An Idea for Re-Legalizing Abortion

[Gateman_Wen]

You're labeling Supreme Court justices with deliberately insulting terms does not serve your position very well.

**** up the SCROTUS, deal with the backlash

 

[Bullseye]

The separate but equal approach...

The constitutional approach.

 

[TurtleDude]

Your whimpering like a little bitch doesn't serve your position well, either. Once you get your ultra-sensitive feelings under control, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the substantive idea. Also, learn the difference between "you're" and "your."

you're having a meltdown over a draft opinion that is not even viable yet, and you are insulting other posters who point out your hysterics?

 

[TurtleDude]

The second amendment was always understood not to apply to the states, right up until 2010, when some arch-conservative judges invented a new rule to impose their preferred policy from the bench. I understand that you WISH the original intent had been to limit the states, but that's absolutely not the case. The Founders didn't wish that. Five right-wing judges did.

can we see your law review article on incorporation of the bill of rights through the 14th amendment? the fact is, either all the BoR apply to the states or none does

 

[TurtleDude]

Report this one too, you sniveling twerp.

U have a mad?

 

[Mina]

you're having a meltdown over a draft opinion that is not even viable yet, and you are insulting other posters who point out your hysterics?

Wow, I hurt your feelings without even addressing you. Some people are just so incredibly fragile. Take a deep breath, little one. It'll be OK.

 

[Mina]

can we see your law review article on incorporation of the bill of rights through the 14th amendment? the fact is, either all the BoR apply to the states or none does

There are literally over a century of law review articles out there written in the time when some of the bill of rights applied to the states and some didn't. Take your pick.

 

[dockside]

Or, we could let it go back to the states as the system is supposed to, and consequently back to the will of the people. I would suggest any legislature that passes laws distasteful to the public would have a bad election day.
One of the facets of this argument that the left and their media robots alway seem to shy away from is that the large plurality of the population is in favor of abortion being allowed in certain circumstances; including, but not necessarily limited to rape, incest, and left of the mother - this cohort comprises about 60-70% of the population with 15-20% on either end advocating either no abortion under any circumstance or abortion on demand.

You forgot, apparently, that in certain states the lines for districts have been redrawn so that there are very few districts with Democratic majorities, giving Republicans the ability to pass any law they want because, even tho' they might be the minority, they are voted into office.

 

[lurchadams]

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.

The Dems are too feckless to do away with the filibuster. Manchin's on his own island. Sinema's a Republican plant. The only thing that will fix this is to elect nothing but Democrats at all levels of governement from now on, take back the Senate and expand the court with some real justices.

Oh, and Kav, Thomas, and Barrett all need to pack their bags and go. They should never have been there in the first place. I hope they're impeached and have to spend the rest of the miserable lives in exile.

 

[Liberal7360]

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.

There is a much easier way to do this.

VOTE.

There is an election for our congress in November.

All that needs to happen is for people to vote. Find a way to vote even though the republicans have made it nearly impossible in some states.

We need a different congress to do the right thing for our nation.

So what you need to do is get everyone you know to vote. Help people vote. Help people to get registered to vote.

Get everyone you know to get everyone they know to vote.

Democracy is the only solution now.

Not voting in the past has gotten us into this mess.

Voting is the only way out.

Vote straight straight democratic and never vote for a republican ever again until they learn that our bodies and lives aren't a political weapon.

 

[The flaming lib]

 

[Cassandra]

You're labeling Supreme Court justices with deliberately insulting terms does not serve your position very well.

What did you object to? "Theocrats" or extremist". Her post was pretty accurate on those counts.

 

[mrjurrs]

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.

I believe that reconciliation is limited to once (?) a term. It's a good idea, but I don't know enough about reconciliation to say it would definitely work.

 

[Dayton3]

What did you object to? "Theocrats" or extremist". Her post was pretty accurate on those counts.

Both

 

[AZRWinger]

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.

