Abortion Repeal?

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,212
Location
Not Afghanistan
I think someone mentioned this on the board, so if I'm covering "old" ground, I apologize.

For the record, I am pro-choice. I think there are limits, or should be, but my threshold for "full stop" is probably less than many liberals and more than most conservatives, but whatever.

Roe was a bad argument. Pinning the abortion question on right to privacy was a weak argument and one doomed to fail. There were better cases out which offered a better chance for a permanent solution. One of the critics of Roe was no less than Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She took the above a step further and thought Roe should have been rejected and the decision returned to the states. That would allow states to sort out that question, resulting in lawsuits that would inevitably make it to SCOTUS, so the ruling could be put to bed once-and-for-all.

RBG's opinion on the matter predates her appointment to the Supreme Court. As a bit of trivia, I chuckled upon realizing she was confirmed 96-3 with about 40 Republicans voting Yea. In that mix were some pretty stalwart conservatives. How the turn tables...

Anyway, something I think the Left has forgotten is Democrats had I think two 2-year windows where they controlled the White House, Senate, and House; something close to that. Anyway, whether they took Roe for granted, forgot about it, were preoccupied with other political efforts (banning guns and the ACA), they failed to secure a woman's right to choose. For over 40 years, abortion in the US has hung by a thread and some of those screaming the loudest were in a position to make that thread a rope...but didn't.

If you're pro-choice, you could at least recognize that there are a lot of bad actors who got us here today, not just Trump and 3 SCOTUS picks.

One could say SCOTUS terminated something that wasn't viable in the real world.
 

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
973
Anyway, something I think the Left has forgotten is Democrats had I think two 2-year windows where they controlled the White House, Senate, and House; something close to that. Anyway, whether they took Roe for granted, forgot about it, were preoccupied with other political efforts (banning guns and the ACA), they failed to secure a woman's right to choose. For over 40 years, abortion in the US has hung by a thread and some of those screaming the loudest were in a position to make that thread a rope...but didn't.

I brought it up. It's something leftists have been trying to get since Roe was passed, but the establishment party would never go for it.

The DNC doesn't really like to do anything hard or to controversial(as deemed by the population as a whole); they aren't fighters. They like to say "we can't do it because those rascally Republicans or sneaky Joe Manchin won't let it happen, so donate to us so we can try and elect more candidates we like". Case in point, trying to force Pelosi to hold a Medicare for all vote back in 2020. They refused to do it because it wouldn't have votes to pass. That was beside the point though; the purpose was to force people to put their money where there mouths were. It's real easy to say you support something, but a lot harder when you actually have to do it and can't use the other side as a bogeyman.

Compare that to how the GOP, specifically during the Tea Party era, operates. Love it or hate it, they don't give a flying about playing politics. Hell, they self cannibalize their own for stepping out of line to much from the party, background be damned (perfect example is Dan Crenshaw being called a RINO).

Could you imagine the Dems ever doing something like that to Sinema or Manchin? Imagine AOC and the others in the "squad" fucking with Pelosi as much as some tea party members did to force Boehner to drop bills they didn't like? Some senator getting out there like Cruz to read Green Eggs and Ham during a 21 hour filibuster?

The dems don't do anything because they're weak and reactive.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,825
Location
The Big D
I brought it up. It's something leftists have been trying to get since Roe was passed, but the establishment party would never go for it.

The DNC doesn't really like to do anything hard or to controversial(as deemed by the population as a whole); they aren't fighters. They like to say "we can't do it because those rascally Republicans or sneaky Joe Manchin won't let it happen, so donate to us so we can try and elect more candidates we like". Case in point, trying to force Pelosi to hold a Medicare for all vote back in 2020. They refused to do it because it wouldn't have votes to pass. That was beside the point though; the purpose was to force people to put their money where there mouths were. It's real easy to say you support something, but a lot harder when you actually have to do it and can't use the other side as a bogeyman.

Compare that to how the GOP, specifically during the Tea Party era, operates. Love it or hate it, they don't give a flying about playing politics. Hell, they self cannibalize their own for stepping out of line to much from the party, background be damned (perfect example is Dan Crenshaw being called a RINO).

