It's official - the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

[Too Little Time]

Gerrymandering is a serious issue in races with districts ... but doesn't affect Senate races, nor the Presidential race. While I agree that there's what I'd consider criminal acts of voter suppression which affect those races, too often those practices are codified into law by (yes, gerrymandered) state legislatures.

So you can agree to some of what I said. And I did say more.

I said the 2 parties - neither individually nor together, represent a majority of the voting population. The 2 parties have worked hard legislating to keep other parties - minor. That alone should make one believe that elections are not legitimate.

I quoted Madison that thee purpose of the Senate was to protect the minority rich from the majority poor. The major political parties are doing a good job. If we had 1 party doing the job, people would be upset. But with 2 parties sharing the load, the job becomes legitimate.

The actual elections don't really matter. The result - the results that the elected government produce, are pretty much predetermined. A minority - typically the rich, will decide as they wish. And the majority will be ignored. But that is what we signed up for.

[Boatbum]

So you can agree to some of what I said. And I did say more.

I said the 2 parties - neither individually nor together, represent a majority of the voting population. The 2 parties have worked hard legislating to keep other parties - minor. That alone should make one believe that elections are not legitimate.

I quoted Madison that thee purpose of the Senate was to protect the minority rich from the majority poor. The major political parties are doing a good job. If we had 1 party doing the job, people would be upset. But with 2 parties sharing the load, the job becomes legitimate.

The actual elections don't really matter. The result - the results that the elected government produce, are pretty much predetermined. A minority - typically the rich, will decide as they wish. And the majority will be ignored. But that is what we signed up for.

The purpose of the senate (and Madison stated as much in the Federalist Papers) was to more directly represent the interests of the state (vs the individual voter) and to insulate the country form more populous states controlling the smaller states. Which is also why the electoral college exists vs an all-out popular vote.

[David G]

The purpose of the senate (and Madison stated as much in the Federalist Papers) was to more directly represent the interests of the state (vs the individual voter) and to insulate the country form more populous states controlling the smaller states. Which is also why the electoral college exists vs an all-out popular vote.

Is true.

It's also true that the Founding Fathers seem not to have foreseen how out of balance that device would become.

[Too Little Time]

The purpose of the senate (and Madison stated as much in the Federalist Papers) was to more directly represent the interests of the state (vs the individual voter) and to insulate the country form more populous states controlling the smaller states. Which is also why the electoral college exists vs an all-out popular vote.

I did not claim that the Senate could not serve two purposes.

I am also sure that telling the general population that the government is going to protect the minority rich from the majority poor would not go over well.

[Keith Wilson]

States in 1789 were individual things, quite different cultures and ways of life. It could take weeks for a letter to get from New York to Philadelphia, and moving people and goods around was dodgy at best. These days, despite regional differences, we're one country, states are administrative divisions, and the idea of giving states with smaller populations disproportionate representation is an obsolete relic from 250 years ago. There is no reason at all that Vermont and Wyoming should have 3X the electoral votes per person as California and Texas, much less 40X the number of senators per person. People have rights, not states.

TLT demonstrates very clearly how an excess of cynicism plays right into the hands of those traitors who are attempting to replace imperfect democracy with authoritarian quiasi-fascism.

[Boatbum]

States in 1789 were individual things, quite different cultures and ways of life. It could take weeks for a letter to get from New York to Philadelphia, and moving people and goods around was dodgy at best. These days, despite regional differences, we're one country, states are administrative divisions, and the idea of giving states with smaller populations disproportionate representation is an obsolete relic from 250 years ago. There is no reason at all that Vermont and Wyoming should have 3X the electoral votes per person as California and Texas, much less 40X the number of senators per person. People have rights, not states.

The reasoning had less to do with transportation or speed of communication. There was a fear that populace states would steamroll the less populace states. Look at any recent election - Every Democrat starts with a virtually guaranteed minimum of 95 electoral votes from only 3 states(New York, California and Massachusetts). It takes a lot of states like Georgia and West Virginia to have any hope of having a say in a national election. Since things change over time it is very likely that one day the dynamic will be reversed and California and New York will be Republican strongholds as they once were. At that point an electoral college will look pretty good to liberals.

You say people have rights, not states and yet for the states to agree to form a union they all agreed that states had rights. If you are going to break the deal then you should first give them the option of disbanding the union. You can't just take that away any more than you can the rights of the individual.

[WI-Tom]

What I am saying is that of the two, recognizing that neither was very good, Trump was the better choice.

Yes. And what I am saying is, there's not much (i.e. zero) credibility for that claim. An honest objective comparison can't reach any other conclusion.

Tom

[Boatbum]

Yes. And what I am saying is, there's not much (i.e. zero) credibility for that claim. An honest objective comparison can't reach any other conclusion.

Tom

I respect but do not agree with your position. And I think74,222,958 voters would disagree as well. You are posting in an environment that is pretty uniform in it's far left ideals. The mainstream is not present here. I don't think the general public shares this view.

[lupussonic]

I respect but do not agree with your position. And I think74,222,958 voters would disagree as well. You are posting in an environment that is pretty uniform in it's far left ideals. The mainstream is not present here. I don't think the general public shares this view.

Because injecting bleach or light into your veins to combat Covid might be a good idea?

Seriously, Trump is an IDIOT.

[johnw]

The purpose of the senate (and Madison stated as much in the Federalist Papers) was to more directly represent the interests of the state (vs the individual voter) and to insulate the country form more populous states controlling the smaller states. Which is also why the electoral college exists vs an all-out popular vote.

