• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The overturning of Roe v Wade

Status
Not open for further replies.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
Implied in your message is that you don't support those policies yourself, because they'd come at a cost to the taxpayer.

No, I do not say anywhere in my message that I am opposed to the taxpayer/state paying for aspects of childcare. I was simply pointing out that dishonesty implicit in a meme that makes out that these things are somehow magically completely free (and to my eyes, that is exactly what that meme does) and then goes on to impugn the motives of those who disagree with abortion based on the idea that, if you cared about babies, you'd somehow magic up these (in reality, pretty expensive) services.

As it happens, of the things the meme lists, I think that some of them should be certainly provided free by the state and paid for by the taxpayer, while others are really up to the parents to cover (possibly with support from welfare benefits) - as is pretty much the case in the UK. The difference is that I would be upfront that it's not that the things are somehow magically free, it's that we are all, through our taxes, paying for them.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Is the attached image the meme you're referring to?

Of course, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Pretty much none of the things that it claims are free are actually free - and many of them are hugely expensive, and someone (presumably, the taxpayer) would have to pay for them if the state provided them. It's basically an attempt to smear the motives of those who are opposed to abortion.

Fine. Free at point of service. It doesn't change the issue at hand at all and the massive attack on bodily autonomy that millions of women have just suffered in a country that is meant to be a beacon of freedom and liberty.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
If you meant the punishment for the abortion is greater than that for rape, then that is definitely the case.

In Texas the penalty for performing an abortion can be up to 99 years in prison. Depending on circumstances, rape may be prosecuted as sexual assault which carries a sentence between 2 and 20 years (though aggravated sexual assault also carries a penalty of up to 99 years).

Remind me to never visit Texas unless the law changes. Thankfully I have only ever visited blue states, and that's not going to change any time soon.

The ironic thing is the US right moralises about other places in the world equally strident in terms of religious fundamentalism, such as Iran, uses terms like "axis of evil", and threatens war with them. Maybe these right-wing busybodies who wish to interfere with people's private lives should recognise that such wrongdoing, perhaps, begins a lot closer to home.
 
Last edited:

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
There seems to be a misunderstanding that the US Supreme Court has banned abortion; it has not done so. What it is has done is issued a ruling (correctly IMO) that abortion is not a protected right under the US Constitution, and returned the decision regarding abortion regulations back to the states. It is individual states that have decided to reduce the availability of abortions. If the majority of people in each individual state are unhappy with their state's view regarding abortions, they can vote in another party that will change that state's laws regarding abortions.
Does there? As far as I can see everyone here understands that abortion hasn't been banned nationwide, and indeed there was a discussion about how likely that is to happen. Personally I think there will be a strong push (which you can already see happening among high profile conservatives) for a national ban within the next 2-6 years and if that happens, I would bet a lot of money this Supreme Court would uphold that law.

Almost all of the conservative justices on the court lied during their confirmation hearings and said they considered Roe vs. Wade settled law. They lied because eliminating abortion is an end that justifies the means to them, and they will rule accordingly in any given case, whether or not it conforms to their stated constitutional perspective. The court is a deeply political institution and does not practise objective law in any meaningful sense.

If your solution is democracy, are you aware how gerrymandered the US is, across the board, at both national and local level? It is not a functioning democratic state.

I was simply pointing out that dishonesty implicit in a meme that makes out that these things are somehow magically completely free (and to my eyes, that is exactly what that meme does) and then goes on to impugn the motives of those who disagree with abortion based on the idea that, if you cared about babies, you'd somehow magic up these (in reality, pretty expensive) services.
I think you're being incredibly uncharitable here. No reasonable person would interpret "[thing] should be free" to mean "[thing] is free and would cost the government nothing to provide". The argument implied by the tweet is that those things should be funded by the government, and therefore taxes. You can't expect a short tweet making a general point to explain the way government and taxation works or include lots of little caveats. That knowledge is assumed!

