did, Detroit and other urban centers would look at lot different.
Here’s an example I found in Reddit. Gal mad at her boyfriend because he wasn’t expressing outrage over the supremes decision.
Debating leaving my bf due to his indifference to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
By now, a lot of us have heard this news. I found out at work from a coworker and all of us, including the men, were obviously very upset and furious.
I got home and my bf didn’t say a single thing about it to me. I asked him “what do you think about the fact that roe v. wade was overturned?” No response. I asked him again and no response. I sat for a few minutes, disappointed. Then I said, “the fact that you have nothing to say about the fact that MANY women, including myself, are getting their rights taken away is very telling” and I walked out of the room.
He lied to me about is political views when we first started dating but at the very least, I would expect him to support basic human rights. I am disgusted with him. This is not just coming from the one “conversation”, this is coming from multiple instances where he has shown to have indifference to important social issues.
If lip service is good enough for you, don’t be surprised when that is all you get.
The left cannot break out of the Biden-Pelosi-Clinton death-grip spiral of insider power, control and personal grift.
mmm perhaps it's time to try.
Hillary-Pelosi-Biden - bad fruits.
They had 50 years to codify Roe. Instead, they used it politically for 50 years.
I suspect that the Court's snatching the issue out of the political sphere was itself a political move that relieved Democrats of the burden of establishing the right to abortion in our statutes. They benefited from that relief for 50 years, and they will now try to benefit from denouncing the bad old Court.
The job of every pol in DC is to raise money and get re-elected. Everything else is a tool for that job.
They may benefit from "denouncing the bad old court", but only to radical Progressives. The rest of us will just be laughing at the hysteria of the left who can still kill all their babies, but are acting like they now will have to raise a family.
"Being bad at their jobs?" Does Sen. Harry "Let's end the judicial filibuster" Reid fit the category?
Trump said he would do this, and he did.
So, not a con.
It doesn't just apply to the dems. The GOP I. 2017 had the perfect opportunity to codify a roll back in the bureaucracy and regulations. They failed to do so, I sgead relying on Trump. It's because they don't actually want the massive bureaucracy reduced, they simply want to be in charge.
Anyone who tells you a fetus is not a human life is a false prophet.
I wonder if the Pelosi family get rich off baby parts?
Democrat and Republican politicians are openly deceptive at every step. But they do this because that is what voters want them to do.
The only person in DC who did what they said they would do in the last 30 years is Trump.
And look at all of the republicans that want to vote for someone else.
This is not just a democrat thing. Republican voters want to be lied to as well.
Roe allowed Democrats to lean on a “Woman’s right to choose”. They didn’t have to dirty their hands legislatively and could pretend the Founding Fathers decided a fetus was not a life deserving legal protection.
Now Democrats have to dirty their hands and vote yes to make it legal. THEY have to go on record. Now it’s in their lap. For the moment not just between “a woman and her doctor”.
And I’ll bet with each passing trimester, the thought of voting yes is more difficult. Even for Elizabeth Warren.
I’ll bet they secretly wish they let Mississippi’s 15-week threshold alone.
Perhaps the Progressives on the court should make better arguments.
I know that a fetus is a life. That is a scientific, and God given reality.
But I would vote to legalize abortion federally, or here in Wisconsi through the first trimester, and make it illegal beyond that point. Abortion in America is a reality.
And then I would pray for forgiveness. .
It's a gruesome thing to do. Activists aside, most people don't want to have to pull the lever to personally facilitate the killing of millions of baby humans. They'd rather have a far away court pass Roe. It keeps blood off their own hands. They would never have an abortion themselves, but they rationalize it by calling it women's rights or a healthcare issue and ignore the grizzly killing part. When they personally face the decision then they turn off their conscience and do it, then go back to telling themselves they are a good person.
We live in society full of cowardly and amoral people.
