You guys see that roe v wade is about to get gutted by scotus?? This is everything! If they reaffirm state's rights to nullify federal overreach, that immediately ties into lockdowns, mandates, et al!
Id do a proper OP but Im working; if anyone posts a proper thread, I preemptively volunteer this thread to be pruned
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 37913A7DC3BC81CBF6EF224C9BC78971-48218.jpg (47.1 KB, 880x566, detail.jpg)
>>327480
The left will go absolutely apeahit and chimp out, we'll see more Kyle Rittenhouses, there will be false flags and organized unrest, and places that like guns will become very popular
The left will go absolutely apeahit and chimp out, we'll see more Kyle Rittenhouses, there will be false flags and organized unrest, and places that like guns will become very popular
Am I reading too much into this? Im seeing this as the tipping of a very significant domino that leads inexorably to a/the big hawaiian feast in minecraft
The supreme court may not give it's ruling until June of next year.
Tbh, idk if they'll really go as far as to gut Roe v. Wade entirely, because the court hasn't always been willing to slash 50 year old precedents. I bet they'll cut part of it though, most likely reduce the "fetal viability" cutoff, and it's plausible that we'll see abortions go back to the states, which is about as good as it's likely going to get. I highly doubt that the Scotus will go as far as to declare zygotes to be people.
Roe v. Wade is based on the implicit right to privacy in the United States constitution: it rules that a woman's choice of abortion should remain a private matter between her and her doctor. However, since then we've had the PATRIOT Act and forced vaccinations, so idk how those would be conditional if banning abortion isn't.
>>327481
This entire situation is their fault in a way. They intentionally used the SCOTUS as a means of legislature to get abortions passed. Democrats failed to pass legislation to guarantee the abortion rights they supposedly cherished, even when they controlled both houses of Congress. This is what you get when you rely on judicial activism instead of legislation to get things done.
The backlash will likely be the media painting the court as "political" to discredit any other decisions it makes in the future. Calls to pack the court will drastically increase. If Democrats were actually smart they'd rally around bills that guaranteed abortions at a legislative level, although Democratic politicians have been too cowardly to take the political risk for that in the past, though they might if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
>will go absolutely apeahit
Oh yeah, you'll see hundreds of women cosplaying Handmaid's Tale like they did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
>>327482
Eh, I wouldn't go that far.
Even if abortion went back to the states, that would mean that abortion would only be illegal in red states. It's not going to actually affect the lives of Democrats in blue or purple states.
However, Democrats care about this issue quite a bit (for some reason they're obsessed with killing babies more than any other aspects of women's rights), and the political backlash will be pretty strong. They'll say that the court is political, and call for court packing and sweeping legislation, which may give them momentum in the midterms next year; or the opposite, who knows.
Tbh, idk if they'll really go as far as to gut Roe v. Wade entirely, because the court hasn't always been willing to slash 50 year old precedents. I bet they'll cut part of it though, most likely reduce the "fetal viability" cutoff, and it's plausible that we'll see abortions go back to the states, which is about as good as it's likely going to get. I highly doubt that the Scotus will go as far as to declare zygotes to be people.
Roe v. Wade is based on the implicit right to privacy in the United States constitution: it rules that a woman's choice of abortion should remain a private matter between her and her doctor. However, since then we've had the PATRIOT Act and forced vaccinations, so idk how those would be conditional if banning abortion isn't.
>>327481
This entire situation is their fault in a way. They intentionally used the SCOTUS as a means of legislature to get abortions passed. Democrats failed to pass legislation to guarantee the abortion rights they supposedly cherished, even when they controlled both houses of Congress. This is what you get when you rely on judicial activism instead of legislation to get things done.
The backlash will likely be the media painting the court as "political" to discredit any other decisions it makes in the future. Calls to pack the court will drastically increase. If Democrats were actually smart they'd rally around bills that guaranteed abortions at a legislative level, although Democratic politicians have been too cowardly to take the political risk for that in the past, though they might if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
>will go absolutely apeahit
Oh yeah, you'll see hundreds of women cosplaying Handmaid's Tale like they did in the Kavanaugh hearings.