As it happens, of the things the meme lists, I think that some of them should be certainly provided free by the state and paid for by the taxpayer, while others are really up to the parents to cover (possibly with support from welfare benefits) - as is pretty much the case in the UK.
I stand corrected. However, my criticism still applies to the people who don't believe these things should be provided by the state, which is the case with most anti-abortion activists in the US.

I think being militantly pro-life in all scenarios (including incest/rape/medical necessity, which is now the case in quite a few states) but against any welfare support for babies once they are actually born is an inherently morally inconsistent position. That's why I simply don't believe this is actually about "life" for many of these people. It's about power and control: nobody is forcing, or has ever forced, conservative Christians with deeply held views to take part in or support abortions.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
And it's been overturned. Oh crap.


Justice Clarence Thomas is also quoted as saying that the Supreme Court should "reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell". Aka - contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

So being gay might be illegal again in America. And people definitely can't abort in any circumstance in some states. In a 1st world country in the 21st century. Well bloody done, scum the lot of them. Just authoritarian halfwits who seem to love restricting other people's rights for the sake of their own religion.
Is there actually a lot of difference between the Ayatollah and these far-right, authoritarian extremists who have this pathological hatred of abortion and homosexuality on supposedly religious grounds?

If they want to personally believe abortion and homosexuality is wrong, so be it. But sticking their noses into other people's lives and telling them what to do is completely beyond the pale.

The ironic thing is that a lot of these far-right fanatics were doubtless fully behind the Iraq War in 2003 and didn't give a damn that innocent Iraqi citizens, and US soldiers, died or suffered as a result. Doubtless they were fully behind the Vietnam War too and don't give a damn that so many young US men lost their lives or were scarred for life as a result. Yet, a one day-old embryo is sacrosanct, has more rights than an Iraqi or Vietnamese citizen or even a member of the US army, and must not be aborted under any circumstance.

And as for someone who believes that an abortion must not happen after rape, there is only one word for that type of dangerous, ultra-right-wing fanatic. Evil.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Of course, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Pretty much none of the things that it claims are free are actually free - and many of them are hugely expensive, and someone (presumably, the taxpayer) would have to pay for them if the state provided them. It's basically an attempt to smear the motives of those who are opposed to abortion.
It's more about pointing out the hypocrisy of forcing all these costs onto women while refusing to provide any assistance. Again, I remind you that these bans don't just apply to "women of loose morals" but equally will force a woman who is the victim of rape to raise bring a child to term while not providing any welfare assistance.
Is there actually a lot of difference between the Ayatollah and these far-right, authoritarian extremists who have this pathological hatred of abortion and homosexuality on supposedly religious grounds?
Very little.

There are numerous figures in the religious right who subscribe to "Seven Mountain Dominion" theology which seeks to impose the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law on the United States.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,391
It's terrorism until it's a white far right agressor, then it's showing it to the man, taking back control Etc...
I think that in Britain we sometimes forget that we had the IRA, and none of them were what a lot of people would have as their stereotypical terrorist.

Also the church is big business over in the states, and as we all know money talks!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
Does there? As far as I can see everyone here understands that abortion hasn't been banned nationwide, and indeed there was a discussion about how likely that is to happen. Personally I think there will be a strong push (which you can already see happening among high profile conservatives) for a national ban within the next 2-6 years and if that happens, I would bet a lot of money this Supreme Court would uphold that law.

I think you're right that some Republican politicians will push for a national ban. I wouldn't rate their chances at all highly though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, a national ban would have to be passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then be signed into law by the President. That means it would have to overcome the Senate filibuster AND the President's veto, and that's only going to happen if the Democrats lose the next presidential election (possible) and the Republicans get 60+ senators (unlikely, even before the court's decision this week. Actually even more than 60 given the small number of pro-abortion Republican senators). The problem the Republicans face is that there is still a pro-abortion majority amongst voters, and with so many people (rightly IMO) now fired up in support of abortion, any suggestion that voting Republican would get you a national abortion ban is likely to severely harm their chances in national elections, even with the Republican bias in the electoral system. I would say that one irony is that, the Supreme Court's decision is probably the only thing that gives the Democrats a chance of holding onto the House and Senate in the mid-terms in 4 months' time.

