Speaking of Ginni, the investigation into the leak is still ongoing. I was afraid it might have gotten buried after the decision.
I still have all the quatloos in the world on the leaker being Ginni Thomas.
In a recent interview, John Roberts defended the legitimacy of the current court.
I think Roberts knows full well that merely “disagreeing with this opinion or that opinion” is not the problem people have with SCOTUS right now. He seems somewhat desperate to appear as if he hasn’t lost control of the Court.
I thought that law self-destructed on the overturning of Roe. I’ll see if I can find a cite.
No luck.
Definitely not all of them women. Back in 1974 before Roe, child support laws were much more lax (no wage garnishment) and paternity tests much less reliable. We are uncharted territory. Before Dobbs you could be pretty sure that if there was an accident on your one night stand it would be most likely be discretely taken care of by the lady in question and you would never hear of it. Now there is a good chance that you’ll be paying for your beer goggles romance in large monthly payments over the next 18 years.
Rep. Swalwell’s post is misleading. Republicans have officially supported (sponsored) legislation that would ban abortions at the federal level for years. It’s no secret. A constitutional amendment banning all abortions has been on the Republican party platform since at least 2016. They run their campaigns with abortion as a central issue and point the Republican base to those measures, which are always dead-on-arrival.
Those who didn’t already know this - Rep. Swalwell’s intended audience - are way out of the loop.
~Max
Sure, but I think the point was more that they pushed to overturn Roe on the grounds that it’s something that should be left up to the states. Swalwell (who I’m really not familiar with, other than the name), from my point of view, was showing yet another example of the right lying to their base.
It’s not going to change the minds of many on the right, but if a few people finally start to see this for what it is (and a few more people each time more lies are pointed out), maybe we can, slowly, start getting rid of some of these MAGA politicians. .
Hopefully, even if it takes time, more people will come to the realization that if he lies to ‘them’ to get what he wants, maybe he lies to us too.
I often feel like the best course of action for the left is to remind the right that we fully understand they’re only going to vote red, and that’s fine, but they still need to start taking out the trash. IOW, go ahead and vote republican, but start finding better republicans.
Or, as I told my mom (a lifetime republican) when she had an almost existential crisis during the last election because she didn’t want to vote for trump, you can vote independent or liberal or just not vote during this election and then go back to voting R at the next election, no one will even know.
Incidentally, would the MAGA crowd fit into this definition?
(2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
(3) the term “terrorist group” means any group practicing, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
22 USC Ch. 38(d)(2)&(3)
That’s the argument that won the day. Republicans have been consistently anti-abortion since Roe v Wade was decided nearly fifty years ago. Many mainstream Republicans go further and say the States should ban abortion, the federal government should recognize personhood at conception, and the federal Constitution should be amended to ban abortion. This isn’t a contradiction, and a Republican who says it should be up to the States and it should be decided by Congress isn’t lying. The concept is called concurrent legislative power (but it’s arguable whether Congress has any business in declaring personhood).
~Max
For a classic example take racial discrimination. Before the civil rights act of '68 it was up to the individual states to decide whether to segregate or desegregate public facing businesses like restaurants. Civil rights activists could argue, without lying or contradicting themselves,
- Individual states should choose to end segregation
- Congress should force desegregation
- The Constitution should be amended / be reinterpreted to end segregation
Option 3 won the day in court, with respect to public schools, then Congress passed the civil rights act with respect to businesses using its concurrent commerce power.
~Max
That’s a contradiction, Max. Doesn’t matter how long people have been contradicting themselves, and doesn’t matter whether both states and the federal government have concurrent legislative power. Saying that one wants abortion banned by both the states and the feds isn’t a contradiction. Saying the states should have the right to decide and simultaneously saying that the federal goverment should supercede the states and make the decision for all of them is a contradiction.
True. But they weren’t saying ‘individual states should be free to choose to keep segregation’. They weren’t saying ‘the Constitution should neither ban nor require segregation, this is a decision that should be left up to the states.’ That’s where the contradiction comes in.
Thank you.
I was worried I didn’t explain myself well enough since it seemed obvious to me. I was starting to reply with almost exactly those same points but I didn’t think I’d be able to word it clearly enough. That was considerably less convoluted than anything I was about to come up with this late at night.
I’m always glad when I let one or two other people chime in before I let it turn in to two people digging their heels into the ground.