Abortion is used by both sides as a football and fund raising tool. Neither side wants to reach a compromise- it's too useful as is. Hence, instead of accepting defeat gracefully, as Rs did on SSM and O-care, they're talking about "codifying" it, and also by the way rioting.
More than a few prominent D's have talked about eliminating fossil fuels. The most efficient way to do that is to make them unaffordable. Success there.
Other Ds have wanted to increase Diversity. Several million new Americans coming over the border certainly does that. Success there.
Ds really should soft-pedal their pro-abortion stance. Aborted babies are overwhelmingly from demographic groups that vote Democrat. They have literally sacrificed tens of millions of their voters over a half century, poor strategy for a team that plays the long game. Not a success.
Jefferson's Revenge said...
Don’t understand Yang’s points.
Are you a Bush/McCain/Romney supporter by chance?
"Hillary lost. Her fault."
She, ber campaign, and the DNC promoted Trump to sow discord in the Republican primaries. The Dems have never addressed it.
"The left cannot break out of the Biden-Pelosi-Clinton death-grip spiral of insider power, control and personal grift."
They can't move forward until they do this. It's a desk-by-desk battle, though, in the bureaucracy, schools, media, foundations. It could push hundreds of thousands out of jobs.
The last time the Dems did this, their segregationists just said, "Okay, we give up segregation," and they were allowed to keep their jobs and offices, and public buildings and such got named after some of them.
She, her campaign, and the DNC promoted Trump to sow discord in the Republican primaries.
there's some old saying about sowing the wind; and reaping the whirlwind.
Couldn't be truer, it's practically Gospel Truth!!
Perhaps they did what the did to bring us to this point when the oldest political party in our history openly advocates for insurrection. Whatever vague things the so-called Select Committee thinks but cannot prove Trump said to egg on the January 6 "insurrection" by no one even charged with insurrection pales before the naked threat to the SCOTUS justices spoken by Chuck Schumer, which in turn pales before the clearly illegal yet tolerated demonstrations and attempted intimidation of those same justices, which further pales before the attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Democrats did this before, you know. Insurrection is in the Party's genes.
Gusty Winds said...
But I would vote to legalize abortion federally, or here in Wisconsin through the first trimester, and make it illegal beyond that point
???
HOW would That pass? You'd need Democrat votes; and WHAT Democrat would vote for That?
That's what's Going to be Fun!
Watching Democrats vote AGAINST abortion bills; Because they DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH!
The aborted future democratic voters are being replaced by the future children of the illegal aliens who will have benefited from “free social programs” made possible by the dems. That’s why Biden is not allowed to close the border. The people really in charge want those new potential American citizens to vote for the Democrats who let their parents in the USA. And the Catholic women of Central America do not abort their babies. So, plenty of future voters. The United Countries of America, is coming… from the (now) U.S. down to southern Central America.
"This is not just a democrat thing. Republican voters want to be lied to as well."
The corrupt mayor in The Last Hurrah said something along the lines of "I could not accomplish half as much as I do, if I did not promise twice as much as I can deliver".
Misaligned incentives rewards poor-negligent political effectiveness. Abortion on demand is not the only casualty of a phenomenon that took Brett and Heather over 20 minutes to flesh out using the tools of biology and economics. The term "unintended consequences" doesn't encompass the big picture of what is going on. (spoiler alert: the discussion is not conspiratorial)
Congratulations if stay and watch the whole thing; it will be of benefit to this discussion.
Whoever comes up with something to ameliorate this... actually, it may very well be an unfathomable quandary we are stuck with until we change ourselves from within... which regulating abortion might be a first step!?
The fact is that while there are more than a few rabid pro-abortionists who care little that it is the destruction of human life they are advocating, as noted the other day, most people have been calling themselves "pro-choice" as a default without really thinking about it and they are now quite ambivalent about the prospect of some not being able to eliminate their "problem" by eliminating their child.