If your solution is democracy, are you aware how gerrymandered the US is, across the board, at both national and local level? It is not a functioning democratic state.

Yes, I am aware of how gerrymandered the US is. I wouldn't say it's not a functioning democratic state though, more that it's a rather imperfect democracy. It still has all the other characteristics of a democracy - free speech, a free and very varied press, an active civil society, etc. etc. (Of course, if Trump had got his way back in January last year, the situation would have been different, and the Republicans' current unwillingness to accept election results that they lose is very worrying, and could see things turn for the worse if they get back into power).
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
This is what I am fearful of. Yes, in the UK, Abortion is not an issue today, but it's the drip, drip effect and the fact that people who hold these views will stop at absolutely nothing. The UK has changed pretty dramatically over the last few years, bit by bit, there is absolutely nothing to say huge chunks of society cannot be convinced to vote against their own interests or those of others, even if it has no impact on them whatsoever. We cannot be complacent. This government alone has shown they can make huge changes to our lives with very little effort and the people, in general, don't notice or particularly care unless it affects them.
Absolutely. Scott Benton (a Tory MP) retweeted support for the ruling earlier, though has now removed it. It's a particularly moronic view in his case, as he's gay and married to a man, which is a right the people he's supporting wouldn't hesitate to take from him.

There are plenty of people in Parliament right now who would happily go along with all sorts of hateful policies if they saw an opportunity.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
That means it would have to overcome the Senate filibuster AND the President's veto, and that's only going to happen if the Democrats lose the next presidential election (possible) and the Republicans get 60+ senators (unlikely, even before the court's decision this week.
As long as the filibuster remains in place. The Democrats have been reluctant to remove it specifically because it's acted as a brake on the most excessive of excesses to date, but I wouldn't put it past the Republicans as they appear to have given up any veneer of normality and adherence to tradition that they once had. E.g. It was too close to an election to confirm Merrick Garland because it was 8 months before an election, but it was fine to confirm Amy Coney Barret 38 days before an election.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
but I wouldn't put it past the Republicans as they appear to have given up any veneer of normality and adherence to tradition that they once had. E.g. It was too close to an election to confirm Merrick Garland because it was 8 months before an election, but it was fine to confirm Amy Coney Barret 38 days before an election.

The republicans are happy to give up any veneer of normality (and indeed, embrace hypocrisy) if it advances whatever their own cause is - your example being a prime case in point. You can be sure that any Democrat attempt to confirm a new Justice 38 days before an election would be frustrated with claims of "it's too close to the election"
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
As long as the filibuster remains in place. The Democrats have been reluctant to remove it specifically because it's acted as a brake on the most excessive of excesses to date, but I wouldn't put it past the Republicans as they appear to have given up any veneer of normality and adherence to tradition that they once had. E.g. It was too close to an election to confirm Merrick Garland because it was 8 months before an election, but it was fine to confirm Amy Coney Barret 38 days before an election.

That's roughly true. However, the Republicans are bound to be aware that if they remove the filibuster, then they give the Democrats carte blanche to walk over them the instant the Democrats regain power. There are probably some (maybe even a majority of) Republicans who would do whatever they can to push their agenda and won't baulk at removing the filibuster, but I'm pretty sure there are enough more moderate Republican senators who do genuinely believe in the filibuster and who would never vote to remove it. If the Republicans get say 55 senators (which is probably the outside limit of what they could realistically hope for) and win the Presidency, it'll still only take 6 Republican Senators to insist on keeping the filibuster to make it safe.
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, a national ban would have to be passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then be signed into law by the President. That means it would have to overcome the Senate filibuster AND the President's veto, and that's only going to happen if the Democrats lose the next presidential election (possible) and the Republicans get 60+ senators (unlikely, even before the court's decision this week. Actually even more than 60 given the small number of pro-abortion Republican senators).
As long as the filibuster remains in place. The Democrats have been reluctant to remove it specifically because it's acted as a brake on the most excessive of excesses to date, but I wouldn't put it past the Republicans as they appear to have given up any veneer of normality and adherence to tradition that they once had. E.g. It was too close to an election to confirm Merrick Garland because it was 8 months before an election, but it was fine to confirm Amy Coney Barret 38 days before an election.
Unfortunately it is entirely possible to remove the filibuster by a simple majority vote, through the nuclear option mechanism. That same mechanism has already been used by the Democrats (to remove the filibuster for non-Supreme Court judicial confirmations) and the Republicans (to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court confirmations, somewhat ironically).