>>327482
Eh, I wouldn't go that far.
Even if abortion went back to the states, that would mean that abortion would only be illegal in red states. It's not going to actually affect the lives of Democrats in blue or purple states.
However, Democrats care about this issue quite a bit (for some reason they're obsessed with killing babies more than any other aspects of women's rights), and the political backlash will be pretty strong. They'll say that the court is political, and call for court packing and sweeping legislation, which may give them momentum in the midterms next year; or the opposite, who knows.
>>327484
>Roe v. Wade is based on the implicit right to privacy in the United States constitution: it rules that a woman's choice of abortion should remain a private matter between her and her doctor. However, since then we've had the PATRIOT Act and forced vaccinations, so idk how those would be conditional if banning abortion isn't.
we have already long past this kind of optics imho. the state doesn't care. I could see them completely gutting roe vs wade early if the new variant just wont spice up no matter what they do though. it's looking that way.
>Roe v. Wade is based on the implicit right to privacy in the United States constitution: it rules that a woman's choice of abortion should remain a private matter between her and her doctor. However, since then we've had the PATRIOT Act and forced vaccinations, so idk how those would be conditional if banning abortion isn't.
we have already long past this kind of optics imho. the state doesn't care. I could see them completely gutting roe vs wade early if the new variant just wont spice up no matter what they do though. it's looking that way.
>>327484
If that’s their plan, then more Republican candidates will likely need to take a pro-choice stance in order to affirm their chances at winning the midterm elections.
If that’s their plan, then more Republican candidates will likely need to take a pro-choice stance in order to affirm their chances at winning the midterm elections.
>>327484
>I bet they'll cut part of it though, most likely reduce the "fetal viability" cutoff, and it's plausible that we'll see abortions go back to the states
Thats not the issue though. The issue is whether Mississipi as a state has the constitutional authority to enact legislation that differs from federal decision, yes or no (and by virtue, whether there is any legitimacy to the insistance that there is a constitutional right to abortion) This decision is entirely about state constitutional rights, of which the constitution is quite clear.
>I bet they'll cut part of it though, most likely reduce the "fetal viability" cutoff, and it's plausible that we'll see abortions go back to the states
Thats not the issue though. The issue is whether Mississipi as a state has the constitutional authority to enact legislation that differs from federal decision, yes or no (and by virtue, whether there is any legitimacy to the insistance that there is a constitutional right to abortion) This decision is entirely about state constitutional rights, of which the constitution is quite clear.
>>327498
>Republican candidates will likely need to take a pro-choice stance in order to affirm their chances at winning the midterm elections.
This is stupid, tbh.
If you move to the center during this kind of controversy, you lose the support of both sides. They should double down, or just say that they support States' rights and say they'll act in accordance with their state.
>Republican candidates will likely need to take a pro-choice stance in order to affirm their chances at winning the midterm elections.
This is stupid, tbh.
If you move to the center during this kind of controversy, you lose the support of both sides. They should double down, or just say that they support States' rights and say they'll act in accordance with their state.
>>327498
>>327534
>If that’s their plan, then more Republican candidates will likely need to take a pro-choice stance in order to affirm their chances at winning the midterm elections.
I don't think that would necessarily be as big a deal as popular wisdom might suggest. Abortion is one of those issues that is a huge deal for the small sliver of the population on either side that feels strongly about it, but most people are more interested in issues that directly affect them. Abortion is mostly an ideological issue: feminists are obsessed with it because muh wammen's rights, and Evangelical Christians are obsessed with it because of religious convictions. Outside of those groups, most people have a stance on it but it's not the issue that defines how they will vote. For instance I'm basically pro-life in part because the pro-life view aligns with the more conservative side of the spectrum, and in part because I hate feminists and am in favor of anything that will kick sand into their eyes. The honest to God truth is that I really don't care that much whether abortion is legal or not, because by and large it doesn't affect me and has little bearing on the things I do care about. Thus, if I liked a particular candidate's stance on all other issues, but he suddenly flipped from pro-life to pro-choice for political reasons without changing any of his other positions, it wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker for me. I don't have any data or statistics to back this up, it's just a gut feeling, but I suspect a significant number of other people feel the same way about it.
