SCOTUS and whatnot

[buddha]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Is this true though?

Polls of Texas continually show that a majority of Texans support a right to choose in at least some cases, while the Texas GOP legislates otherwise.

The only thing it tells me is that there are far more single-issue pro-life voters than pro-choice voters.

we'll see what happens in a couple cycles.  you could be right.

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think im being dismissive that "nothing more will happen."  i think things will happen in red states, that i said before.  i just dont think a national ban will happen.

but i could be wrong.

Easily. All this is needed is for Biden to get sick and have to resign, Harris taking over - as incumbent being too difficult to defeat in the primaries, and then getting plastered in 2024 by another Trumper.  

Edited May 8, 2022 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think im being dismissive that "nothing more will happen."  i think things will happen in red states, that i said before.  i just dont think a national ban will happen.

The problem is that state parties like the Texas GOP often beget the direction that the national party pursues.

I dont see this situation being different

[buddha]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The problem is that state parties like the Texas GOP often beget the direction that the national party pursues.

I dont see this situation being different

i wonder if this helps or hurts the gop with hispanics in texas?

[CMRivdogs]

43 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The Republicans running for statewide office in Michigan support strict bans. There is no moderate Republican party anymore. The days of Rick Snyder are over. 

Rick was starting to slide near the end of his second term when he decided he wanted to be Vice President. Glen Youngkin is what Rick Snyder was becoming.

[mtutiger]

3 minutes ago, buddha said:

i wonder if this helps or hurts the gop with hispanics in texas?

From the latest UT poll released this week. Net negative, looks like 

[Motown Bombers]

Another purple state. 

 

[Tiger337]

If there is a national ban, the MAGA party will lose the the House, the Senate and the Presidency in the next elections after the banning.  

[mtutiger]

18 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

From the latest UT poll released this week. Net negative, looks like 

My own theory is that Hispanics, despite the oft-frequent debate about the degree to which they are culturally more conservative than the average white D, are a lot less black and white on these cultural hot button issues than white voters more generally.

Put another way, it's possible that Hispanics are more open to something like a 16 week ban than the average D, while still being opposed to all-out bans on the practice compared to the average R.

Edited May 8, 2022 by mtutiger

[ben9753]

25 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

If there is a national ban, the MAGA party will lose the the House, the Senate and the Presidency in the next elections after the banning.  

Not if gas is 4.50 a gallon they won’t

Edited May 8, 2022 by ben9753

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[Tiger337]

5 hours ago, ben9753 said:

Not if gas is 4.50 a gallon they won’t

I don't think a full national ban will happen until the Republicans are completely in charge which right now looks like 2024.  

[ben9753]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

So what happens when a states electors don’t certify the winning (Democrat) candidate? If it’s a deciding state (or handful of states), doesn’t that’s have to lead to some kind of civil war?

[oblong]

48 minutes ago, ben9753 said:

So what happens when a states electors don’t certify the winning (Democrat) candidate? If it’s a deciding state (or handful of states), doesn’t that’s have to lead to some kind of civil war?

The intent is to make things appear messy and confusing and then the legislature will try to step in and cast their slate instead.  Then we are at the mercy of judges for democracy. 

[buddha]

15 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I don't think a full national ban will happen until the Republicans are completely in charge which right now looks like 2024.  

you would need over 60 republican senators for that to happen.  

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

you would need over 60 republican senators for that to happen.  

you don't think Mitch would wave the filibuster for abortion? He'd do it in a New York minute. You are really in a different world on the GOP.

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

you don't think Mitch would wave the filibuster for abortion? He'd do it in a New York minute. You are really in a different world on the GOP.

They just need to win the presidency. Given that they don't even need the most votes to win it, it seems like a given. 

[Motown Bombers]

Don't worry folks, the guy who ended the filibuster on Supreme Court justices so he could get these justices on the bench would never end the filibuster to pass legislation this Supreme Court helped enable. 

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

you don't think Mitch would wave the filibuster for abortion? He'd do it in a New York minute. You are really in a different world on the GOP.

Not to mention that Mitch probably won't be majority leader beyond 2026. Even if he were to stay consistent on the filibuster, there's no reason to believe his successor would share his views

Edited May 9, 2022 by mtutiger

[Mr.TaterSalad]

22 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

If there is a national ban, the MAGA party will lose the the House, the Senate and the Presidency in the next elections after the banning.  

I don't believe this. While there is a strong chance it could hurt the Republican chances and could cost them some seats in their House and Senate majority, 2016 was a bell weather as to whether Americans/Democrats truly care about the Supreme Court and abortion, they do not. They cared more about emails, a letter from James Comey, not being far left enough, changing positions on issues, and other things related to Hillary Clinton than the Courts or abortion. Democrats and the average American have proven in 2016 that won't drive massive turnout.

Additionally, people are mad about gas prices and inflation. That economic angst and anger will carry them to the polls to vote for Republicans or will keep some independents and soft Dems who would otherwise vote Democratic home. Not to mention, the reaction of the twitter left to this abortion ban will be more likely outrage at the Democrats for years of inaction than it will be for Republicans and their court taking it away.

I say all this as a recently minted member of the "far left", progressive movement over the past 7-8 years. I also say this as one of those people who bitched and moaned up until the last week or two before deciding to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Mr.TaterSalad]

22 hours ago, ben9753 said:

Not if gas is 4.50 a gallon they won’t

This. People vote with their pocketbooks when times are tough economically. With high gas prices above $4 nationally and the average grocery bill. price of a home, car, childcare, everything on the rise, Republicans will win solely on that. It's really nice to think that all this Republican lunacy and extremism on issues like abortion, book bans, contraception, marriage equality, what we teach in schools, etc. will cost them. I do think it will have some effect and in certain cases if a candidate is waaaaaay out there like Regan was in Michigan, they'll lose, and their majority may be smaller than it should be. As far as costing them majorities, I have a hard time believing that will be the case given 2016 and given the economic anxiety of people.

[pfife]

the fillibuster is way more valuable to the GOP than a national abortion ban is.   Why get rid of the fillibuster when you can just add it to a reconciliation bill and fire the parliamentarian if and when they declare the ban not eligible for reconciliation?

The legislative fillbuster constrains many more Democratic priorities than GOP priorities.  They'd be dumb to get rid of it. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Not to mention that Mitch probably won't be majority leader beyond 2026. Even if he were to stay consistent on the filibuster, there's no reason to believe his successor would share his views

right - he'd almost certainly be worse.

[gehringer_2]

40 minutes ago, pfife said:

the fillibuster is way more valuable to the GOP than a national abortion ban is.   Why get rid of the fillibuster when you can just add it to a reconciliation bill and fire the parliamentarian if and when they declare the ban not eligible for reconciliation?

The legislative fillbuster constrains many more Democratic priorities than GOP priorities.  They'd be dumb to get rid of it. 

true enough, but when it come to the anti-abortion forces it's a crusade to them, so I'm not sure a more level headed analytical view is the one that would necessarily hold.