Joe Biden spent the balance of his 40 years in public life attempting to end abortion. He literally wrong a Constitutional Amendment to do it; repeatedly voted to defund it, and repeatedly voted to outlaw it.
Congrats, ladies.
You played yourselves by voting for this guy.
They had 50 years to codify Roe. Instead, they used it politically for 50 years.
The contrast with antidiscrimination law is, I think, illustrative. After Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Eisenhower signed acts designed to protect African American civil rights in 1957 and 1960, and Johnson signed a more comprehensive act in 1964. The legislative branches didn't just outsource it to the judiciary.
Similarly, after Loving v. Virginia (1967), it appears that relevant portions of the Virginia Code were repealed in 1968. Note that online sources are a little ambiguous about the timing, e.g. Wikipedia suggests 1975, and Reason has an article suggesting that the Racial Integrity Act was still on the books recently when "Blackface" Northam was still governor -- I haven't traced this history exhaustively, but am just relying on the Virginia Code annotation that the chapter on "Marriage Between White and Colored Persons" was repealed in 1968.
Either way, the usual pattern has been for the legislature to come through and implement judicial decisions in law, federal or state. To the extent this never happened with Roe v. Wade, it's a reflection of the political reality that, in stark contrast to the antidiscrimination cases, the radically permissive framework established by Roe v. Wade never gained sufficient public acceptance for elected officials to feel comfortable implementing it in law. As late as 2006, even Biden publicly expressed his disagreement with Roe v. Wade. So it's no surprise that it was never implemented through the legislative process. Any attempt would have failed.
There is an opportunity now, though, for both parties to seize the centre by proposing moderate legislation. I think Republicans have the advantage at the moment with legislation like the statute in Dobbs being framed as "pro-life" even though it permits most abortions (the majority of which take place before 15 weeks). Democrats could propose similar legislation and frame it as protecting the right to abortion, only that will be rather harder for them now that the terms of public debate have been set such that a ban after 15 weeks = "pro-life."
It's a gruesome thing to do. Activists aside, most people don't want to have to pull the lever to personally facilitate the killing of millions of baby humans. They'd rather have a far away court pass Roe. It keeps blood off their own hands. They would never have an abortion themselves, but they rationalize it by calling it women's rights or a healthcare issue and ignore the grizzly killing part. When they personally face the decision then they turn off their conscience and do it, then go back to telling themselves they are a good person.
We live in society full of cowardly and amoral people.
This is absolutely correct and bears repeating.
The democrats owe people a lot of apoligies as almost all of their programs and policies have failed to deliver as described.
Based on watching their antics for 50+ years, there is nothing politicians like more than passing a bill crafted to look like it is solving a problem without actually solving the problem. I expect nothing much to come out of Dobbs because I don't see any way to craft legislation that will function on the "appearance only" level so beloved by politicians. This seems to be a case where they will have to actually DO something.
Sadly, for us, the Constitution is becoming a historical artifact, and not the living document the founders believed it to be.
Why do the work when you can threaten the Supreme Court to do your work for you?
I’ll bet they secretly wish they let Mississippi’s 15-week threshold alone.
==============
since abortion rights is wedge issue was that a crisis D's could not have let go to waste?
I suppose they could not wait to turn Misszzippi blue and repeal it ?
'Federalism' thinking could have restrained them from elevating to USSC!
the Virginia Code annotation that the chapter on "Marriage Between White and Colored Persons" was repealed in 1968.
=========
is 'cruel and neutral' wording or interpretation possible == in any law that has to employ 'between'
Doesn't he nean Republicans were bad at their jobs? There has been a Republican majority on the Court since before Roe, but it has taken 49 years for a majority to return abortion to the states.
proposing moderate legislation
You think that allowing second trimester abortions is "moderate"???
You think that the squish position is a winning one?
If the abortion's D&C procedure required the use of a handgun (Discharge and Curettage), would Progressives be pro-Second Amendment?