>>327534
>If that’s their plan, then more Republican candidates will likely need to take a pro-choice stance in order to affirm their chances at winning the midterm elections.
I don't think that would necessarily be as big a deal as popular wisdom might suggest. Abortion is one of those issues that is a huge deal for the small sliver of the population on either side that feels strongly about it, but most people are more interested in issues that directly affect them. Abortion is mostly an ideological issue: feminists are obsessed with it because muh wammen's rights, and Evangelical Christians are obsessed with it because of religious convictions. Outside of those groups, most people have a stance on it but it's not the issue that defines how they will vote. For instance I'm basically pro-life in part because the pro-life view aligns with the more conservative side of the spectrum, and in part because I hate feminists and am in favor of anything that will kick sand into their eyes. The honest to God truth is that I really don't care that much whether abortion is legal or not, because by and large it doesn't affect me and has little bearing on the things I do care about. Thus, if I liked a particular candidate's stance on all other issues, but he suddenly flipped from pro-life to pro-choice for political reasons without changing any of his other positions, it wouldn't necessarily be a deal-breaker for me. I don't have any data or statistics to back this up, it's just a gut feeling, but I suspect a significant number of other people feel the same way about it.
>>327534
>>327535
But what is on the line is basically what sorts of measures people can take following unintended and health- or livelihood-threatening pregnancies. I don’t want to make this into an argument about whether abortion should be illegal or legal, but less than 30% of Americans support overturning Roe v. Wade outright, so if it gets overturned, abortion rights will become a hot-button issue in the midterm election.
>>327535
But what is on the line is basically what sorts of measures people can take following unintended and health- or livelihood-threatening pregnancies. I don’t want to make this into an argument about whether abortion should be illegal or legal, but less than 30% of Americans support overturning Roe v. Wade outright, so if it gets overturned, abortion rights will become a hot-button issue in the midterm election.
File (): CE3CA4AD15E2A9ABBBB002C782241E77-196833.png (192.2 KB, 1259x901, Screenshot_2021-12-02_18-23-13.png)
>>327480
>If they reaffirm state's rights to nullify federal overreach, that immediately ties into lockdowns, mandates, et al!
Here's what will happen.
1. The jewdiciary will make some half-assed ruling that appeases the anti-infanticide faction
2. The judges will submit massive statements which will give the future court powers in excess of what they already have by picking phrases from the court's statements to justify their decision
See: Marbury v. Madison
>If they reaffirm state's rights to nullify federal overreach, that immediately ties into lockdowns, mandates, et al!
Here's what will happen.
1. The jewdiciary will make some half-assed ruling that appeases the anti-infanticide faction
2. The judges will submit massive statements which will give the future court powers in excess of what they already have by picking phrases from the court's statements to justify their decision
See: Marbury v. Madison
>>327480
I'll be honest, I doubt anything is going to happen. Plus, we have to wait far into next year for their decision. BUT, if something does come out of this, this is a nice first step to giving states back their rights. If you don't like it, get the fuck out of Mississippi.
I'll be honest, I doubt anything is going to happen. Plus, we have to wait far into next year for their decision. BUT, if something does come out of this, this is a nice first step to giving states back their rights. If you don't like it, get the fuck out of Mississippi.
>>327535
What I can't stand is their claim that any pro-life position is wanting control over women. Sure, there are some truly regressives out there, but most just don't want infanticide damnit
What I can't stand is their claim that any pro-life position is wanting control over women. Sure, there are some truly regressives out there, but most just don't want infanticide damnit
>>327561
Regressive is one of many leftist slurs. The leftist wants to regress into a child and regress humanity into a tribalistic imperialistic warmongering empire of pure evil solely for the benefit of the ruling class in charge of the left, aka jewish banksters.
Maturity and freedom means wanting to be a free man with the responsibility to do good and the right to protect the good. The left is deciet and weaponized narcissism.