The only real reason this hasn't happened yet with the legislative filibuster is that the Democrats are worried about the ramifications, given Republicans have an inbuilt advantage in the Senate and are more likely to return majorities. Republicans will abolish it without hesitation because they have no reason not to. A nationwide abortion ban is absolutely possible, and wouldn't even be particularly difficult to achieve.

That's roughly true. However, the Republicans are bound to be aware that if they remove the filibuster, then they give the Democrats carte blanche to walk over them the instant the Democrats regain power.
The Senate significantly favours the Republicans because of the way Democrats are distributed (ie. sparsely populated rural states have equal representation to large, more urban states). So unfortunately it actually benefits the Republicans to get rid of the filibuster, which is why I am certain they will as soon as it gets in the way.

If the Republicans get say 55 senators (which is probably the outside limit of what they could realistically hope for) plus win the Presidency, it'll still only takes 6 Republican Senators to insist on keeping the filibuster to make it safe.
As above, this won't be necessary, just as it wasn't necessary to remove the filibuster for the types of votes I mentioned above. A simple majority is all it takes. The 60 votes is only necessary if you want to be seen to be doing it the honourable way, which is only something the Democrats (fecklessly, in my opinion) spend any time worrying about.
 
Last edited:

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
As above, this won't be necessary, just as it wasn't necessary to remove the filibuster for the types of votes I mentioned above. A simple majority is all it takes. The 60 votes is only necessary if you want to be seen to be doing it the honourable way, which is only something the Democrats (fecklessly, in my opinion) spend any time worrying about.

I think my calculations are correct. Let's say (hypothetically) you have a Senate composed of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. 6 moderate Republicans insist that the filibuster stays no matter what. 49 Republicans decide opportunistically to try to remove the filibuster so they can ban abortion nationally/etc. In that situation you can basically guarantee that all 45 Democrats will vote to keep the filibuster. Result: 51 votes to keep the filibuster, so it stays.

The only way the Republicans are going to be able to get rid of the filibuster is if they get enough of a majority in the Senate to overcome however many of their own Senators strongly believe in the filibuster.
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
I think my calculations are correct. Let's say (hypothetically) you have a Senate composed of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats. 6 moderate Republicans insist that the filibuster stays no matter what. 49 Republicans decide opportunistically to try to remove the filibuster so they can ban abortion nationally/etc. In that situation you can basically guarantee that all 45 democrats will vote to keep the filibuster. Result: 51 votes to keep the filibuster, so it stays.

The only way the Republicans are going to be able to get rid of the filibuster is if they get enough of a majority in the Senate to overcome however many of their own Senators strongly believe in the filibuster.
On what basis do you believe there would be six (or any) Republicans who would vote against it?

Republicans voted to remove the judicial filibuster in 2017 so they could force through their Supreme Court nominee, one of the very people who just removed abortion rights. The vote passed 52-48. Guess how many Republicans voted to remove it? Every single one of them, including the moderates. Not even Susan Collins (often cited as the most moderate, and certainly the most pro-choice) voted against.

If Republican congressional leadership want the filibuster to be removed (and they will, because doing so benefits them) it will absolutely be removed, because they have a very effective whipping operation. They would allow three or four senators (based on your example) to vote against, usually those in marginal states, and it would pass.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
The only way the Republicans are going to be able to get rid of the filibuster is if they get enough of a majority in the Senate to overcome however many of their own Senators strongly believe in the filibuster.
What's the basis for your faith that there would be six Republican senators who would vote to retain the filibuster?
 