I had a whole response prepared based on the idea of the Democrats owing an apology for not doing their job. Now I see the thread is about abortion, and not about their messing up everything else. I don't know what to say codifying Roe, except to say that it wouldn't have happened, and if it had happened, the country would be even more divided than it is now.
Sure, politicians use abortion (and guns) to raise funds and mobilize activists and voters. They don't want those issues to really go away, but the occasions when one party really controls the presidency and both Houses of Congress are so rare that it's understandable that they prioritize other parts of their agenda.
And really, it ought to go without saying that it's even harder to get the Supreme Court to overturn a decision than it would be to get enough members of Congress to agree about even a complicated and controversial measure. There's no automatic path from a party controlling the other branches of government to the Court doing what the party wants.
Sometimes Dems are bad at politics. When a trailblazing business litigator (whom I once worked with) and biglaw firm leader who happened to have a US President among her clients got nominated to the Court, Dems let partisanship get the better of them, and we instead ended up with Alito, author of Dobbs.
If you're worried about the ascendency of the Woke, you can take heart by reading this account of how they are fragmented, fucked-up, and viciously opposed to each other:
https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/
"Confusion to our Enemies"!!!
“Watching Democrats vote AGAINST abortion bills; Because they DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH!”
Game theory has an answer, the rule of the limited direction. Pass a law that says that the federal law applies, say 15 week abortions, , but does not prohibit states from passing and enforcing laws that are more lenient than the federal standards, that sets a floor but allows states to enact and enforce partial birth abortions if they want.
"Sadly, for us, the Constitution is becoming a historical artifact, and not the living document the founders believed it to be."
*********
It's never been a "living document". If it were it would be easy to change. It isn't.
Democrats have spent the entire history of the country trying to dick with its principles, and they have largely succeeded---but not because the Framers wanted it that way.
" I asked him “what do you think about the fact that roe v. wade was overturned?” No response. I asked him again and no response. I sat for a few minutes, disappointed. Then I said, “the fact that you have nothing to say about the fact that MANY women, including myself, are losing the legal power unilaterally to abort a fetus you might implant in me is very telling” and I walked out of the room. "
What would be the right answer for him to offer?
I always get a kick out of seeing people crying after heir team lost in a sporting event.
Make em cry.
THIS is a lot better.
Waaa waaa waaa, I want to have abortions.
yeah, thats not batshit crazy.
A lot of socially conservative blacks have loyaly voted Democratic, because of the primacy of pocket book issues ,and issues like abortion didn’t matter because they were told and believed that Roe was the law and nothing would ever change that. Now when many of them are having difficulty feeding their families, they being told abortion is the most important issue, good luck with that.
It has become apparent that the "fruits" of the Democrats are intended to bring down the country. Open borders, skyrocketing gas prices, the climate change hoax, the Russia Hoax, record inflation, dangerous vaccine mandates (probably to include children), the emasculation of our military, unending graft, defunding the police, unpunished riots and arson, pandering to the CCP, pandering to LGBTABC activists, the war on gun owners, the corruption of federal law enforcement and the IRS, etc., etc., etc., cannot be otherwise explained.
No other explanation! No! Not one!
Roe was a fig leaf for multiple, thorny issues. The legal, safe and rare folks never had to do a damn thing with Roe as their shield.
So what if abortions were being performed up to (and just after) the moment of birth. They could claim they wanted just a basic protection.... nothing extreme, no siree Bob.
But legislation is a different animal entirely. In tat process one needs to define a time limit. Exceptions for rape and incest? Almost assuredly. Health of the mother? Also likely. But is, I decided it would stress me to be a mom (at 6 months?), a rational health position.
No, no, it was much better to claim the "rare" position and fight for against restrictions from the high ground of Roe.
The state by state fights should prove interesting. Some are already zero restrictions. Some are no abortions at all. Are even those extreme positions able to stand up as state law without Roe?
