Roe and Casey to be overturned by SCOTUS; Draft opinion by Alito leaks to POLITICO

[Consigliere]

The idea that liberals and conservatives need to be separated is hilarious.

What happens when you change your position? Do you renounce your citizenship and move to Blusa/Rusa <—- I’m trademarking these names for the new red and blue countries. Don’t bite.

 

[CEO of Morgan Industries]

We need more than a third party, we need to be a parliamentary government. We need parties around a smaller number of issues who then forge alliances on overlap issues, I honestly think that’s the only way we’d check the minority right rule, stop the nonsensical acceptance of illogical sex/gender issues and see people on different sides of the cultural wars still come together for economic/social welfare issues

This is actually the answer. No FPTP, either. Do it like the Bundestag in Germany.

You'll end up with centrist governments that have to make power-sharing deals with smaller leftist or rightist parties to maintain control, which isn't perfect, but which isn't entirely broken, either.

EDIT: Anyway, SCOTUS is treading a dangerous line here because they don't enforce any of their rulings. As people separate themselves by actually moving to and from states, making them stronger Dem or Repub states, someone is going to figure out that they can just ignore SCOTUS.

If I'm governing CA, for example, there might be a point at which I just ignore rulings like Heller and make the executive waste time and money enforcing it. They haven't done so for marijuana, and I think because the nature of the executive is that it's never in control of one party or the other for very long, that's probably true of a lot of things.

States should also do more interstate pacts. WA/OR/CA/HI should be moving the same way on a lot of policies like health care, etc.

shouldnt you just want stronger states rights, so people can move to where their values are reflected?

The issue is that as a black person in a blue state, I might be well off enough comparatively, but I care about black folks in red states where the state is emboldened to crush them in whatever way they want.

The federal government broke those states and made them enforce Brown v Board, etc., in the '50s and '60s. In fact, throughout our history here, black Americans have only made progress when the federal government interceded and forced the states to act right.

That might be changing, but I have a hard time getting away from history. The feds are bad, but state governments are REALLY bad when they want to be in a way even the feds are not.

 

[mastermind]

The idea that liberals and conservatives need to be separated is hilarious.

What happens when you change your position? Do you renounce your citizenship and move to Blusa/Rusa <—- I’m trademarking these names for the new red and blue countries. Don’t bite.

It's childish as fukk and peak liberal behavior. It reminds me of that stupid SNL skit

 

[CEO of Morgan Industries]

Dems had plenty of opportunity to codify roe into law. Blaming 2016 "bernie bros" when it still wouldnt have been codified is another establishment example of not getting it and never getting it.

I'm not sure that Dems have ever had sixty votes for codifying abortion access into law in the Senate and the House.

People like Manchin love hiding behind the filibuster (and Collins, for that matter) so they don't actually have to vote down shyt that they pretend to support when they feel it necessary.

Now, I think at this point, they'll have to wait for a Republican to blow up the economy like W. did, get to or near 60, and then get a Collins or Murkowski-type Republican or two to put their money where their mouth is and codify this into law. It's a long-shot, but it is what it is.

 

[CEO of Morgan Industries]

I see some mentions about interracial marriage but that's safe

"U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%"
U.S. Approval of Interracial Marriage at New High of 94%

Approval over the years:
1958 - 4%
1973 - 29%
1997 - 64%
2021 - 94%

Nah, I think Mike Braun was already talking about how Loving was some bullshyt, and Alito's out here saying that if it ain't traditional in the U.S., it should be left to the states.

They'll overturn Loving next. They're moving slowly toward overturning Brown. They'll overturn Loving, maybe Griswold, then Brown if they can control the courts for long enough.

 

[Json]

They aren’t going to directly attack interracial marriage. They will go after birthright citizenship (at Latinos) which will directly impact interracial marriages like Obama’s parents.

 

[CEO of Morgan Industries]

They aren’t going to directly attack interracial marriage. They will go after birthright citizenship (at Latinos) which will directly impact interracial marriages like Obama’s parents.

I have to disagree. Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. Interracial marriage is not. Alito is signaling that if it doesn't go all the way back/isn't enshrined in the Constitution, they'll nix it.

I also think they need Latinos to come here so they can offer them access to whiteness and keep their numbers up, but that's a whole other thing. They might try to stop Hondurans from coming here, but not lighter-skinned El Salvadorians or whomever. It'll be like how they treat Cubans vs. how they treat Haitians.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Nah, I think Mike Braun was already talking about how Loving was some bullshyt, and Alito's out here saying that if it ain't traditional in the U.S., it should be left to the states.

They'll overturn Loving next. They're moving slowly toward overturning Brown. They'll overturn Loving, maybe Griswold, then Brown if they can control the courts for long enough.

Nah. Obergfell and Lawrence are next. Then Griswold.

 

[CEO of Morgan Industries]

Nah. Obergfell and Lawrence are next. Then Griswold.

I forgot about Obergfell. Yeah, that's a nearer target. You're probably right about that and Lawrence.

 

[Json]

I have to disagree. Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution. Interracial marriage is not. Alito is signaling that if it doesn't go all the way back/isn't enshrined in the Constitution, they'll nix it.

I also think they need Latinos to come here so they can offer them access to whiteness and keep their numbers up, but that's a whole other thing. They might try to stop Hondurans from coming here, but not lighter-skinned El Salvadorians or whomever. It'll be like how they treat Cubans vs. how they treat Haitians.

Citizenship for former slaves is engrained in the Constitution.

Children of people who illegally came into the country or paid to give birth on American land for dual citizenship(China) is what they are going after.

They could absorb Latinos but logic isn’t where these ultra conservatives are coming from. They want European white(while also attacking white European socialism).

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

Citizenship for former slaves is engrained in the Constitution.

Exactly. The 14th Amendment was for ADOS. The Wong Kim Ak case made "birthright citizenship" a universal thing. People argue about if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to the children of foreign nationals, especially illegal aliens.

 

[Micky Mikey]

Nah. Obergfell and Lawrence are next. Then Griswold.

I'm not familiar with how the process works. Could they try challenging these decisions in the near future?

 

[NaijaProdigy Redux]

I’m really supposed to believe Collins and Murkowski are actually pro-choice just because they say so when Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s records on reproductive rights were clear as day?

 

[Hood Critic]

We need more than a third party, we need to be a parliamentary government...

This is actually the answer. No FPTP, either. Do it like the Bundestag in Germany.

You'll end up with centrist governments that have to make power-sharing deals with smaller leftist or rightist parties to maintain control, which isn't perfect, but which isn't entirely broken, either....

This is viable...and something I haven't considered.

 

[Adeptus Astartes]

I'm not familiar with how the process works. Could they try challenging these decisions in the near future?

Fron what I understand, the rationale that the conservatives are using for overturning Roe apply to Obergfell and Lawrence. Loving, too. Both hinge on the right to privacy, which they say doesn't exist. The right to gay marriage or sodomy are also not expressly enumerated in the Constitution or in Alitos opinion, backed by historical precedents.