SCOTUS battles

[ElCid]

1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

This is sad news but Dems were asleep in 2016 when they didn't got out and support Clinton and as we have been saying for years now,  this is just one result of that election.

But I have been reading that this could help Dems in future elections,  at all levels.    We will just have to wait and see.   

 

Hillary Clinton was a very poor candidate and you are correct that the Dems and independents did not do more to help her.  Almost any other Dem would probably have handily defeated Trump.  Biden would have won in a walk.

Not sure how much more reversal of Roe v. Wade would help Democrats.  It might, but the pro-choice people were already pretty much in the Dem camp.  Still once it is reversed with five mostly younger, Catholic, Republican, anti-abortion justices, not much can be done for a long time.  If ever.  

[Bogie56]

23 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Hillary Clinton was a very poor candidate and you are correct that the Dems and independents did not do more to help her.  Almost any other Dem would probably have handily defeated Trump.  Biden would have won in a walk.

Not sure how much more reversal of Roe v. Wade would help Democrats.  It might, but the pro-choice people were already pretty much in the Dem camp.  Still once it is reversed with five mostly younger, Catholic, Republican, anti-abortion justices, not much can be done for a long time.  If ever.  

Hillary might have been a poor candidate but I am certain that tens of thousands of Americans would be alive today if she had become President.  She would have tackled the pandemic in complete seriousness.   None of this 'hoax' business to try to sweep it under the carpet in the opes of being reelected.  That is the shame of it.

[JamesJazGuitar]

1 hour ago, ElCid said:

Not sure how much more reversal of Roe v. Wade would help Democrats.  It might, but the pro-choice people were already pretty much in the Dem camp.  Still once it is reversed with five mostly younger, Catholic, Republican, anti-abortion justices, not much can be done for a long time.  If ever.  

What the GOP is doing with regards  to women-rights might bring-out-the-vote.    As we have discussed voter-turn-out,  especially in mid-term elections,  is critical.

In addition (as we have discussed many times),   more GOP voters tend to be single-issue voters than Dems and thus it is easier for the GOP party to motivate voters on single issues.      Women and all pro-choice voters should be highly motivated to get-out-and-vote to try to derail (or at least slow down),  all of these anti-choice laws.

E.g.  here in CA Governor Newsom is already running ads about the Texas law linking this to his recall and the possibility of a GOP Governor.   He gained over 5 points in the poll since Texas passed the law.

PS:   Can women it Texas that go to another state for an abortion still be sued under this new law?    Yea, I know that doesn't help women that can't afford to go out of state,  but I just wondered how far reaching the new law was.

 

 

[ElCid]

2 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What the GOP is doing with regards  to women-rights might bring-out-the-vote.    As we have discussed voter-turn-out,  especially in mid-term elections,  is critical.

In addition (as we have discussed many times),   more GOP voters tend to be single-issue voters than Dems and thus it is easier for the GOP party to motivate voters on single issues.      Women and all pro-choice voters should be highly motivated to get-out-and-vote to try to derail (or at least slow down),  all of these anti-choice laws.

E.g.  here in CA Governor Newsom is already running ads about the Texas law linking this to his recall and the possibility of a GOP Governor.   He gained over 5 points in the poll since Texas passed the law.

PS:   Can women it Texas that go to another state for an abortion still be sued under this new law?    Yea, I know that doesn't help women that can't afford to go out of state,  but I just wondered how far reaching the new law was.

 

 

Voter turn-out is critical as we saw in last election.  However, even more important is voter suppression and gerrymandering.  Both already exist in all states, but are particularly suppressive in Red states.  As the Red state legislatures begin to further suppress the vote and gerrymander, there will be fewer opportunities for any Dem to win in far too many places.  So, no matter how great the turnout if the GOPer is going to win anyway, Dems can't win.

Your TX question is interesting.  Theoretically the person who sold her a ticket on a bus, plane or train could be sued as well as the person who operated the conveyance.  Not to mention anyone who gave her a ride.  

Below is a link to Slate that asks and "answers" a lot of questions.  Some have no answer yet.  The article shows precisely why all NINE Supreme Court justices should have put a hold on the law.  It is a bad law and nonsensical and encourages bounty hunting and  frivolous lawsuits.  Basically it is a stupid law passed by stupid people for the benefit of stupid GOPer voters in TX - and now SIX more states and counting.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/09/texas-ban-abortion-fund-lawsuit.html

[Vautrin]

I recall reading an article months ago, likely before the Texas legislation was that well known, that a

number of ad hoc groups were convinced that Roe v. Wade might be overturned and they were

preparing to "go underground" when it came to providing abortions, including an emphasis on

abortion by pill. Now that this has happened in Texas I wonder if this can really work or if it was

just wishful thinking. Time will tell.

[mr6666]

[mr6666]

1 minute ago, mr6666 said:

[Bogie56]

The should investigate Kavanaugh lying under oath to Congress and do the background investigation on him that Trump barred the FBI from doing.

