Moore v Harper - SCOTUS ruling on this case could spell the END of American Democracy

[Micky Mikey]

A new Supreme Court case is the biggest threat to US democracy since January 6

Moore v. Harper is a grave threat to US democracy, and the fate of that democracy probably comes down to Amy Coney Barrett.

www.vox.com

Am I tripping? How is no one legitimately freaked out about this? How are mainstream news outlets not sounding the alarm on this?

This is every bit as dangerous as the Jan 6th coup attempt.

 

[DEAD7]

Am I tripping? How is no one legitimately freaked out about this? How are mainstream news outlets not sounding the alarm on this?

This is every bit as dangerous as the Jan 6th coup attempt.

'This is the end' fatigue probably...
Every political and judicial happening has been billed as catastrophic for America in some fashion since Obama... with every election being billed as the most important election of our lives.

Now that the real wolf is here... no one is reacting.
I think Aesop wrote a fable about this...

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I mean, it's not like we have any power over their decisions whatsoever, what good is focusing on it right now going to do? It looks to me like the more attention we put on it the MORE likely they are to do the wrong thing. Better off playing it like it's not even a realistic possibility.

 

[Mike Nasty]

We can't do anything about it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

'This is the end' fatigue probably...
Every political and judicial happening has been billed as catastrophic for America in some fashion since Obama... with every election being billed as the most important election of our lives.

Now that the real wolf is here... no one is reacting.
I think Aesop wrote a fable about this...

You're saying that as it it wasn't true.

This is the "real wolf", and it's a direct result of the 2016 election, which would make the 2016 election the most important election of our lives, no?

And there's a fair argument to be made that the re-election of Trump in 2020 would have basically collapsed democracy, considering that he was at the point of appointing solely yes-men to every significant role and legislative oversight of his actions had disappeared.

Going back to Obama's election, it certainly appeared to be the most consequential election of our lives at the time, only we were fooled by Obama turning out to be another corporate stooge. That was 2008, no one really considered 2012 to be the most consequential election nor did they treat is as such even if typical activists might have said so at the time.

And Bush's election was incredibly important, considering it basically decided the major defining political issues of the 21st century (environmental crusader vs. oil executive, tax cuts for the rich vs. no tax cuts for the rich, war in Iraq vs. no war in Iraq).

 

[Payday23]

Smh. Electing Trump strikes again

 

[Micky Mikey]

I mean, it's not like we have any power over their decisions whatsoever, what good is focusing on it right now going to do? It looks to me like the more attention we put on it the MORE likely they are to do the wrong thing. Better off playing it like it's not even a realistic possibility.

I'm pretty sure Democratic leadership had this same thought process prior to the overturning of Roe v Wade. Since when has pretending Republicans won't go that far ever done us any good? Republicans just attempted a coup. And now we have a Supreme Court that is overturning precedents. I think SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Independent Legislature Doctrine is probably the most likely outcome. Is there any indication to suggest they wouldn't?

 

[Micky Mikey]

We can't do anything about it.

So what happens if SCOTUS rules in favor of it? What do we do?

 

[Mike Nasty]

So what happens if SCOTUS rules in favor of it? What do we do?

Nothing.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm pretty sure Democratic leadership had this same thought process prior to the overturning of Roe v Wade. Since when has pretending Republicans won't go that far ever done us any good?

That doesn't make any sense. Democrats have been running on "If you let Republicans appoint judges then they'll overturn Roe v. Wade!" for decades. Literally every single judicial appointment was quizzed repeatedly on whether they considered Roe to be settled law or not. It's been the defining judicial issue of appointments since forever. All of the judges who voted to overturn Roe were opposed by Democratic leadership, and the only democrats who voted for them were the senators from red states (several of which were pro-life themselves).

Republicans just attempted a coup. And now we have a Supreme Court that is overturning precedents. I think SCOTUS ruling in favor of the Independent Legislature Doctrine is probably the most likely outcome. Is there any indication to suggest they wouldn't?

Of course there isn't. Your point being???

 

[Micky Mikey]

That doesn't make any sense. Democrats have been running on "If you let Republicans appoint judges then they'll overturn Roe v. Wade!" for decades. Literally every single judicial appointment was quizzed repeatedly on whether they considered Roe to be settled law or not. It's been the defining judicial issue of appointments since forever. All of the judges who voted to overturn Roe were opposed by Democratic leadership, and the only democrats who voted for them were the senators from red states (several of which were pro-life themselves).





Of course there isn't. Your point being???

I don't deny anything you've said but if the Dems recognized the possibility Roe v Wade getting overturned why not make an attempt to codify it into law?

In regards to the 2nd point I simply don't think its getting the coverage it deserves. And ignoring it until it actually happens is a mistake imo.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I don't deny anything you've said but if the Dems recognized the possibility Roe v Wade getting overturned why not make an attempt to codify it into law?

In regards to the 2nd point I simply don't think its getting the coverage it deserves. And ignoring it until it actually happens is a mistake imo.

There were several efforts to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, but there weren't enough Democratic legislators who fully supported FOCA. You have to remember that until very recently the Senate and House had meaningful #'s of pro-life Democrats serving in red states. They never found a compromise bill that would get both a House majority and filibuster-proof Senate majority.

On top of that, It would have taken serious political sacrifices to pass the FOCA, which would likely include losing several Senators as well as losing House seats in certain red/purple districts. At a time when there were 6 pro-Roe judges still in power, expending political capital on that particular goal wasn't the priority. It wasn't that they didn't expect Thomas, Alito, and Scalia to oppose Roe, it's that they weren't prepared for 1/3 of the judiciary to be replaced by radicals in a single term.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

I think you wondering why the media hasn’t picked it up yet is missing the point. The media is a tool of the establishment that by and large manages the collective emotions of the population. Because we’ve mostly replaced reading with sitting in front of a glowing box and trusting the words of a potential idiot it’s much easier to get dirty deeds done.

 

[Yapdatfool]

Kinda crazy this has come up in the last 100 years and has been shot down every single time... there's been a lot of conservative courts during that time too.

This cant be just for voting rights, right?

 

[DEAD7]

You're saying that as it it wasn't true.

I think saying 'the sky is falling' for decades without it actually falling numbs people. So now when things are getting dark people are largely 'meh' to it.
A poor job has been done(politically) of managing hyperbole IMO.
I think the average American takes things in literally.