Could you imagine the Dems ever doing something like that to Sinema or Manchin? Imagine AOC and the others in the "squad" fucking with Pelosi as much as some tea party members did to force Boehner to drop bills they didn't like? Some senator getting out there like Cruz to read Green Eggs and Ham during a 21 hour filibuster?

The dems don't do anything because they're weak and reactive.

You mean like AOC and the squad are trying to attack Sinema and Manchin right now and have been for over a year? Child please. Sinema and Manchin are clearly people with real huevos that represent their people. I didn't vote for Sinema but she has represented me very well, unlike that slimebag trash heap Mark Kelly.

Maybe get a better party platform than "we like killing babies".
 

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
973
You mean like AOC and the squad are trying to attack Sinema and Manchin right now and have been for over a year? Child please. Sinema and Manchin the type of dems I can somewhat support. I didn't vote for Sinema but she has represented me very well, unlike that slimebag trash heap Mark Kelly.

Fixed that for you.

If you think the weak-ass pushback Sinema and Manchin have gotten is at all comparable to what the GOP does to maintain party order, you've switched places with Mark Kelly and must be posting from the ISS.

Was McCain a good representative for the state, or was he a RINO because he sometimes worked with the Dems?

Maybe get a better party platform than "we like killing babies".

That's about as reductive as saying get a party platform other than "we're afraid of gay people, but luckily we've got these guns".

That's childish and something I'd expect more from the rabbit.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,212
Location
Not Afghanistan
I brought it up. It's something leftists have been trying to get since Roe was passed, but the establishment party would never go for it.

Ah, thank you. I read so much it is hard to remember who said what.
Could you imagine the Dems ever doing something like that to Sinema or Manchin?

They went after them pretty hard over the BBB nonsense. Compared to the GOP? I don't know enough to compare, but the Dems were shitting on those two quite a bit.

Side note: it is rather fucked up that if you try to compromise in US politics today you get the RINO/ DINO tag. Disgusting.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,991
Location
CONUS
Ah, thank you. I read so much it is hard to remember who said what.


They went after them pretty hard over the BBB nonsense. Compared to the GOP? I don't know enough to compare, but the Dems were shitting on those two quite a bit.

Side note: it is rather fucked up that if you try to compromise in US politics today you get the RINO/ DINO tag. Disgusting.
Agree. Politics in the US has become a race to extremes. I didn't come up with this expression but I've experienced it and used it often: "if you try to be middle-of-the-road, you get run over by both sides." I've experienced that in my work with The Havok Journal, in my interactions here on the board, and in other aspects of my life. Over time, moderates get tired of getting run over and begin to gravitate towards the side that treats them less-shittily. I don't think that's an effective recipe for long-term success as a nation.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,825
Location
The Big D
Fixed that for you.

If you think the weak-ass pushback Sinema and Manchin have gotten is at all comparable to what the GOP does to maintain party order, you've switched places with Mark Kelly and must be posting from the ISS.

Was McCain a good representative for the state, or was he a RINO because he sometimes worked with the Dems?



That's about as reductive as saying get a party platform other than "we're afraid of gay people, but luckily we've got these guns".

That's childish and something I'd expect more from the rabbit.

Full stop. Sinema and Manchin represent the people of their state. Not you, and clearly not your specific value set. This isn't even about if Sinema is a Democrat. I, as a resident of Arizona who voted against her, actually likes how she has represented ME. Mark Kelly is a piece of shit that needs to be shot into orbit.

Maybe this is idealistic, but when she was in the House she was a partisan hack. But as a Senator, she figured out she had represent the people of her state beyond just the people who voted for her. So, that actually makes her a good Senator. Maybe not for you or your various positions.

But for most Arizonans we feel very good about her. She is much like McCain and people go after her. You clearly wouldn't know because you don't live here, but she was accosted in the effing bathroom at ASU.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,991
Location
CONUS
If she would have retired, a liberal justice would have replaced her. Robert’s likely would have leaned with the liberal side, as he did not find the legal argument compelling. Instead 3 Trump appointees and Thomas and Alito voted to overturn. Should have been 1 Trump appointee.

