The Biden Presidency - 2020

[GrantDawg]

There is a new reality that shortages are here to stay, as companies are discovering shortages and raising prices actually are better for the bottom line than overages. There are some industries where the shortages are hurting companies. Car manufacturers are about 20% of revenue because of shortages. The only people maybe making out on that are car lots able to charge a premium over sticker, and sell used cars at new car prices. But even then, the inventory is so scarce. I know a used car dealer, and they are having a real hard time getting inventory.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Thomkal]

Macron wins re-election in France over Le Pen. Looks like he won about 58% of the vote

[Edward64]

Must be his chest hair pic

[albionmoonlight]

It shouldn't be this shocking that a right wing party simply concedes when it loses.

But it is.

Good for France.

[RainMaker]

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

[GrantDawg]

Good bye Roe and reproduction freedom. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...inion-00029473

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Good bye Roe and reproduction freedom. Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows - POLITICO

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Fuck anyone (especially independents and Bernie Bros) who couldn't see that 2016 was about the Supreme Court and less about the presidency. It was obvious and it was right there, and whatever bold personal conviction you had that superseded your ability to vote for Clinton, this is entirely on your shoulders.

I can't wait until we have back alley coat hanger procedures again.

Women's rights, just got set back. Who's next in the pool? I'm going to go with LGBTQ.

Fuck everyone who was too blind to do a little critical thinking, but by god, it was so much better this way, because you just didn't like her.

[Atocep]

I expected them to chip away at it. Not completely overturn it. It's impossible to know how this plays out. The protests could be really bad and this could massively backfire on the GOP in midterms.

Then again, we could just forget about it in a month because the GOP will do at least a 20-30 controversial things over that time.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Fuck anyone (especially independents and Bernie Bros) who couldn't see that 2016 was about the Supreme Court and less about the presidency. It was obvious and it was right there, and whatever bold personal conviction you had that superseded your ability to vote against Clinton, this is entirely on your shoulders.

I can't wait until we have back alley coat hanger procedures again.

Women's rights, just got set back. Who's next in the pool? I'm going to go with LGBTQ.

Fuck everyone who was too blind to do a little critical thinking, but by god, it was so much better this way, because you just didn't like her.

The existence of trans people is the next target. Banning surgeries, rights, ect. Making it a criminal offense for parents to support their trans kids. All of that stuff is on the table.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Fuck anyone (especially independents and Bernie Bros) who couldn't see that 2016 was about the Supreme Court and less about the presidency. It was obvious and it was right there, and whatever bold personal conviction you had that superseded your ability to vote for Clinton, this is entirely on your shoulders.

I can't wait until we have back alley coat hanger procedures again.

Women's rights, just got set back. Who's next in the pool? I'm going to go with LGBTQ.

Fuck everyone who was too blind to do a little critical thinking, but by god, it was so much better this way, because you just didn't like her.

Well, as much as I agree with you here, the people that voted for Trump are probably happy about this decision. Frankly, I'm shocked that something like this is happening in 2022.

[JPhillips]

Alito is a commenter on an Alex Jones discussion board.

Alito’s draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.

“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”

[GrantDawg]

Trans people, gay marriage, contraception, inter-racial marriage, gay sex.
Probably in that order.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito writes. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Echoing the Bush v Gore opinion. When they can't come up with a consistent legal justification, they'll just do what they want and say it doesn't matter.

[JPhillips]

dola

There's a third possibility, which might be most plausible: Roberts is doing his institutionalist best to court Kavanaugh and/or Barrett away from a full overrule of Roe and someone wants to deter that defection by documenting that they both initially voted to end it.

— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) May 3, 2022

[bronconick]

They can have the protests now and by the time it's "official", everyone will be on to $8.00 gas or whatever that week.

[GrantDawg]

I still can't get over the fact that 55% of white women voted for Trump in 2020.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[bronconick]

There's a reason the internet has sections about "Karen's"

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

dola

I think another possibility is that one of the conservatives wanted it out early so the states can have full bans in place by June. It benefits those who want to ban abortion as soon as possible to have this leaked.

[RainMaker]

The mention of Lawrence vs Texas in the draft is interesting. Especially when you look at what's being discussed within the Republican Party. That is probably the next target.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Echoing the Bush v Gore opinion. When they can't come up with a consistent legal justification, they'll just do what they want and say it doesn't matter.

It's wild looking back and how that changed everything. Court realizing "uhhh we don't actually need to have a legal reason to do stuff".

[miami_fan]

Wait an minute.

He said this...

During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman’s right to an abortion was “settled law,” calling the court cases affirming it “precedent on precedent” that could not be casually overturned.

...and she said this...

Amy Coney Barrett told senators during her Senate confirmation hearing that laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. “It’s not the law of Amy,” she quipped.

...and finally she said all of this.

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Protecting this right is important to me. To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent “is not just a judicial policy … it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent.” In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration; it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.