Althouse is right. The Democrats are doing their job. Look at the country!
Republicans appear lost in their cowardice except, apparently, five justices and a couple of Congresswomen.
I love how voters are blamed for this. It's not like the media haven't done their best to keep the issues fuzzy, refused to provide basic context and information, and hold politicians from both parties to their promises.
I can live with the concept of abortion being legal with restrictions but the idea that people actually lamenting that they don't have a "right" to kill a baby is abhorrent. There is a difference between constitutional rights and what you may be permitted to do legally.
Quaestor said...
Perhaps they did what the did to bring us to this point when the oldest political party in our history openly advocates for insurrection again.
"I think Republicans have the advantage at the moment with legislation like the statute in Dobbs being framed as "pro-life" even though it permits most abortions (the majority of which take place before 15 weeks)."
Except the Mississippi legislature is being deceptive. Mississippi has a trigger law which bans almost all abortions as soon as roe is overturned.
To pretend that abortion is not going to be completely banned in many states is incorrect
Apparently didn't threaten SCOTUS sufficiently. Like learning to "fortify" the election process in 2020 to defeat Trump, they will fortify the intimidation process in future.
@Freder-
"Completely"? Are you saying there will be many states that prohibit abortions even in cases of rape or if necessary to save the life of the mother? If so, you are delusional. I'd be astonished if there was a single state that did not admit at least one of these exceptions.
So no, not completely.
Pervious commenter: "Abortion is used by both sides as a football and fund raising tool. Neither side wants to reach a compromise- it's too useful as is."
Not quite. Both sides are driven by activists who (correctly) see that there are important issues at stake.
Pro-aborts think that abortion is necessary for female equality as otherwise a pregnant woman might have to delay education or work or even give up a child for adoption. They think that this is unacceptable as their highest value is equality for women.
Pro-lifers think that abortion takes an innocent human life and that any state that permits this to be done legally is monstrous. Respect for innocent life is their highest value.
In the "middle" are many people to whom an unborn child is of dubious moral worth and for whom women's equality can be best dealt with by a little responsible planning of one's sex life. Their highest value is quiet so we can argue about tax law or some such thing.
The middle would be delighted with almost any compromise that gets the activists on both sides to shut up.
To pretend that abortion is not going to be completely banned in many states is incorrect
I guess that having an opinion contrary to Freder is pretending.
Representatives in Purple states that try to ban abortion outright can read the tea leaves. After much ado, the vast majority of Americans will have access to abortion in their states. California, Illinois, New York, Oregon and a few other states will become famous as "abortion destinations" for those who cannot get abortions in their state.
What's the over/under on the percentage change in abortions in 2023?
A key I use to understanding puzzles like this is: People do what they want to do. What have they done? Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.
Yes. This, 1000x this
So Yang is only half way there. Apologies are not enough. They would necessarily be premised on an assurance that Democrats really did mean to do what they said they wanted. It's just as bad as a plea for votes to "undo our failures." If you use my key, these were not failures. These were achievements — achievements of ends that were kept hidden.
The Democrats wanted their idiot base to live in terror and fear, and constantly send the Dems more money so the Dems can keep lhem living in terror and fear.
Just like the GOP wanted their base to live in agitation about ObamaCare, and about Roe. They didn't want to stop it, or repeal it, they just wanted the base to live in agitation, and send more money.
Trump blew up the con on the GOP side, which is why the GOP Establishment hates him so.
I do wonder if the Dems will manage to find someone wiling and able to blow up the con on their side
To pretend that abortion is not going to be completely banned in many states is incorrect
Doctor Freder is now telling us the future. The Dobbs decision returned the issue to the states. No doubt, unlike Roe, there will be vigorous debate. The LA Times is hysterical (as usual) that abortion will be banned. Abortions were legal in California in 1969, well before Roe v Wade. Most states will end up with a rule somewhat like Europe. It is illegal after 14 weeks in France. Nonetheless, president Macron was out virtue signaling his support for Roe even though it is not the case in his country.