Remember Barrett was confirmed a week before the election despite what we were told by Mitch and company relating to Gorsuch.
I read up a bit more on the subject, and the below content is in regard to the arguments made in this article, not the above post (which is quoted so people can follow the discussion that led to it).

The problem I have with the "Ginsberg's fault" argument is that it makes an awful lot of assumptions. First we assume that President Obama could have gotten a replacement for her confirmed without it getting cockblocked like Merrick Garland's did. OK, so she retires at the wrong time, and instead of one vacancy when President Trump comes to power, he now gets two, and the vote ends up the same.

We also assume that Justice Ginsberg, who is on the record for not finding the Roe case compelling, would dissent (although IMO she would have done so).

So even with a liberal replacement to Justice Ginsberg, the court would have still been 5-4 conservative(ish). We assume that the Democrats would have appointed someone willing to support a far-left agenda (I think that's a good assumption since I only recall one Republican appointee consistently voting outside party lines).

Additionally, and more importantly, AFAIK Justice Ginsberg's decision to not retire had zero impact on the number of other justices appointed by President Trump. If she would have retired, there would have only been one fewer Trump appointee, with still a 5-4 vote.

Despite his reputation as a "swing voter," I see no indications that Justice Roberts would have changed his vote if it would have made the difference between upholding Roe or striking it down. We can assume that he would have, but I don't see any evidence to support that would have been the case. In fact, the evidence I found indicates the opposite, when it comes to high-impact, long-term decisions like Roe.

I'm not a Justice Ginsberg fanboy. In fact, I think the "Notorious RBG" cult of personality that grew up around her is silly, if not outright dangerous. But I don't think that Roe being overturned because she didn't retire is her fault. She's a convenient target, but without an enormous amount of assumptions and mental gymnastics, I don't think we can lay the Dobbs decision at her feet. If we want to cast "blame," we can probably start with the Republicans for refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Garland (which would have still made the vote 5-4 if Ginsberg hadn't retired), and more importantly for the Democrats' actions and choices during President Obama's administration and the election that the country decided it had no choice but... Trump.

I also think it took courage for Justice Ginsberg to maintain her position on the bench despite the pressure she was under to resign. Is the on the bench to serve the American people (which she was fully capable of continuing to do when she was being asked to resign), or is she there to support partisan political interests and a far-left agenda? Good on her for putting her job above party. There is very little of that, on either side of the major parties, today.
 
Last edited:

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
973
But for most Arizonans we feel very good about her. She is much like McCain and people go after her. You clearly wouldn't know because you don't live here, but she was accosted in the effing bathroom at ASU.
I joined the army out of Arizona in 09. Kept it as my home of record until 2018 when I left active duty. Voted in every election I was eligible; still have family there and follow the politics.

I remember the absolute dogshit McCain got after 08, and how much worse it got with party hardliners in the state and nationally starting around 10. Sinema doesn't get anywhere close to the shit that he did. Not saying she deserves to be harassed or should be targeted more (nobody should) but my comparison goes back to the original point; GOP voters and party members go harder than Dems.

Despite his reputation as a "swing voter," I see no indications that Justice Roberts would have changed his vote if it would have made the difference between upholding Roe or striking it down. We can assume that he would have, but I don't see any evidence to support that would have been the case. In fact, the evidence I found indicates the opposite, when it comes to high-impact, long-term decisions like Roe.

The thinking is that Roberts tends to be very narrow in his ruling in close cases like this. If it was a 4-4 split between the conservative and liberals, it's thought that Roberts wouldn't fully overturn Roe, but would readdress the viability aspect of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,541
I read up a bit more on the subject, and the below content is in regard to the arguments made in this article, not the above post (which is quoted so people can follow the discussion that led to it).

The problem I have with the "Ginsberg's fault" argument is that it makes an awful lot of assumptions. First we assume that President Obama could have gotten a replacement for her confirmed without it getting cockblocked like Merrick Garland's did. OK, so she retires at the wrong time, and instead of one vacancy when President Trump comes to power, he now gets two, and the vote ends up the same.