Pete_uk

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2017
Messages
1,250
Location
Stroud, Glos
Women and their rights seem to be under attack of late.
Can't believe it's the second decade of the 21st century.
 

TheEdge

Established Member
Joined
29 Nov 2012
Messages
4,489
Location
Norwich
Women, minorities, non-Christians, members of the LGBT+ community, ...

Yea, let's not undersell the efforts of the GOP.

This isn't an attack on women, it's an attack on anyone who isn't white, well off, straight, Christian and nationalist.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
2,976
Location
London
This is among a long list of reasons why such a heavy focus on GDP is not a good way to measure success as a country. The US having the highest GDP in the world doesn't make anyone victim to abortion laws and gun crimes any happier, nor does it help the poorest in society or any other groups demonised as minorities for whatever reason. Then of course the country with the 2nd highest GDP in the world is one of the most authoritarian countries in the world and is also helping Russia get by while it ruins Ukraine.

I used to admire the US as a child for various reasons, but as I got older and more educated, coupled with the events of the last 6 years, I now couldn't loathe it anymore, only that I feel sorry for some of the genuine citizens who don't like the way the country is but are almost powerless to do anything about it. This is what some of the strongest neoliberalism in the world has contributed towards.

GDP per capita is a more reliable indicator of success than total national GDP, as that is distorted by population size. China is way down the list on GDP per capita. Even on that basis, the US is an outlier, as are Arab states. Most other high GDP per capita countries are also advanced socially.

Watch now as there is a massive brain drain from states that will restrict abrtions to ones that won't, why would any sane woman live in a state that treats women as a lower class, maybe a new suffragette movement is needed in America.

Quite a few people have migrated from 'blue states' to 'red states' recently because of the high cost of living in states like California and New York, especially now working from home is a possibility.
 
Last edited:

Strathclyder

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
3,178
Location
Clydebank
So this week they've effectively banned abortion and loosened gun laws... *repeated head banging*
Just another week in 'Merica!

If they want to personally believe abortion and homosexuality is wrong, so be it. But sticking their noses into other people's lives and telling them what to do is completely beyond the pale.
This is what particularly gets under my skin. If they want to fester in their own ignorance and bigotry, so be it. But sticking their oars into people's affairs in such a way and telling them what they should and shouldn't do is utterly enraging.

Absolutely. Scott Benton (a Tory MP) retweeted support for the ruling earlier, though has now removed it. It's a particularly moronic view in his case, as he's gay and married to a man, which is a right the people he's supporting wouldn't hesitate to take from him.
Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving feasts comes to mind with people like him apart from anything else.

There are plenty of people in Parliament right now who would happily go along with all sorts of hateful policies if they saw an opportunity.
Quite. If they thought it'd advance their polticial careers in any way, shape or form (or just fatten their bank balance), they'd go along with the ride all the way to the terminus regardless of how morally/ethically bankrupt it was.

Women, minorities, non-Christians, members of the LGBT+ community, ...
Yea, let's not undersell the efforts of the GOP.

This isn't an attack on women, it's an attack on anyone who isn't white, well off, straight, Christian and nationalist.
Pretty much this.

And for anyone who is somehow still in doubt about this, I refer you back to this part of post #78...
Justice Clarence Thomas is also quoted as saying that the Supreme Court should "reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell". Aka - contraception, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
 

Berliner

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2020
Messages
399
Location
Edinburgh
it. It's a particularly moronic view in his case, as he's gay and married to a man, which is a right the people he's supporting wouldn't hesitate to take from him.
This isn't all that surprising. Most of the harder right-wing people I know Identify as part of the LGBT+ community. Of course, everyone can align themselves politically in any way they so choose, I just find it odd that members of a community that still suffers from equality issues, and stigma and have been openly mocked by this PM in the past, support him and his party so strongly. I don't quite understand it myself, but each to their own.
There are plenty of people in Parliament right now who would happily go along with all sorts
This is sadly true. It could also be argued that we have less protection than the US, where a constitution can prevent things from happening, and even if it does, States in the US have much more power than some of our devolved parliaments in certain areas so they can at least mitigate against policies they don't like.
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
Given how the political system in the US is very different to that of the United Kingdom in regards to the Constitution, federalism, the power of the courts and a presidential system I must say outside this forum many British people don't seem to understand how it all works stateside. There is a lot of misinformation about the decision.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
Yea, let's not undersell the efforts of the GOP.