This is the part that drives me nuts. Okay, fine, you want to support Republicans in general. That doesn’t mean you have to support these particular Republicans. Especially when they’ve proven themselves to be garbage people, completely aside from their political opinions.
The classic example is Roy Moore. It was known beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a sexual predator during the primary election, and yet, they still made him the nominee, even though there were other, non-creeper candidates available. Why was it so important that this guy be the candidate? He’s trash, drop him like a hot potato and put up a different candidate!
The allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore were not reported until after the primary.
That happens to me a lot too!
Glad I was able to be on this end of it this time.
My read of it is that the states should have the right to decide unless/until the federal government decides for them, which it should also do.
My Senator Marco Rubio was asked just three weeks ago whether he would support a federal abortion ban, (cite: CBS interview at 14:36, and this quote from 16:56)
“Would you support a federal ban on abortion?”
“I think that right now, this issue is appropriately before the states. That’s where it always should have been, that’s where it is now, and I think that’s where it will be for the foreseeable future. We don’t have the votes now or anytime in the near future for that, and frankly, I think this issue is better decided at the state level at this point, because as I see it playing out, every state will now—people will have more influence over their state legislature than they do over Congress and certainly over the Supreme Court.”
Only to come out this week and co-sponsor Senator Lindsey Graham’s federal abortion ban. I say this comes very close to a lie. Senator Rubio was also clear, even in the interview, that he personally believes life starts at conception regardless of circumstance, and will support any bill that restricts abortion, even if it has exceptions for rape and incest which he would rather not include. He’ll take his wins when he can get them, let not the perfect be the enemy of the good. Graham’s bill is less restrictive than the abortion ban in Florida and allows states to be more restrictive - i.e. it changes nothing for Florida. And the Senator acknowledged that they don’t have the votes - the federal bill is pure political theatre.
~Max
I don’t see how you’re getting that reading. The Federal Government decided for them during all the years of Roe v Wade, and they complained vehemently about that.
So close I can’t see the separation.
Either Rubio was lying three weeks ago when he said that he thought the issue “is appropriately before the states. That’s where it always should have been”; or he’s lying now when he co-sponsors a federal abortion ban; or he had a drastic conversion on the subject during those three weeks – a three week period that comes after a period of many months of vehement discussion of the matter, and when Rubio is not 15 or 20 or even 25 or 30, but 50 years old.
Yeah. He was lying the first time. He never thought it was about letting the states make the decision. He wants the states (and everybody within them) to be forced to make the decision that he wants.
This time, maybe. We’ve seen all too much ‘don’t worry, that’ll never happen’ these last few years.
And – with actual actors in an actual theater: everybody knows that they’re lying. Everybody knows they’re playing a part, and may behave drastically differently in real life than the character that they’re playing. When politicians pull that shit – they’re trying to get elected based on deliberately deceiving people into thinking that they’re somebody they aren’t, with positions they don’t actually hold, who if they get into office will vote on legislation differently than they actually know they’re going to vote.
It’s not a game, and it’s not a play. It’s people’s lives we’re talking about. Rubio is not entitled to fucking lie about it.
That’s because the federal government decided it the wrong way, silly! 
It takes some squinting but Senator Rubio did not directly answer the question presented. Standard politician maneuver. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the Senator co-sponsored legislation that goes against his better judgement, but as I mentioned, earlier in the interview he indicated he is willing to use such tactics (he said he does not support a ban with rape and incest exceptions, but would vote for such a bill anyways because it’s better than no abortion ban). And co-sponsoring this bill is for show only.
Well, there isn’t any right to lie. But there isn’t anybody stopping him or any other politician.
Rep. Val Demings is slightly trailing in the polls despite a significantly larger war chest. Rubio’s actions thus far this week have a zero percent chance of hurting him.
~Max
Oh, good grief.
He only thinks it’s against his “better” judgement because he doesn’t think it goes far enough. He thinks that ten-year-old child should have been forced to try to carry to term.
And the other thing that can be said with certainty is that he was lying when he said, three weeks previously, that it ought to be left up to the states to decide whether abortion should be legal in each state.
It most certainly does take some squinting to see anything else; squinting to the point of closing one’s eyes. I don’t understand why you’re so insistent on doing so.
-
If that’s true, that’s a problem, not an excuse.
-
I hope to hell you’re wrong.