[JamesJazGuitar]

The US Constitution has the same requirements for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice as a  US President.      There is no way Dems could get 63 votes in the current Senate for impeachment and highly unlikely even if the Dems gain Senate seats in future elections.     I.e.  The Dems  would have to have around 60 Senators if they wished to convict.   

Of course the above only matters  if the goal is to remove Kavanaugh from office.  

[mr6666]

[LsDoorMat]

19 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

 

PS:   Can women it Texas that go to another state for an abortion still be sued under this new law?    Yea, I know that doesn't help women that can't afford to go out of state,  but I just wondered how far reaching the new law was.

 

 

Women getting an abortion cannot be sued under any circumstance under the law. Anybody or any entity "aiding and abetting" could be sued in Texas state court. But they would have to come back into Texas to be sued. So an Uber driver who takes a woman to an abortion could be sued, and in theory American Airlines could be sued if they transported a woman to another state for an abortion.  The first time a big corporation is sued under this law they just might have a talk with the GOP national leaders about how this law has to go. 

[Bogie56]

16 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The US Constitution has the same requirements for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice as a  US President.      There is no way Dems could get 63 votes in the current Senate for impeachment and highly unlikely even if the Dems gain Senate seats in future elections.     I.e.  The Dems  would have to have around 60 Senators if they wished to convict.   

Of course the above only matters  if the goal is to remove Kavanaugh from office.  

Not that it would happen, but if proven he lied to Congress (and perhaps subsequently to the FBI)  he could be criminally charged.  He would have the same strike against him as Michael Cohen.

[LuckyDan]

58 minutes ago, LsDoorMat said:

 The first time a big corporation is sued under this law they just might have a talk with the GOP national leaders about how this law has to go. 

The implication being corporations control the republican party. That is a dated political trope. 

Planned Parenthood is a corporation, and the one most likely to be sued. I can't imagine their CEO calling Mitch McConnell about a Texas law. 

[Bogie56]

20 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

The implication being corporations control the republican party. That is a dated political trope. 

Planned Parenthood is a corporation, and the one most likely to be sued. I can't imagine their CEO calling Mitch McConnell about a Texas law. 

They are hardly a "big" corporation as are the oil and auto companies, etc.

[Arturo]

23 hours ago, Hibi said:

Such a sweet thing!

Either she was stupid when she believed Trump, Kavanaugh, etc.  Or she said it to try to get re-elected.  In either case, poor women and women of color will most adversely impacted by Susan Collins’ supreme  stupidity and self -serving sanctimony!!

[mr6666]

 

[Vautrin]

Of course Planned Parenthood is a corporation, but it is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit one, not the type

of money making operation that the GOP would be interested in defending. Of course they are

hoping to be sued so they can take the case to court and hope to get the law overturned. 

[ElCid]

16 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

I would imagine 80-90% of Texas physicians support for and vote for the TX Republican Party.  What did they expect.

[Arturo]

5 hours ago, ElCid said:

I would imagine 80-90% of Texas physicians support for and vote for the TX Republican Party.  What did they expect.

The Dems need to grow a collective pair so they can not only get rid of the filibuster, but increase the number of SC justices by a minimum of 4.  If the GOP played dirty to pack the court, the Dems should work just as ruthlessly to protect their agenda.  Otherwise, the Biden agenda may be gone, and voter suppression may keep them from retaining control after the mid-terms.   Do it NOW!!  The GOP will do anything to remain in power as their White Men only agenda alienates everyone else.  We may be at the end of our democracy otherwise.

[Bogie56]

The conclusion of this video is the best part.

[mr6666]

[ElCid]

17 hours ago, mr6666 said:

What can they realistically do?

[ElCid]

I read the article about the TX judge who issued a restraining order on Texas Right to Life to prevent them from suing Planned Parenthood. 

Question I have is if the woman having the abortion is excluded, that should be prima facia evidence that the law should be overturned.  How can you hold everyone else responsible, but not the person who initiated and totally participated in every step of the process?  It is like a law saying that anyone can sue gun manufacturer, gun/ammunition sales entity and personnel,  accomplices, witnesses, etc . when someone shoots someone  with a gun, BUT they cannot sue the shooter.

[JamesJazGuitar]

1 hour ago, ElCid said:

What can they realistically do?           (edited to add "can")

Nothing.   This is just another political stunt by Dems  like when the Dem Texas state pols left the state to delay the voting on the Texas voting bill.    That bill was just signed into law.

The GOP as a party did make one mistake passing this anti-choice bill- timing of it:  They helped ensure CA would retain a Dem governor.    Both Texas bills are getting a lot of attention here in CA and are being used as the primary reason CA needs to retain a Dem governor.    I.e. The CA  Dems and Newsom are not running on Newsom's merits but instead on:  if CA gets a Republican governor,  CA will end up like Texas.            Fear is a big motivator especially for a special election where voter turnout is historically low by the side NOT looking for change.

Bernie and Liz ads running all the time,   and  Joe will be joining them in a few days.

So Texas pols should have waited until the CA recall election was over.   

 

 

[Arturo]

58 minutes ago, ElCid said:

What they realistically do?

They can vote to expand the SC