Democrats can pass any federal legislation they want without relying on a single Republican vote.

This isn't federal legislation, dumb-dumb, it's a court decision. Restrictions on abortion have nothing to do with federal legislation. passed in individual states by state legislatures, and the supreme court is about to declare such restrictions as constitutional.

Thank you for visiting https://www.youreallyoughttoknowthisbynow.com

John why does case law matter so much with regard to the right to abortion? Perhaps because it has never been legislated?

Federal legislation overrules state law. If there was a federal abortion law regulating abortion, it would supersede state laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Democrats could, today, eliminate the filibuster and pass such a bill. Not doing this is prioritizing a useless, accidental Senate procedural rule over real people's lives. They could also (again, TODAY) add justices to the Supreme Court.

The Senate is structured in such a way that a Democratic supermajority is basically impossible in the near future. The same is true of a liberal majority on the Supreme Court without packing.

We can either reform those institutions to be more democratic or we can accept the end of Roe.

If you want to reform those institutions, you'll first have to reform the Democratic party into an organization that puts the priorities of its constituents over careerism, money, and procedure.

@crackersmack - That's a swing and a miss. Do you not know anything about Manchin or Sinema? Because they already said that they would not overturn the filibuster. Yesterday.

Then what JHMF said.

@ashtar just a repeat of Manchin and Sinema, and also the expansion of the court is a congressional decision, not the senate.

None of this matters though, because we are all roundly fucked.

Thanks Pepe Frog white trash voters that were in it for the lulz. We're heading back to the stone ages.

Democratic leadership made Joe Manchin the chair of the powerful Senate Energy Committee, a position that allows him to collect a $500k annual bribe from the coal industry. The Biden administration gave Joe Manchin's wife an appointment in the administration. Sinema is on 8 different senate committees and chair of two of them.

These people are doing exactly what Democratic leadership wants them to do. They are respected members of your political party. They aren't holding anything up. They are the rotating villains this election cycle, giving cover for the overwhelming majority of elected Democrats that are far to the right of the people that voted for them. You could primary and replace them (something that Democratic Party leadership would oppose with all of their resources) and all of a sudden there would be two other Democrats "obstructing" the administration. Because this is a show and you are a rube.

They can still vote. If these people hold the key votes, does it make sense to take away their committee posts?

>>>These people are doing exactly what Democratic leadership wants them to do.

And you know this because you can read their minds over the internet?

John just the threat of removing them from committees would force them to bend to the will of Democratic leadership, if leadership wanted to actually pass any of the stuff they are pretending is being obstructed. Committee assignments are what enables these people to get bribes. Manchin losing the chair position of Energy would personally cost him millions of dollars. He wouldn't do that to himself, he wouldn't even put up a fight if that was on the table. The fact that Manchin and Sinema keep getting rewarded by leadership tells you everything you need to know.

>>>The fact that Manchin and Sinema keep getting rewarded by leadership tells you everything you need to know.

It must be nice to only need to know one thing to understand everything.

I wonder if the Politico reporter that received the leak is gonna get his door kicked by the FBI, or if that's reserved for reporters that embarrass Hunter Biden?

Someone should go to jail for a very long time, but the kid sniffer in the white house and his lackey AG will ignore this like every other crime that helps their cause.

The secondary story should be the majority of the big news outlets headlining this as UNPRECEDENTED LEAK and how democracy will suffer if the court's draft security is compromised.

Completely ignoring the flamethrower that the Heritage Court has long taken to precedent, or the idea that protecting the court's closed door horseshit is sacrosanct and vital to democracy. Shadow dockets and no cameras for everyone!

And then reading Republican tweets over this, jesus.

McConnell calling it "latest escalation by the radical left" and their continued support of mob rule over the rule of law.

Blackburn calling it "worse than Jan. 6".


I couldn't take reading any more. Fuck all these people, and anyone who doesn't vote them out this midterm.

I for one will be voting very hard against the supreme court justices who did this!

Kidding, kidding. By all means vote.
But it's most important to vote in the primary (and volunteer and organize) for the Dem candidate who is willing to actually do what it would take to fix this.

Pretty clearly this is worse than January 6th. I know that shitlibs have to act like January 6th was the holocaust and the trail of tears combined but come on now.

find me the democrat willing to do anything and i'll show you the tammany hall fraudster willing to say whatever it takes.

i'll vote for neither the enemy nor the quisling, thank you very much.

I do think that community/workplace organization is more important than electoral politics.

Well, Jan 6 WAS worst than Pearl Harbor after all. An opsec failure in the supreme court must be at least worst than 9/11

Osama is dead, yet the Patriot Act is stronger than ever. No one will go to jail as long as it stands.

I agree that expecting Democrats to use congressional majorities to pass popular legislation would demonstrate a lack of understanding about how the government works.

I think it was someone here who said it: we don't have a supreme court anymore. It's gone. The building is now just a branch office of The Federalist Society.

Loud dissents by Sotomayor will be the only reminder that it was once a legitimate judicial branch and not a fascist fallback plan (that paid off thanks to all the "don't vote, to own the centrist dems" dummies). And even those will go away once she leaves and the court upholds McConnell's future proposal that only Republican nominations are legitimate, the way that the 1787 founder intended.

Right it's the fault of BERNIE BROS rather than the party leadership that has been pursuing exactly the strategy they wanted with no input from the left for 40 years.

Factually, it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters

Did you read that wikipedia article before you linked it?

The voters in question mostly didn't vote for Obama, didn't identify as democrats, and didn't defect at higher rates than other primary-losing-candidate's supporters. If anything, this is a testament to Sanders' ability to win back Reagan Democrats and attract swing voters. I first registered as a Democrat to vote for Sanders in the primary and went on to vote for HRC.