Regressive is one of many leftist slurs. The leftist wants to regress into a child and regress humanity into a tribalistic imperialistic warmongering empire of pure evil solely for the benefit of the ruling class in charge of the left, aka jewish banksters.
Maturity and freedom means wanting to be a free man with the responsibility to do good and the right to protect the good. The left is deciet and weaponized narcissism.
>>327580
>being this retarded
when 90% of the right isn't as you described the description you gave is about as meaningless as the dictionary definition of feminism.
>being this retarded
when 90% of the right isn't as you described the description you gave is about as meaningless as the dictionary definition of feminism.
>>327561
Yeah, as if men who wanted to control women wanted there to be more unwanted babies any more than they did.
Yeah, as if men who wanted to control women wanted there to be more unwanted babies any more than they did.
>>327580
>Regressive
That's just progressiveism again, tbh. Progressivism is just trying to change society in a direction that you claim improves it in some logical, scientific, moral, religious or ideological grounds. There comes a question with that though: progress towards what?
A lot of political movements that revisionists like to describe as "right wing" were really progressive in their time. Eugenics was a progressive (positivist) ideology, and most strongly opposed by conservatives at the time. The Prohibition/Teperance movement is something pinned on "religious conservatives" but it was made reality by the progressive party that wanted to "advance" the country in a direction that made it more "moral", along puritan religious lines.
Positivism is a form of progressivism to, based on the concept that science and experts should make decisions in society, or that political movements should be based on science. Democrats today love to invoke those ideals, especially science worshippers who don't actually know anything about science. The issue with positivism is that while science is indeed useful and experts can help with ideology and policy, scientific communities are very easily influenced by the socioeconomic and political elite who'll use it to reaaffirm their existing biases or power structures, or just move society in whatever direction that they want while screaming "just trust the experts".
Progressivism is often associated with liberals, but it's not necessarily a liberal ideology. It's only in the past 50 years, and further back in the last 300 years, that Liberalism was considered progressive because old traditionalist views in the past and present were changing and those changes are considered to be social progress. Progressivism can be authoritarian if it means making people act a certain way, or even wear the same clothing as conservatism when it's along the lines of religious or moral absolutism, but it's not necessarily liberal. Really, the only thing that defines progressivism is whatever "the progressives" of the time say it is. Sometimes progressive ideals and policies become mainstream (women being involved in politics + voting), and sometimes they're abandoned because people don't like them anymore (Temperance + Prohibition; Eugenics; Puritanism).
>Regressive
That's just progressiveism again, tbh. Progressivism is just trying to change society in a direction that you claim improves it in some logical, scientific, moral, religious or ideological grounds. There comes a question with that though: progress towards what?
A lot of political movements that revisionists like to describe as "right wing" were really progressive in their time. Eugenics was a progressive (positivist) ideology, and most strongly opposed by conservatives at the time. The Prohibition/Teperance movement is something pinned on "religious conservatives" but it was made reality by the progressive party that wanted to "advance" the country in a direction that made it more "moral", along puritan religious lines.
Positivism is a form of progressivism to, based on the concept that science and experts should make decisions in society, or that political movements should be based on science. Democrats today love to invoke those ideals, especially science worshippers who don't actually know anything about science. The issue with positivism is that while science is indeed useful and experts can help with ideology and policy, scientific communities are very easily influenced by the socioeconomic and political elite who'll use it to reaaffirm their existing biases or power structures, or just move society in whatever direction that they want while screaming "just trust the experts".
Progressivism is often associated with liberals, but it's not necessarily a liberal ideology. It's only in the past 50 years, and further back in the last 300 years, that Liberalism was considered progressive because old traditionalist views in the past and present were changing and those changes are considered to be social progress. Progressivism can be authoritarian if it means making people act a certain way, or even wear the same clothing as conservatism when it's along the lines of religious or moral absolutism, but it's not necessarily liberal. Really, the only thing that defines progressivism is whatever "the progressives" of the time say it is. Sometimes progressive ideals and policies become mainstream (women being involved in politics + voting), and sometimes they're abandoned because people don't like them anymore (Temperance + Prohibition; Eugenics; Puritanism).
18 replies | 2 files | 12 UUIDs | Archived