Hypocrisy will reign until the midterms.
John said...
The Burger court took the role of the legislature away (which has now been returned to the states). In the interim years no one on the left made any serious attempts to put the issue to rest
Of course not!
"Putting it to rest" would have required compromise, discussion with the other side, dropping the pretense that it's only about the woman (isn't it amazing how men can no longer get pregnant?).
Sadly, for us, the Constitution is becoming a historical artifact, and not the living document the founders believed it to be. We used to modify it about every 20 or so years. The last amendment, the 27th, took two hundred years to be ratified.
Bzzt, wrong
Bill of Rights: 1791
11th, repealing Chisholm v Georgia: 1795
12th, redoing the method of electing the President & VP after the screwed up 1800 election: 1804
13th - 15th: Banning slavery and dealign with the aftermath of the Civil War: 1865-1870 (61 year gap)
16th & 17: Income tax and direct election of US Senators: 1913 (43 year gap)
18th: Prohibition: 1919
19th: Women's vote: 1920
20th: Change Dates that President etc take office: 1933
21st: repeal prohibition: 1933
22nd: Term limits for President, since FDR violated the unwritten one: 1951
23rd: Gives DC electors in Presidential election: 1961
24th: Prohibits poll taxes: 1964
25th: Presidential succession with disability: 1967
26th: vote for 18 year olds: 1971
27th: Changes in Congressional salary can't take effect until after an election: 1992
So no, we didn't "modify it every 20 years", we modified it when there was a solid reason and a national consensus
The Dems have sabotaged that by using dishonest SCOTUS members to give the Dems whatever they want despite any lack of consensus.The repeal of Roe iss hopefully an enduring setback to their evil policy
Ann Althouse said...
I suspect that the Court's snatching the issue out of the political sphere was itself a political move that relieved Democrats of the burden of establishing the right to abortion in our statutes. They benefited from that relief for 50 years, and they will now try to benefit from denouncing the bad old Court.
Except now they are screwed.
Because 2/3 of voters think aboriton should be mostly or completely illegal starting in the 2nd trimester, and 80% think it should be illegal in the 3rd
Whereas the Dem base is not going at accept anything other than "abortion until crowning!"
There's going to be a far nastier fight on the Dem side than on the GOP side over this
Gusty Winds said...
I’ll bet they secretly wish they let Mississippi’s 15-week threshold alone.
If they had, then it would have been TeX 8 week "heartbeat law" threshold.
The utterly asinine reality of the Roberts position was that conservative States were going to keep on passing abortion restriction until the new Court either confirmed or tossed Roe. There was no point in dragging it out, other than being an intellectual and moral coward.
Josephbleau said...
“Watching Democrats vote AGAINST abortion bills; Because they DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH!”
Game theory has an answer, the rule of the limited direction. Pass a law that says that the federal law applies, say 15 week abortions, , but does not prohibit states from passing and enforcing laws that are more lenient than the federal standards, that sets a floor but allows states to enact and enforce partial birth abortions if they want.
Oh you sweet summer child. One of two things happens there:
1: SCOTUS strikes down the law as "not a Federal responsibility"
2: GOP gets in and passes a Federal law banning ALL abortions after 15 weeks except when the life of the mother is at risk, and allowing States to ban it earlier.
What is it about you authoritarian scum that makes it impossible for you to accept Federalism, and the idea that someone should be allowed to disagree with you?
Regarding my over/under question about abortions, my bet is 5% reduction.
Of course most of today's "abortions" are from the morning after pill. That may well increase as an ongoing trend.
IOW, The Dobbs decision has little practical impact. It is mostly a correction of a ridiculous Harry Blackmun decision.