It was Senate Democrats under the warped leadership of the incredibly corrupt Harry Reid that undid the filibuster for confirmation of judicial appointments. Known as the nuclear option, Republicans negotiated a compromise on judicial confirmations when they held the Senate majority under W Bush.

The current Democrat tantrum ignores the history of the filibuster and abortion in the same way a petulant child overturns a game table when they are frustrated.

 

[TurtleDude]

Wow, I hurt your feelings without even addressing you. Some people are just so incredibly fragile. Take a deep breath, little one. It'll be OK.

Much power pretend your posts have

Yoda

 

[GummyVitamins]

All that needs to happen is for people to vote. Find a way to vote even though the republicans have made it nearly impossible in States.

Vote straight straight democratic and never vote for a republican ever again until they learn that our bodies and lives aren't a political weapon.

Says someone making "our bodies" arguments into political weapons. Isn't it ironic. Don't ya think? A little too ironic...

 

[GummyVitamins]

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.

I believe that reconciliation is limited to once (?) a term. It's a good idea, but I don't know enough about reconciliation to say it would definitely work.

Reconciliation is for budgets. Democrats have already tried illegally pushing policy through on reconciliation and were told they had to follow the law. All this lawlessness isn't a good look.

 

[GummyVitamins]

**** up the SCROTUS, deal with the backlash

So violent...

 

[cpwill]

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.

Your idea has, I think, a couple of faulty premises.

1. only 46 Senators voted to advance the bill that would legislatively reimpose ROE (+). It is not only the Filibuster that would keep that thing from passing, but, the fact that it does not have majority support.

2. The rule that the Parliamentarian would have to decide here is whether or not it was a budget issue. Respectfully, this is not a budget, or part of one.

 

[roguenuke]

You're labeling Supreme Court justices with deliberately insulting terms does not serve your position very well.

"How dare you call out Supreme Court Justices who are extremists for their extremism? That's insulting!"

 

[Gateman_Wen]

So violent...

What "violence" was that?

 

[Mika-El]

there are plenty of incompetents on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately

Good God you said something that is balanced and makes sense. Are you ok?

 

[mrjurrs]

Reconciliation is for budgets. Democrats have already tried illegally pushing policy through on reconciliation and were told they had to follow the law. All this lawlessness isn't a good look.

You don't think that women's healthcare has a budgetary element? Source for they were told to follow the law? The Parliamentarian probably told them something wouldn't qualify, but it is a Senate rule not a law.

 

[Perotista]

When Sinema and Manchin want to give Republicans their way while pretending they wished it were otherwise, they hide behind a supposed reverence for the filibuster. That may soon be all that stands in the way of a federal law that would restore abortion rights nationally, if the high court does, indeed, overturn Roe. Sinema and Manchin have made it clear they won't vote to repeal the filibuster, but how about just trimming it?

This has already happened repeatedly. For example, the way Republicans jammed these extremist conservatives onto the high court in the first place was that the filibuster has been made inapplicable to Supreme Court confirmations. There's also the reconciliation process, that says that so long as the parliamentarian affirms certain things about House and Senate bills, a reconciled package can be passed in the Senate with a simple majority vote. This would just extend that concept.

The idea would be to make it so if the parliamentarian affirms that the law in question only reimposes a federal rule that was struck down when a federal court reversed an earlier case, then a simple majority is enough in the Senate. That would do very little to erode the filibuster, since it's a scenario that might only come up once per generation. It would also apply, for instance, if the high court's theocrats were to reverse the earlier ruling requiring equal access to marriage for gay couples. If they struck that down, tossing things back to the states, a simple majority in the Senate would be all they needed to pass a bill that would restore those rights nationally.

I think it would be a lot harder for Sinema and Manchin (and Collins and any other supposedly pro-choice Republicans) to cower behind a feigned reverence for procedure, if instead of blowing up the filibuster, we were just reworking it very slightly.