All you wanted to do was cheer on efforts to make raped 11 year olds have their assaulters child, why do they have to be so mean to you about it.
Yeah, but chuck said he wasn't going to bother trying to end the filibuster. So this was just a performance that allowed manchin to vote against it. If you were not going to remove the filibuster getting it onto the floor was completely pointless and totally performative. And everyone is OK with the fact chuck schumer was never going to even let it have a chance to begin with because there was no way you would ever get an extra 10 reps to vote for it even if you could get manchin to vote to bring it to the floor. The dems are not even trying and that says something when we have Joe Biden in office commanding them, and he has always wanted roe overturned and he even voted to legislate it away. This is on chuck schumer and not joe manchin. Fuck Munchkin, the dems tanked this legislation.
In case I haven’t made my stance on abortion clear in a while and maybe people forgot, I think it should be legal within reason. The Democrats used to hold this same position, but not so much anymore. I also think it should be left up to the states which is exactly what the Supreme Court is saying. They haven’t even made a decision yet. Even if this is the final decision, states are welcome to legalize abortion, which they already have. Congress is also welcome to do their job which they tried and failed to do, which is not my fault. The only thing I’m cheering on is a return to federalism. Nobody’s rights are being taken away because there is nothing in the constitution that says anything about a right to have an abortion, if Democrats want to amend the constitution to include that right, go for it, I’ll support it so all this hysteria is about the midterms and nothing else.
Doesn't matter what your personal opinions are, what you are cheering on is the people who want that.
Also JFC dude, start having some self-respect and allow yourself to believe you have more rights than those that 18th century slaveowners saw as necessary to protect their personal interests.
If Democrats were anywhere near as progressive as Freshman For-Life was implying wth that sentence, we'd have had that codified into law during Obama's first week in office.
Only a handful, actually have. Once SCOTUS handed down the original Roe decision, any state laws prohibiting abortion were invalidated. Now that it looks like Roe is out, some states are scrambling pass laws legalizing abortion, or repealing laws that banned it. Other states, about 23 of them have "trigger laws" and the moment SCOTUS overturns Roe, abortion is illegal in those states. Suppose that the Dems get a 62 seat majority in the Senate and maintain control of the House this year. (I say 62, because that's the only way Sinema and Manchin can't throw a wrench in the works) and manages to pass a national abortion law. (I realize that the odds of Dems getting that many in the Senate are slim, but we're dealing with a hypothetical here, so let's just run with it.) Before the ink is even dry on Biden's signature, you can bet that there will be any number of groups, as well as states, suing to have it overturned. Assuming that the composition of SCOTUS doesn't change (as in, none of the justices who are in favor of this leave the court to be replaced by a Biden appointee and that Biden doesn't decide to expand the court) between now and when those cases hit SCOTUS, how do you think that they'll rule? Do you really think that a guy who cited as justification for his actions a dude who was cool with marital rape and executing witches, is going to be in favor of allowing abortion to exist at all? Presently, there are seven Catholics and three Jews on SCOTUS. When the Notorious KBJ joins the court, there will be seven Catholics, two Jews, and one Protestant. I can't see the majority of Catholics on the court opting to keep abortion legal, either at the state level or the Federal level. And how do you define "federalism"? Because there's a couple of interpretations of that term (along with if one feels it should be capitalized or not), and I'm not going to try and put words in your mouth on the subject. You know what else isn't mentioned in the Constitution? Privacy. Our concept of privacy (and it doesn't matter where we might agree/disagree on what privacy entails) the concept of privacy as all of us know it today, is the result of cobbling together various interpretations of the Constitutions and its Amendments. Let me be a bit reductio absurdum here, not because I'm trying to mock you, but because I'm trying to establish a baseline that we can all agree on. The First Amendment says that everyone has the right to free speech. I think that both of us agree someone trying to claim that having their access to the internet cut off because they didn't pay their bill is not a violation of that person's First Amendment rights. Doesn't matter that the internet (or even the idea of such a thing) didn't exist back then, if you don't pay your internet bill, you don't get to force XYZ company to allow you to have the internet at your house. I think that we'd also both agree that someone who stiffed Xfinity because they're a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes, but happily paid some other company for internet service should be allowed to do so. Yes? Keep in mind that the internet, and the concept of it, didn't exist when the Founders were around. Now, there have been a few instances where folks who've been convicted of hacking have been banned from the internet for a set period of time. If someone wants to go all extreme on First Amendment interpretations, this could be seen as a violation of such. The counter-argument goes that since there's no objection of someone posting the comments of someone who's been banned from the internet on the internet (and that the internet wasn't something the Founders could have envisioned), there's no violation. I can remember that there was a debate if the US managed to capture OBL alive how they would handle him talking to his lawyers because there was concern that he'd ask his lawyer to say something seemingly innocuous when in reality it was actually coded phrases that would spur his followers to action if the public became aware of them. I don't know where you stand on people being held in US custody, regardless of if they're Americans, or on American soil, but if we're holding them, we ought to accord them the same rights we would any American citizen. YMMV.
Hey pro baby fascists I was wondering where you are standing on the baby food shortage? You dolts seem to be blaming Joe Biden when the reason there is a shortage is because the manufacturing had to be shit down because they were actually killing babies with tainted formula and the FDA was sitting there with their thumbs up their asses allowing it to happen until a whistleblower came around with the receipts. Are you going to call for the prosecution and deaths of the baby food manufacturers who were knowingly poisoning babies? These are babies that were born and it is illegal to kill them. It is murder to poison a birthed baby, but you people are blaming Biden for this and wanting lower regulations on businesses who were poisoning babies for profit? @Federal Farmer you hate government regulation and say the free market will clean up it's act, and this kills babies because they never did. @TheLonelySquire you are so worried about abortion clinics while you are supporting people yelling at Biden for a baby food shortage due to poison in formula. What about the right wing pundits you love covering for the baby food manufacturers who were killing live post birth babies and pretending it is some somehow Biden's fault there is less supply? Oh yeah, you are lying sacks who want dead babies and support poisoning them and cover ups.
So that would be you saying you do not give a fuck that baby food poisoning is being masqueraded as supply chain problems caused by joe biden when it is really evidence of a stronger need for decent regulatory agency that could have the authority to save lives by forcing poison products off the shelves? I guess that is a position that was available, but I would really rather be a drug addict than to support lying and killing babies. As a drug addict I am cool with not giving babies poison as food. I am pretty cool with testing and regulating safety in baby formula so some greedy sober people can pocket a couple extra bucks by selling poison as baby food. Am I wrong in saying my morals and ethics on this matter are not a problem and TLS seems to be really fucked up in his permissive stance on poisoning babies because safety and recalls are hard? Maybe being a drug addict is not as bad a thing as being The lonely squire poisoning babies. I am good where I am.
There’s an argument to be made that had Roe been codified in the 1970s it would have been much easier for the Supreme Court to rule the law unconstitutional than overturn their Roe precedent. The Supreme Court has taken to overruling laws passed by Congress like it’s a bodily function (pun intended). So in some ways, it’s better that the Roe precedent was maintained for almost 50 years. Now we just need to get back to having five Constitutionalists like Elena Kagan.
Why doesn't the left work toward a Constitutional Amendment to add abortion as a fundamental right? Just wondering why this isn't a thing for you guys?
Because if they could jump the height of the bar against a Constitutional Amendment, you should be fucking shitting yourself about repeal/amendment of other Constitutional Rights. Neither is going to happen because one-third of the US is batshit fucking insane like you and enough pillocks like FF exist to tip them past the 33.3% mark.
