Conversation

Notices

1. Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 07:52:42 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅
   People, not all people but most people, are angry about the wrong thing.
   
   I agree that Roe v Wade being canceled is a bad outcome. I agree that women should have the right to their bodies, but here's my possibly unpopular take:
   
   A Supreme Court that doesn't give a damn what the public wants ... is exactly what a Supreme Court is for, actually.
   • Bob Jonkman repeated this.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 08:02:45 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to
     The reason we even know the party allegiance of the Justices, the reason there is partisan court seat stacking etc is that the SCOTUS cares too much what the people or rather what the people's representatives think.
     
     It's the politicization of everything. As another example the US appoints some of its District Attorneys by popular vote and that's just super weird for a role that is supposed to be administrative, meritocratic, bureaucratic.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 08:03:58 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to
     If a majority of the US supports the outcome of RvW, if the Dems support the outcome of RvW, if the Dems have Presidency, Senate and Representatives, then just fucking fix this the right way this time. Make a law instead of interpreting the law. You had 50 years.
     
     Relying on an interpretation for 50 years is the failure. The definition of rights is political and should be solved through political mechanisms.
   • epoch@tilde.zone's status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 08:23:43 UTC epoch

     in reply to

     @clacke
     just baaarely a majority in the senate.

     https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/joe-manchin-vote-against-codify-roe-wade-senate

   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 08:34:48 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • epoch
     @epoch Remember, kids. Contraception could have prevented Joe Manchin.
   • Elias Mårtenson (loke@functional.cafe)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 08:40:53 UTC Elias Mårtenson

     in reply to

     @clacke as far as I understand, there is no majority for it. Not all democrats in the US parliament agrees with it.

     This is a problem with two party politics I think, since there is no way deals can be made across multiple parties, making even then most reasonable deals into ideological battles.

   • Sam Whited (sam@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 12:46:52 UTC Sam Whited

     in reply to

     @clacke (but yah, strong agree that the whole point of the supreme court is to ignore public opinion and protect minority positions… just because this supreme court is entirely broken and doing stupid things doesn't mean we should lose sight of that)

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Sam Whited (sam@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 12:46:53 UTC Sam Whited

     in reply to

     @clacke no one would gave thought to codify a right that the supreme court had ruled on until recently though. If you'd tried to do this any time in the last 50 years you'd have democrats in conservative states in a really bad spot electorally and right now they just don't have the votes since their "majority" is effectively 48. Also, the house did vote on it like 6 years ago, but they haven't controlled the senate by a large enough margin for it to go further.

   • Sam Whited (sam@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 12:47:34 UTC Sam Whited

     in reply to

     @clacke Correction: I said 6 years off the top of my head but the house passed a national right to abortion as recently as last year after the Texas thing.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 12:48:05 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Elias Mårtenson
     @loke It's complicated and depends on what "it" means. But a clear minority are for these abortion bans that will kick in ... in like half of the states? ... once protections fall. news.yahoo.com/polls-really-am…
   • LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864} (lnxw48a1@nu.federati.net)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 12:49:40 UTC LinuxWalt (@lnxw48a1) {3EB165E0-5BB1-45D2-9E7D-93B31821F864}

     in reply to
     @clacke
     
     > A Supreme Court that doesn't give a damn what the public wants ... is exactly what a Supreme Court is for, actually.
     
     I agree.
     
     > the reason there is partisan court seat stacking etc is that the SCOTUS cares too much what the people or rather what the people's representatives think.
     
     I disagree. It is that absent support for the ruling party's "correct" interpretations, a court nominee will not be confirmed.
     
     > It's the politicization of everything.
     
     Correct. And, as we know, politics ruins everything it touches.
     
     > the US appoints some of its District Attorneys by popular vote and that's just super weird for a role that is supposed to be administrative, meritocratic, bureaucratic.
     
     Yes, I agree. The DA role is normally at county-level, so each county that does this should reconsider, including #Los_Angeles County in #SoCal. On the other hand, one has no idea what sort of back-room deals would be made in an appointed DA situation. But overall, I think appointment would be better.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 14:12:15 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     @sam "Roe was 1 day old in 1973 when Bella Abzug, who was a House representative from New York, urged Congress to codify Roe. She basically foresaw exactly where we are today, that there was the potential legislation to erode Roe. She introduced an act: The Abortion Rights Act, H.R. 254, to bar states from creating new (laws) on abortion."
     
     www.propublica.org/article/thi…
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 14:59:48 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to

     • Sam Whited
     @sam I know that representatives and senators have their personal positions, but doesn't the party have a whip they bring out when the occasion so requires? They didn't make it a priority, as Obama said in 2009.
     
     I think even if the first couple of decades people figured RvW was solid, it's been pretty widely discussed starting at the very latest with RBG's refusal to step down that Roe was being conspired against.
   • Sam Whited (sam@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 14:59:49 UTC Sam Whited

     in reply to

     @clacke it's obvious now that they should have done it earlier, but no one at the time could have reasonably expected the system could fall apart to this degree and become so one sided that even if democrats technically have a majority they wouldn't be able to pass anything for decades. Anyways, obviously I agree they should codify it, but blaming them for not doing it when they never stood any chance (and actually have tried anyways multiple times) seems wrong.

   • Sam Whited (sam@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 14:59:50 UTC Sam Whited

     in reply to

     @clacke exactly, at the time it seemed like an extreme position.

   • Bob Jonkman (bobjonkman@gs.jonkman.ca)'s status on Saturday, 14-May-2022 17:47:32 UTC Bob Jonkman

     in reply to
     "A Supreme Court that doesn't give a damn what the public wants ... is exactly what a Supreme Court is for, actually."
     
     True enough. But elected representatives in government *are* supposed to do what people want, that's why they get elected. If they had fulfilled their obligations to actually represent the citizens' wants then the Supreme Court wouldn't have to act at all.
     
     It all boils down to a need for #ProportionalRepresentation with multi-member districts so all views are represented in goverment.
   • Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 (clacke@libranet.de)'s status on Sunday, 15-May-2022 02:44:52 UTC Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅

     in reply to
     @bobjonkman Oh yes. I remember that this is your cause and I fully endorse it. Which model of proportional representation do you think works best if you have the choice?
     
     And which one would you give the best chance to succeed as a target for reform, in Canada and the US respectively?
   • Sam Whited (sam@social.coop)'s status on Sunday, 15-May-2022 02:46:06 UTC Sam Whited

     in reply to

     @clacke technically there's one, but you're not going to get a handful of conservative dems on board so you *need* a bigger majority. It's not as if they're not pressuring Manchin et al. same as when Obama briefly had a majority: there were like 4 senators who publicly stated they'd vote against it and it seemed rather safe at the time so no one pushed it. Either way, it comes down to not having a big enough majority in the senate, then no one shows up to vote in the midterms.

     Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.