Future generations will look on people like Andrew Yang the way this generation looks at, say, the Margaret Dumont character in the (not as funny as people used to think they are) Marx brother post-vaudeville (and not very good vaudeville, to tell the truth) films, where intellectuals like Margaret Dumont were mercilessly mocked.
Poor little Andrew Yang does not know he is a figure of fun, like Margaret Dumont, or, for those who do not know the Marx Brothers films (they are not that funny, and there is nothing wrong with not wanting to watch them), like Homer Simpson, who is really - and I mean this - who is really detested, for his donut eating, selfish, TV watching and failure-to-be-a-good-nuclear-plant-employee midwittery, by the writers of the horribly boring, neverending Simpsoniad that is such a sad spectacle in our day.
Oh, great. Now the Californicators gonna move to rural red areas and promote abortion along with gay marriage.
Not to mention driving up cost of home ownership.
Political parties and their representatives in Congress weren't such compact, conformist, programmatic, agenda-driven organizations until comparatively recently. There were Democrats who longed for the days of Wilson or FDR when law after law could be passed changing the country, and there was Newt Gingrich with his "Contract with America," but there were always too many dissidents and outliers in each party and in their congressional delegations.
It's only in this century, or in the last decade of the last that party discipline has been so strict, so it's been only in the last 14 years or so that a united, issue-driven, disciplined Democratic Party that had already chased off its dissenters failed to act to codify Roe. Whether one wanted that or one didn't, it wasn't anybody's top priority. Either they didn't want to spend precious political capital on that, or they didn't think it was necessary, or nobody brought up the topic.
Yang gets some things right, but not everything.
Fûz said...
" I asked him “what do you think about the fact that roe v. wade was overturned?” No response. I asked him again and no response. I sat for a few minutes, disappointed. Then I said, “the fact that you have nothing to say about the fact that MANY women, including myself, are losing the legal power unilaterally to abort a fetus you might implant in me, is very telling” and I walked out of the room. "
What would be the right answer for him to offer?
**************
"First, you don't know shit about conception do you, sweet cheeks...."
"Second, you've just openly declared you don't consider me a candidate for Husband, let alone a father." Apparently, I'm just a schmuck who gets you off in bed."
So....... adios.
Josephbleau said...
“Watching Democrats vote AGAINST abortion bills; Because they DON'T GO FAR ENOUGH!”
“Game theory has an answer, the rule of the limited direction. Pass a law that says that the federal law applies, say 15 week abortions, , but does not prohibit states from passing and enforcing laws that are more lenient than the federal standards, that sets a floor but allows states to enact and enforce partial birth abortions if they want.
Oh you sweet summer child. One of two things happens there:
1: SCOTUS strikes down the law as "not a Federal responsibility"
2: GOP gets in and passes a Federal law banning ALL abortions after 15 weeks except when the life of the mother is at risk, and allowing States to ban it earlier.
What is it about you authoritarian scum t”
You call me authoritarian scum? You don’t like me? I was explaining a possible tactical approach the legislature could use, in either direction. Wow, just wow. Hate is out there.
"intellectuals like Margaret Dumont were mercilessly mocked."
Margaret Dumont plays someone who's rich, not intellectual. If she were intellectual, she would see through whatever BS scheme Groucho is running.
Josephbleau said...
You call me authoritarian scum? You don’t like me? I was explaining a possible tactical approach the legislature could use, in either direction. Wow, just wow. Hate is out there.
1: You appear to be approvingly describing, not merely describing. If I was receiving you incorrectly, I apologize
2: Abortion is not a Federal power. it is an issue that belongs solely to the States.
For the last6 50 years we've been living in an authoritarian system where 7 then 5 black robed thugs decided to trample the written US Constition, the law, and democracy, and replace it with their personal political desires
Now that this evil has finally been undone, it's the response of the Left to double down on it.
Fuck them, and fuck anyone who supports them.
Stop trying to force your personal political desires on an issue that can and should quite properly be left to the States
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा