• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Idea for Re-Legalizing Abortion

Mina

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2019
Messages
1,333
Reaction score
732
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
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.
 
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.
You're labeling Supreme Court justices with deliberately insulting terms does not serve your position very well.
 
No worries
Schmuck Schumer will take care of things in the senate
We’re in good hands [/s]
 
You're labeling Supreme Court justices with deliberately insulting terms does not serve your position very well.
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."
 
No worries
Schmuck Schumer will take care of things in the senate
We’re in good hands [/s]
How dare you speak such words about an esteemed official!
 
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.
 
How dare you speak such words about an esteemed official!
there are plenty of incompetents on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately
 
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.

It's hilarious how their luv of democracy flies out the window the minute the mob doesn't vote the way they want.
 
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.
Well, if we wanted to go more locally in determining the "will of the people," rather than having it decided by the people's representatives at the federal level, then why not go all the way, and just leave it to the decision of every individual woman, rather than letting her state's politicians decide on her behalf?

In terms of what level to decide it at, the state level doesn't have much going for it, since it hijacks the uteruses of pregnant women, but does so in a completely classist way (since wealthier women will easily be able to travel to have a safe and legal abortion done, while poorer women will have to take their chances with illegal back-alley options).
 

An Idea for Re-Legalizing Abortion​


The SCOTUS did not make abortion illegal.

.
Not yet. But if the case comes out as expected, abortion will wind up illegal in a lot of states, and I'm talking about how to re-legalize it.
 
It's hilarious how their luv of democracy flies out the window the minute the mob doesn't vote the way they want.
The solution I've proposed is a democratic one. What's blocking it, at this point, is an anti-democratic rule that prevents a simple majority in the senate from passing such a law.
 
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.

How about we don’t allow the SCOTUS to make any (new) federal laws or rules? If you want a Constitutional amendment adding a “right to (reproductive?) privacy” then draft it and let the people decide whether or not to pass (ratify?) it.



Asserting that such a Constitutional right had always existed and that (somehow) it was not discovered until 1965 (by the SCOTUS) is BS. That seems to be the basis for the SCOTUS dumping the Roe (and Casey) precedents as well the fear that other SCOTUS opinions based on a “right to privacy” may also be reversed.

 
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."
post reported.
 
How about we don’t allow the SCOTUS to make any (new) federal laws or rules? If you want a Constitutional amendment adding a “right to (reproductive?) privacy” then draft it and let the people decide whether or not to pass (ratify?) it.
Unfortunately, our Founders drafted a pretty clunky document that has a lot of oversights (no right to privacy, reproductive or otherwise), and which is far too difficult to amend. So, almost from the start the courts have effectively been legislating from the bench, to try to cope with that.


Asserting that such a Constitutional right had always existed and that (somehow) it was not discovered until 1965 (by the SCOTUS) is BS. That seems to be the basis for the SCOTUS dumping the Roe (and Casey) precedents as well the fear that other SCOTUS opinions based on a “right to privacy” may also be reversed.
It's akin to asserting that the 14th amendment always made the 2nd amendment applicable to the states, but that (somehow) it was not discovered until 2010 by the SCOTUS.
 
Unfortunately, our Founders drafted a pretty clunky document that has a lot of oversights (no right to privacy, reproductive or otherwise), and which is far too difficult to amend. So, almost from the start the courts have effectively been legislating from the bench, to try to cope with that.

OK, but your idea (that the courts can also make law) would just ensure an endless back and forth between the courts and the legislature with each trying to cancel what the other (most recently) did.


It's akin to asserting that the 14th amendment always made the 2nd amendment applicable to the states, but that (somehow) it was not discovered until 2010 by the SCOTUS.

The 2A established a “right of the people to…” not using some goofy “Congress shall pass no law to…” phrasing implying that only the federal government could not take away the following individual Constitutional rights. The stupid idea that the BoR amendments only applied to the federal government shows how lame the SCOTUS can be - which is not a great argument for asserting that they should be able to make new federal laws or rules.
 
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.


The separate but equal approach...
 
OK, but your idea (that the courts can also make law) would just ensure an endless back and forth between the courts and the legislature with each trying to cancel what the other (most recently) did.




The 2A established a “right of the people to…” not using some goofy “Congress shall pass no law to…” phrasing implying that only the federal government could not take away the following individual Constitutional rights. The stupid idea that the BoR amendments only applied to the federal government shows how lame the SCOTUS can be - which is not a great argument for asserting that they should be able to make new federal laws or rules.
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.
 
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.

Really? I suppose that the 4A and 6A were also “always understood not to apply to the states” until some right-wing judges made that so.
 
Really? I suppose that the 4A and 6A were also “always understood not to apply to the states” until some right-wing judges made that so.
Is that what you suppose? Why?
 
Back
Top Bottom