Hilary Clinton boosted Trump in the primary because she though he'd be easy to beat, then she visited Wisconsin zero times in the 2016 general. She spent as much time in Iowa as in Michigan. She staffed 68% of the field offices than Obama did in 2012, with an even sharper decline in the rust belt states that cost her the election. She also, you know, couldn't articulate a clear reason why she was running or what she wanted to do.

She was a uniquely disliked candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.

But it's someone else's fault! Uh... Russia!

>>>Right it's the fault of BERNIE BROS rather than the party leadership that has been pursuing exactly the strategy they wanted with no input from the left for 40 years.

I dunno, have you considered being more belligerent?

>>>She was a uniquely disliked candidate who ran an incompetent campaign.

Oh, but everybody LOVES those nice, friendly Bernie Bronies!

>>>But it's someone else's fault! Uh... Russia!

I blame the Trump voters, some of whom were Bernie Bronies.

Hey, ashtar, I just did a little googling, and according to Wikipedia, 2016 was six years ago.

blame the victims, yeah

"2016 was 6 years ago"

Trump put three justices on the supreme court. They'll be there for 30 years.

Abortion is going to be illegal in half the country because Clinton, despite her years of experience, ran an incompetent campaign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shattered:_Inside_Hillary_Clinto n%27s_Doomed_Campaign

(it's a reputable book, you should actually read the wikipedia summary; it's remarkable that this isn't more common knowledge)

At what point do we actually hold people accountable for fucking up? Or, at least, at what point do we stop giving the fuck ups more power to pursue the same course of action that led to the fuck up?

No realistic amount of turnout is going to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate. 2020 was the highest turnout for federal elections since 1960. Democrats had a supermajority in 2009 for 72 days, the last time before that was 1979.

You can abolish the filibuster with a simple majority. You could then admit Puerto Rico and DC as states with a simple congressional majority.

You should be mad that they haven't already done this. Politics is about power. Take it. Use it. The GOP has no problem doing that.

And without court reform SCOTUS will be red for 15-30 years no matter how many blue waves occur.

Reforming the party is indeed complicated. But primarying people that won't actually will take the only realistic path to making abortion legal again is the only way to fix this.

>>>But primarying people that won't actually will take the only realistic path to making abortion legal again is the only way to fix this.

When did "primary" become a verb? People primary THEMSELVES, by running in primaries. And then they become nominated by winning the primaries.

Democrats didn't do what? Even for a straw man, that's really vague.

John we are all old enough to remember 2009. You're never going to get majorities like that again. Even with those majorities Democrats refused to act in the interests of their voters. The problem isn't the quantity of Democrats, it's the Democrats themselves.

Remember how Obama & Biden promised to codify Roe Vs Wade?

Pillager Farms remembers: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-roe-v-wade-law-land-supreme-cou rt-supporters/

I hate to sound cynical but I think the dems are merely using abortion rights as a fund raising tool & thus are not serious about women's rights...

Libs often accuse the left of idealism and not understanding the real mechanisms of government. Then they turn around and are like "our plan is to vote real hard and get 60 seats in the senate! and somehow the supreme court will change also!"

There is a realistic path to making abortion federally legal. We should take it.

Instead, as Pillager said, Democratic leadership probably won't pursue fixing this in a real way. They get a powerful talking point and fundraising ask and, apparently, no level of failure is enough to make mainstream liberals demand any sort of accountability of them.

Sorry people disagreeing with you hurts your feelings though? That must be difficult

I have unsubscribed and blocked just about every Democratic Party email address and I still got two different Roe v Wade themed emails begging me for money. Pelosi et al were probably popping champagne corks when this opinion was leaked because it's going to mean millions of dollars to spread around their cabal of "consultants"

Yuuuup. The Democratic party is largely a jobs program for people that went to Georgetown and second-rate Ivies. Roe's stare decisis being overruled is wonderful if your job depends on getting funding from angry liberals. Not great for poor women in red states.

>>>John we are all old enough to remember 2009. John we are all old enough to remember 2009.

Are you?

>>>You're never going to get majorities like that again. Even with those majorities Democrats refused to act in the interest of their voters.

Did they?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and colloquially known as Obamacare, is a landmark United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

>>>Pelosi et al were probably popping champagne corks when this opinion was leaked because it's going to mean millions of dollars to spread around their cabal of "consultants"

I think they probably weren't popping champagne corks. I understand dramatic license, but dramatic license is all you've got to back up your conspiracy theory.

If this was twitter I would post the collection of graphs that show the rapidly increasing health insurance costs years by year with "ACA happens here" in the middle of them, pointing out that the ACA did nothing to control health insurance costs.

SAD WEAK BULLSHIT HAPPENS HERE

Crackersmack just did what he does best, he moved the goalposts. Unlike Crackersmack, people who can actually read English know that saying that the action the Democrats took was ineffective is not the same thing as saying that the Democrats "refused to take action". He's shifted the argument, he's moved the goalposts.

Now, if I were actually cite a source to counter this scary-sounding "collection of graphs" that Crackersmack would drop on my ass "if this was Twitter" (as if that means anything), he's going to move the goalposts again. It's what he does.

And I'm the idiot who keeps falling for this worn-out song and dance, over and over again.

>>>If this was twitter I would post the collection of graphs that show the rapidly increasing health insurance costs years by year with "ACA happens here" in the middle of them, pointing out that the ACA did nothing to control health insurance costs.

Well, I guess I dodged a truth bullet!

If this was twitter, your disingenuous ass would have been banned two years ago.

They used their historic momentum to turn public demand for healthcare reform into a giveaway for the insurance industry that mostly made things worse for Americans. Then they lost to Trump.