This isn't an attack on women, it's an attack on anyone who isn't white, well off, straight, Christian and nationalist.

I would argue that they are christians not Christians, as the latter should be Christ like and clearly the former haven't read much of the Bible.

Look after the foreigners, widows, orphans, etc.

Speak for those who have no voice (i.e. look out for those who society says don't count - whilst this should extent to unborn children, it also means that everyone, i.e. including the woman who is pregnant, should also be heard. As such no one group can trump another.)

Do to others as you'd have them do to you.

At a time when women's testamentary wasn't accepted in courts they were the first to see the empty tomb.

When it was acceptable to stone people caught in adultery, to protect a women (when it takes two, so where was the guy?) from that by saying that the first stone had to be thrown by someone who had kept all the moral rules (spoiler no one did).

The real shocker to most people is that the disciples before meeting Jesus would have most likely been closer to the Taliban than the USA (let alone the UK) when it came to their thinking and moral code. When read with that understanding, the teachings of the New Testament are quite liberal.

Now I'm not saying that Christians get it right all the time (we certainly don't, it's why we know we need forgiveness), however it's certainly true that sometimes things get dressed up as Christian when it's really not. Forcing people to do/not do anything when they think that they shouldn't/should is one of those things.

In the case of abortion, it should be possible (even if my preference is that doesn't happen, I'm not going to call for it to be banned), as in life things happen which means that there's always going to be unintended consequences of insisting on one thing or not. As such whatever the decision made by the individuals there should always be support in going through with that choice.

I've had friends who chose not to abort a child who was unlikely to survive being born (the child did survive and lived for a few days after birth) and we supported them in that choice, had they chosen abortion likewise we would have supported them through that as well.

Someone I follow on TicTok suggested that older Americans recommend their grown up children move to somewhere other than the USA if they need to move away from them to get a decent job, so that they have the holiday entitlement to be able to go and visit them, have the healthcare to ensure that they and any child (i.e. grandchild) can get treatment, that they are at much reduced risk of being stabbed (let alone shot), etc. One of those etc's would likely also include having access to an abortion if that's wanted (which is a wider scope than just needed).
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Women and their rights seem to be under attack of late.
Can't believe it's the second decade of the 21st century.

Actually third decade now - but given that since 2016 there has been something of an anti-progressive trend, perhaps it's not so surprising :(
 
Last edited:

deltic

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2010
Messages
3,201
Almost all of the conservative justices on the court lied during their confirmation hearings and said they considered Roe vs. Wade settled law. They lied because eliminating abortion is an end that justifies the means to them, and they will rule accordingly in any given case, whether or not it conforms to their stated constitutional perspective. The court is a deeply political institution and does not practise objective law in any meaningful sense.
They did not lie. Settled law does not mean that it cannot be changed. For example, in Justice Samuel Alito’s January 2006 hearing, a Democrat Senator asked if Roe v. Wade “is the settled law of the land.” Alito responded that “settled” did not mean “it can’t be re-examined.” Instead, “settled” means that Roe is “a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis.” This definition of settled has been used by both Democrat and Republican appointed justices.

When Kavanaugh was asked at his confirmation hearing if he would overturn Roe v. Wade.” he said “Senator, each of the eight Justices currently on the Supreme Court, when they were in this seat, declined to answer that question.”

No lawyer or judge worth their salt would ever make a firm commitment to anything in advance without seeing the evidence presented.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,026
Location
SE London
On what basis do you believe there would be six (or any) Republicans who would vote against it?