The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance, and fairness. There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent. The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong” decision--to use the judge’s term--allowing racial inequality. But, someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is “grievously wrong” or “deeply inconsistent with the law.” Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases.



As Judge Kavanaugh asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked. Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that precedent can’t be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim. In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.



Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago, and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent. He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.

How could this have happened?

[Qwikshot]

I can't even begin to imagine what occurs here. I take it even the females on the conservative side are okay with males controlling their bodies (unless they are super-rich).

I guess the next step is to eliminate women's health entirely and tell them to get married and listen to their husbands.

I'm waiting for the next target - Brown vs Board of Education

They really only want one color, sex, faith and preference to handle decisions in the US.

[cuervo72]

Should shock nobody paying attention, but hopefully wakes up some people who weren't.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

They really only want one color, sex, faith and preference to handle decisions in the US.

Honestly you hit it square on the head.

The Republican Party: One Color. One Sex. One Faith.

[miked]

What it really boils down to is that policy has no place in voting. Abortion rights have like 75% support (or at least the polls say that 75% or so oppose overturning it), but people who are R voters will vote R no matter because socialism or CRT or some other stupid word. I don't know why any democrat even debates policy any more as the republicans have figured out how to change the rules so they make policies whether they are majority or minority, and that's what their voters want.

[BYU 14]

And GOP is the party that screams the loudest for "my freedoms" unless of course they don't believe in those freedoms as personal choices.

Sadly the Democrats are too fucking stupid to capitalize on this blatant hypocrisy because they just don't play politics well.

Political parties have really become a a tired old trope. Burn the whole thing down and let people run on individual platforms, start with a field of 8-10, primary, runoff, term limits, one generic political fund that distributes donations equally. Give the country back to the damn people.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by miked

What it really boils down to is that policy has no place in voting. Abortion rights have like 75% support (or at least the polls say that 75% or so oppose overturning it), but people who are R voters will vote R no matter because socialism or CRT or some other stupid word. I don't know why any democrat even debates policy any more as the republicans have figured out how to change the rules so they make policies whether they are majority or minority, and that's what their voters want.

The only thing relevant though is what those numbers are on a state level. At least restricting, if not outright banning abortion is a majority position in red states. That’s what the Governors and legislatures are responding to, not national polling. It will be interesting to see what happens in the states that have already passed bills to ban it completely once the court reverses Roe. Voters have a way of punishing politicians for giving them exactly what they asked for.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, well, throw VA, PA, MI, WI in there with those red states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...aces-roe-leak/

[JPhillips]

I did see someone arguing that people don't vote on what might happen in the future, but on what has happened in the past. I'm still skeptical that Roe matters a lot this November as I don't think Dems will run on it and a plan to counter it, but 2024 is going to be all about a nationwide ban on abortion.

[Flasch186]

I'm shocked that a judge would lie to get appointed to the SC...shocked that so many senators fell for the ruse... shocked.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I did see someone arguing that people don't vote on what might happen in the future, but on what has happened in the past. I'm still skeptical that Roe matters a lot this November as I don't think Dems will run on it and a plan to counter it, but 2024 is going to be all about a nationwide ban on abortion.

Voting isn't the issue here. 5 of the justices were nominated by a President who received less votes than the other person and then confirmed by a Senate comprised of people who received less votes.

Take Wisconsin for instance. In 2018, Democrats won the popular 53%-45% for the state assembly. Republicans got 63 seats and Democrats got 36 seats.

Voting isn't the problem, it's an un-democratic system that is.

[bob]

Dems were dumb for using this as a campaign / fundraising issue vs attempting to solidify this in law for the past 50 years. Its not like this is coming out of the blue.

[RainMaker]

The rumor is that once it's released, Abbott in Texas will direct the state to no longer issue same-sex marriage licenses. Other states may follow. The ruling, in this case, more or less ensures Obergefell goes down next. Alito essentially says so in the opinion he gives.

From there, who knows? I don't know if they have the political gumption to go after Loving, Lawrence, and Brown next. There was a Senator who came out against Loving a few weeks ago. And VDare which has a ton of power in the party spoke up about targeting Brown next.

Should be an interesting few years. Saw someone point out that this generation of women will now have less rights than the previous generation. First time in our nation's history that we've gone the other way on rights.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by bob

Dems were dumb for using this as a campaign / fundraising issue vs attempting to solidify this in law for the past 50 years. Its not like this is coming out of the blue.

Would they have gotten bi partisan support? Because we know how important it is for the Dems to get bi partisan for any legislation.

[Swaggs]

I think it will be interesting to see how doctors react to this news. I have to think a decent percentage will not to train and/or practice in some of these states and that is going to lead to a lot of problems with access to health.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think it will be interesting to see how doctors react to this news. I have to think a decent percentage will not to train and/or practice in some of these states and that is going to lead to a lot of problems with access to health.

