Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by harvey birdman, Dec 8, 2015.
they won't. this isn't going anywhere.
it would pass, it just won’t get past the filibuster
Which kills its passage
Manchin is pro life so you wouldn't even have 50 votes
Touché Marco, I guess this is an affront to all people, not just women.
Fuuuuuuuu he's got us there. Guess abortion just has to be illegal for eternity.
i think you’d get more than 50. I think you’d see some republicans like Susan Collins go for it
You might get Collins and Murkowski to vote for it, but they won’t agree to kill the filibuster so it’s moot.
It’s a shame there was never a time when this could have been done in the past with major, even super majorities of people who would vote for it. It would have been much easier if that ever was the case
This court was not going to let something stupid like a popular law passed by Congress stop them from outlawing abortion.
Yeah, I’m confused on this take. Wouldn’t the Supreme Court just rule the new “codified” abortion laws unconstitutional given this very option they just wrote?
agreed but I think it’s worth at least making all of these senators get on record against what at least polls as a very unpopular stance
They absolutely would not, but at least forcing them to reject it publicly (should) kill the media's love for regurgitating their bullshit without any real pushback. Although that might not even do it.
they are saying there’s not a constitutional right to abortion, it doesn’t mean the government couldn’t pass a law giving that right. Of course they’d probably do some states rights mental gymnastics to overturn a federal abortion ban but make them do that. At the very least it’d buy time
not necessarily - saying there isn’t a constitutional right to abortion doesn’t mean that the federal government can’t pass legislation about it
to strike down a federal abortion ban, the Supreme Court would need to rule that the ban is not a proper exercise of legislative authority under Article I, and in particular, that banning abortion isn’t a necessary and proper exercise of Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce. Given how the Obamacare arguments went, I don’t think it’s hard to see where these five judges would end up on that.
and it will fail
states are going to pass laws criminalizing going over state lines to get an abortion and the court would be like nope, not interstate commerce involved. Of course a federal ban they’d find the opposite
Don't you need 2/3 of both the senate and house to bring an amendment up and then something even higher through each state to approve it?
Will never happen.
They can safely vote for it knowing it will fail.
Imo the only real benefit of the vote is to force the people who've been silent on or lied about the issue to go public. This is one of the few issues that can flip votes
You also assume that means every democrat votes this way and there aren’t a handful of of them that are anti-choice
not an amendment, just a federal law
I think they would for optics since it wouldn't pass, but good if they don't. Fuck them and let them go down with that ship. The reality is that only so many of those fake vote golden tickets exist.
it’d be quite something to spend a day in whatever fantasy world you live in
This court is going to fuck us so bad. Going to do decades of damage
now now, don’t be so hasty
Murkowski could always ride in and save the day
Once they over turn a right to privacy, a bunch of democrats in heavy red states should start introducing pornography bans in their states. See how the GOP reacts
The media will allow them to get away with saying they’re against nuking the filibuster instead of saying they’re against abortion rights - just like they did with voting rights.
The majority of this court only cares about the law in so far as it can be used to enforce their will on others.
Well with that kind of attitude
tbqh they'd probably love it. You think these religious extremists would be against it?
but a federal ban on abortion would undoubtedly be for the general welfare therefore constitutional
This is a mistake to paint this as a MAGA issue. This issue pre-dates MAGA by a lot. If anything, the Nick Fuentes, Jack Posobiec branch of the Right is far more ambivalent than the true believers and church goers. Anti-abortion has been a core GOP belief for as long as any of us have been alive.
porn usage is highest in heavily red states, so no, I don’t think they’d like it
That’s linked to the authority to tax. Certainly they could get Roberts with some sort of clever scheme centered around the tax authority but I think that would be practically more difficult than a healthcare mandate and we know what non-Roberts federalists believe about that argument.
Your name is lawnole shouldn’t you know?
Roberts is just a pro-business absolutist. Anyone wanting his vote has to make the business case for their argument.
Political activism by shopping
You may be surprised by this but all lawyers don’t put to long term knowledge all areas of law especially those that aren’t relevant to what they practice. I thought our discussion was of a constitutional amendment being proposed.
<knowledge taught in high school civics and easily searchable>
WELL HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW IM JUST A REGULAR LAWYER
Is this why judges have clerks?
You can’t see me but I’m rolling my eyes right now.
You're confused to think extremists GOP senators do what their constituents want
Tbf most dems don't, either
I will like any Simpson clips.
fair enough. But they would undoubtedly find a ban constitutional whereas a codification of roe would not be