The fact that parties are not completely monolithic, and particularly in the USA there's much more of a tradition of individual senators/representatives voting with their consciences against the party line than is the case in the UK. In this situation, I would say the onus is more on you to explain why you (apparently) believe that every single Republican senator without exception would suddenly vote to overturn a filibuster that they've spent years rigorously defending: That to me seems implausible - a party isn't going to be able to do a sudden complete U-turn on its policy without making at least some of its senators very uncomfortable. Plus there are at least two Republican senators (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) - who are pro-abortion and therefore extremely unlikely to agree to a change that makes banning abortion more likely.

Republicans voted to remove the judicial filibuster in 2017 so they could force through their Supreme Court nominee, one of the very people who just removed abortion rights.

The situation was rather different though. It was the Democrats who in 2013 had removed the judicial filibuster for every case except the supreme court in order to push through their appointments. The Republicans were merely removing the exception for the supreme court, and they claimed at the time that they were only doing so in response to the Democrats having already removed the filibuster for all other judicial appointments a few years earlier. (Obviously it's questionable whether you believe them on that point, but the situation seems sufficiently different as to not be comparable with the idea of the Republicans removing the filibuster for legislation - for which there is no recent precedent)
 
Last edited:

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,289
Location
Up the creek
This might not be the right thread for this thought, but I wonder if the overturning of Roe v. Wade will have a negative effect on the Republicans’ electoral prospects in the next few years. Could it cause some who might not have voted to go out and vote Democrat, and others who would have leaned towards the Republicans to withhold their vote? Of course, it might harden up the Republican vote in some areas, particularly in favour of those who have been vociferously in favour of the decision. Which could mean that Washington becomes even more divided and make it more difficult to re-overturn the vote, even if it is clear that this is the public’s desire. (The public: what right have they to tell politicians what to do.)
 

windingroad

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2022
Messages
234
\The fact that parties are not completely monolithic, and particularly in the USA there's much more of a tradition of individual senators/representatives voting with their consciences against the party line than is the case in the UK.
Do you have a source for this? In both countries rebels only tend to vote with their conscience when they know it won't affect the result. It's extremely rare (though there are some exceptions) that they don't fall in line if their vote is essential for a majority. That's how whipping operations work.

In this situation, I would say the onus is more on you to explain why you (apparently) believe that every single Republican senator without exception would suddenly vote to overturn a filibuster that they've spent years rigorously defending
I believe that because exactly the same thing happened in 2017, as I mentioned. Republicans were firmly against it (and most senators said so publicly) as recently as 2016. Then Donald Trump was elected and every single Republican senator, without exception, spontaneously changed their mind and abolished the filibuster the next year. Strange that!

Why do you think they would approach the legislative filibuster any differently, when they have no incentive to? Mitch McConnell is ruthless and doesn't care about precedent or norms, which is why he's so successful. He just does what suits the Republicans politically at any given time.

Plus there are at least two Republican senators (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski) - who are pro-abortion and therefore extremely unlikely to agree to a change that makes banning abortion more likely.
This argument simply doesn't hold water, as both of those senators literally voted to abolish the filibuster in 2017 precisely so that an anti-abortion Supreme Court judge could be nominated and confirmed.

Do you think it's a coincidence that those same senators only ever voted against the three anti-abortion nominations when they weren't the casting vote, and so couldn't actually change the outcome? It's how this stuff works: the whipping operation allows those most at risk of a Democrat challenge to vote more liberally (for optics) but only so long as it doesn't risk actually changing the outcome.
 

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
This might not be the right thread for this thought, but I wonder if the overturning of Roe v. Wade will have a negative effect on the Republicans’ electoral prospects in the next few years. Could it cause some who might not have voted to go out and vote Democrat, and others who would have leaned towards the Republicans to withhold their vote? Of course, it might harden up the Republican vote in some areas, particularly in favour of those who have been vociferously in favour of the decision. Which could mean that Washington becomes even more divided and make it more difficult to re-overturn the vote, even if it is clear that this is the public’s desire. (The public: what right have they to tell politicians what to do.)

Very difficult to say, abortion is many voters is not a major issue if you think about it. Biden is very very unpopular at the moment so whatever happens I think it will be disaster for the Democrats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top