From the way that these people talk, health is an individual choice, and frankly, they already know more than so-called doctors, so why should they even bother going. Plus, they shouldn't have to pay for insurance they'll never need, since they won't be going, because of their individual freedoms and they can live however they want and you can't stop them, so why even bother with doctors in the first place?!

[GrantDawg]

Every GOP candidate in the Lt. Governor and U.S. Senate debate in Georgia tonight said they support a complete ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother or fetal anomaly. When did the most extreme position become the common-place one? They are saying if your wife has an ectopic pregnancy, then she just has to die. WTF?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bob

Dems were dumb for using this as a campaign / fundraising issue vs attempting to solidify this in law for the past 50 years. Its not like this is coming out of the blue.

I don't understand this criticism. If Roe was just a law the GOP would have overturned it decades ago and at best access would bounce back and forth depending on which party was in power.

[bob]

Why do anything then if it could just be overturned?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Every GOP candidate in the Lt. Governor and U.S. Senate debate in Georgia tonight said they support a complete ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother or fetal anomaly. When did the most extreme position become the common-place one? They are saying if your wife has an ectopic pregnancy, then she just has to die. WTF?

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

If they're not going to let a few dead kids* get in the way of their gun fetish they're not going to let a few dead women get in the way of this. Hell, if it happens to them they probably welcome the opportunity to trade in anyway.


* Actual born, cognizant, breathing kids. Not the angel babies who haven't been sullied by the world and are first among all beings.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

If they're not going to let a few dead kids* get in the way of their gun fetish they're not going to let a few dead women get in the way of this. Hell, if it happens to them they probably welcome the opportunity to trade in anyway.


* Actual born, cognizant, breathing kids. Not the angel babies who haven't been sullied by the world and are first among all beings.

Every single one of them would not hesitate to get their wife, daughter, ect an abortion if one were needed. The difference is they have the wealth to make it happen even if it's banned.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't understand this criticism. If Roe was just a law the GOP would have overturned it decades ago and at best access would bounce back and forth depending on which party was in power.

The dumb part was that most Dems believed it was settled law and the courts would bail them out. Therefore, they can stay home and wait to be wowed. The GOP heard that and flooded the courts and now here we are.

[NobodyHere]

So what exactly is the constitutional argument for Roe v Wade? Why doesn't it belong in tenth amendment territory?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So what exactly is the constitutional argument for Roe v Wade? Why doesn't it belong in tenth amendment territory?

There isn't one, but the federal government has had no qualms about pretending the 10th doesn't exist in a billion other matters.

edit: And before people jump all over me - I'm pro-choice, and I think the Supreme Court even bothering with this is absurd. But the original court ruling's justification left it wide open for an attack just like this. Shoulda been made law, or better yet, spelled out in a constitutional amendment.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So what exactly is the constitutional argument for Roe v Wade? Why doesn't it belong in tenth amendment territory?

14th Amendment due process clause.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So what exactly is the constitutional argument for Roe v Wade? Why doesn't it belong in tenth amendment territory?

Do you think the only rights that we have are the rights explicitly stated in the Constitution?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Do you think the only rights that we have are the rights explicitly stated in the Constitution?

Just the constitutionally protected ones.

ETA:

Although I do find the 9th Amendment interesting

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Granted it seems to be so vague I have no idea to how to interpret it.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

14th Amendment due process clause.

Can you elaborate?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Just the constitutionally protected ones.

ETA:

Although I do find the 9th Amendment interesting



Granted it seems to be so vague I have no idea to how to interpret it.

It's not vague at all. During the debate for ratifying the Constitution, the anti-federalists demanded that a Bill of Rights be added before they would agree to ratify. Hamilton and other Federalists initially opposed a Bill of Rights because they knew if some rights were listed, then people would argue that only those rights were protected and none others.. This led to the drafting of the 9th Amendment.

This clarified that the goal of the rights was to protect the most crucial freedoms, but not limit all others.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Can you elaborate?

The Due Process Clause prevents a state from depriving citizens of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." Roe (and other decisions before it, like Griswold) found that liberty encompassed many things, including a right to privacy (as suggested by the 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendments).

[Mota]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The rumor is that once it's released, Abbott in Texas will direct the state to no longer issue same-sex marriage licenses. Other states may follow. The ruling, in this case, more or less ensures Obergefell goes down next. Alito essentially says so in the opinion he gives.

From there, who knows? I don't know if they have the political gumption to go after Loving, Lawrence, and Brown next. There was a Senator who came out against Loving a few weeks ago. And VDare which has a ton of power in the party spoke up about targeting Brown next.

Should be an interesting few years. Saw someone point out that this generation of women will now have less rights than the previous generation. First time in our nation's history that we've gone the other way on rights.

Maybe next they'll decide that voting is too dangerous for women, and that'll take us even farther behind.