We also assume that Justice Ginsberg, who is on the record for not finding the Roe case compelling, would dissent (although IMO she would have done so).

So even with a liberal replacement to Justice Ginsberg, the court would have still been 5-4 conservative(ish). We assume that the Democrats would have appointed someone willing to support a far-left agenda (I think that's a good assumption since I only recall one Republican appointee consistently voting outside party lines).

Additionally, and more importantly, AFAIK Justice Ginsberg's decision to not retire had zero impact on the number of other justices appointed by President Trump. If she would have retired, there would have only been one fewer Trump appointee, with still a 5-4 vote.

Despite his reputation as a "swing voter," I see no indications that Justice Roberts would have changed his vote if it would have made the difference between upholding Roe or striking it down. We can assume that he would have, but I don't see any evidence to support that would have been the case. In fact, the evidence I found indicates the opposite, when it comes to high-impact, long-term decisions like Roe.

I'm not a Justice Ginsberg fanboy. In fact, I think the "Notorious RBG" cult of personality that grew up around her is silly, if not outright dangerous. But I don't think that Roe being overturned because she didn't retire is her fault. She's a convenient target, but without an enormous amount of assumptions and mental gymnastics, I don't think we can lay the Dobbs decision at her feet. If we want to cast "blame," we can probably start with the Republicans for refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Garland (which would have still made the vote 5-4 if Ginsberg hadn't retired), and more importantly for the Democrats' actions and choices during President Obama's administration and the election that the country decided it had no choice but... Trump.

I also think it took courage for Justice Ginsberg to maintain her position on the bench despite the pressure she was under to resign. Is the on the bench to serve the American people (which she was fully capable of continuing to do when she was being asked to resign), or is she there to support partisan political interests and a far-left agenda? Good on her for putting her job above party. There is very little of that, on either side of the major parties, today.

I’m just gonna put a due out on this post and get back to it some day.

I’m glad that today you can call her patriotic, and working for the American people. There were many on here not long ago calling her everything short of Satan. Those posts are gone, so it’ll slide.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,991
Location
CONUS
I’m just gonna put a due out on this post and get back to it some day.

I’m glad that today you can call her patriotic, and working for the American people. There were many on here not long ago calling her everything short of Satan. Those posts are gone, so it’ll slide.
Well, OK, but I'm 100% certain that none of those posts were mine, so I don't understand how it's germane to the current discussion.
 

R.Caerbannog

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
1,492
I’m just gonna put a due out on this post and get back to it some day.

I’m glad that today you can call her patriotic, and working for the American people. There were many on here not long ago calling her everything short of Satan. Those posts are gone, so it’ll slide.
I'll fess up. Years before her death, I made a D&D reference to Ginsburg being a lich, with +10 creature token generation, and an added command bonus over social justicar warrior tokens. It was pretty funny at the time.

It has nothing to do with the discussion between you and me. You aren’t the only one on the board.
Now that I've stated my evil doings. You wanna enlighten us as to why you tried doxing someone here?
 

amlove21

Pararescue
Verified SOF
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
4,549
Location
The City of Destiny
SSMP
SOF Mentor
You know, this thread has covered a *lot* of ground. But when I came to check the board today, I'll be honest- I was so, so disappointed.

Are we actually *defending* politicians in this thread now? Because that, my friends, is a bridge too far. This thread was already an ab... terminated in the womb 1 day before the due date after the mother decided she was "totally over" being pregnant. Or a clump of cells. Or whatever we are arguing about now.

Kidding! Except about the politicians, they're all trash. ;-)
 

SpongeBob*24

Verified Military
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
2,455
Location
Under the Sea
You know, this thread has covered a *lot* of ground. But when I came to check the board today, I'll be honest- I was so, so disappointed.

Are we actually *defending* politicians in this thread now? Because that, my friends, is a bridge too far. This thread was already an ab... terminated in the womb 1 day before the due date after the mother decided she was "totally over" being pregnant. Or a clump of cells. Or whatever we are arguing about now.

Kidding! Except about the politicians, they're all trash. ;-)

I'll help!!

RUTH.jpeg




:ROFLMAO:O_o
 
Top