The electoral college, combined with the 3/5 compromise, was designed to give the slave states an outsized influence on who was president in proportion to their voting population.

[johnw]

I respect but do not agree with your position. And I think74,222,958 voters would disagree as well. You are posting in an environment that is pretty uniform in it's far left ideals. The mainstream is not present here. I don't think the general public shares this view.

The mainstream cast more votes than that, and is well represented here. If the 81,283,098 votes for Biden don't represent the mainstream, certainly the smaller group who voted for Trump were less mainstream.

[TomF]

Is there anyone who can 100% defend the hugely consequential SCOTUS decisions in the past week or so, in the light of the absolutely criminal nature of the administration and Senate members who installed 3 of the majority?

Migod. I don't know how to cleanse this torrent of sewage.

[WI-Tom]

I respect but do not agree with your position. And I think74,222,958 voters would disagree as well. You are posting in an environment that is pretty uniform in it's far left ideals. The mainstream is not present here. I don't think the general public shares this view.

First, you're supporting a minority view as more mainstream than a majority view. So...

Secondly, the general public could decide they don't "share the view" about gravity, but if they step off the edge of a cliff, they're going to be accelerating toward the ground at 9.8m/s per second, give or take, despite their contrarian view.

Edit to add: But I do respect your approach to the discussion. I can't quite bring myself to respect this particular opinion of yours, though!

Tom

[Garret]

What I am saying is that of the two, recognizing that neither was very good, Trump was the better choice.

I respect your choice & also your willingness to state it here.

That being said, I have to disagree - as while Biden is not the sharpest tool in the drawer, at least he can speak coherent sentences & didn't join a party because he believed it would be the easiest one to fool.

[Keith Wilson]

The reasoning had less to do with transportation or speed of communication. There was a fear that populous states would steamroll the less populous states. Look at any recent election - Every Democrat starts with a virtually guaranteed minimum of 95 electoral votes from only 3 states(New York, California and Massachusetts). It takes a lot of states like Georgia and West Virginia to have any hope of having a say in a national election. Since things change over time it is very likely that one day the dynamic will be reversed and California and New York will be Republican strongholds as they once were. At that point an electoral college will look pretty good to liberals.

You say people have rights, not states and yet for the states to agree to form a union they all agreed that states had rights. If you are going to break the deal then you should first give them the option of disbanding the union. You can't just take that away any more than you can the rights of the individual.

This made sense in the late 18th century, when South Carolina and Massachusetts were probably more different than Argentina and New Zealand today. (It's not about speed of communication, that's just one reason for differences in culture in the late 1700s.) It does not make sense now at all.
A proposal: redraw state boundaries, at least for electoral purposes, so that all states have sort of the same population. Break up Texas and California, combine North and South Dakota. Again, people have rights. States are artificial constructs, things that exist only in the human mind. Yes, I know that this is in the sparkly pink unicorn class of impossibility - but would you support it? Why should the 620,000 people of Vermont have the same number of Senators as the 30 million people of Texas?

[LeeG]

Is there anyone who can 100% defend the hugely consequential SCOTUS decisions in the past week or so, in the light of the absolutely criminal nature of the administration and Senate members who installed 3 of the majority?

Migod. I don't know how to cleanse this torrent of sewage.

Might makes right. I bet the anti Roe people were grateful TFG made the appointments before any investigation weakened his ability to do so. Like Wolfowitz saying it doesn’t matter WMD weren’t found. The goal was accomplished.

[TomF]

sure makes the case for expanding the court as soon as the Dems have sufficient votes to do so. To neuter the impact.

[Tom Montgomery]

.
Time for a second constitutional convention.

[johnw]

.
Time for a second constitutional convention.

I shudder to think what Republicans would do with that.

[Hugh MacD]

You are personally unable to show that the 2020 election was legitimate. In fact, for decades there have been voting rights issues.

For the 2020 election I have to go with the repeated reports (from both sides) saying that there were no discrepancies in the voting record that would have made any difference in the election outcome. I'm a realist...I believe there will always be irregularities. Regarding the voting rights issues reported "for decades" can you provide me with any examples other than intimidation keeping people (largely minorities) away from the polls? I'm asking in all sincerity, here. Here in Oregon we don't get a lot of the kind of discrimination seen in some other states (not always the case here...Oregon only voted to stay with the Union by 6 votes, I understand), but I work closely with friends who've volunteered for many years with the election committee in Multnomah County and they are quite proud of the integrity of their co-workers.

[CWSmith]

This is disturbing on so many levels. From USA Today:

An Ohio 10-year-old crossed state lines for abortion care in Indiana. She isn't alone

An Ohio 10-year-old crossed state lines for abortion care in Indiana. She isn't alone (msn.com)

[Too Little Time]

For the 2020 election I have to go with the repeated reports (from both sides) saying that there were no discrepancies in the voting record that would have made any difference in the election outcome. I'm a realist...I believe there will always be irregularities. Regarding the voting rights issues reported "for decades" can you provide me with any examples other than intimidation keeping people (largely minorities) away from the polls? I'm asking in all sincerity, here. Here in Oregon we don't get a lot of the kind of discrimination seen in some other states (not always the case here...Oregon only voted to stay with the Union by 6 votes, I understand), but I work closely with friends who've volunteered for many years with the election committee in Multnomah County and they are quite proud of the integrity of their co-workers.

You might recall that many states were required to have the federal courts review changes to their voting laws. So claims of fraud are not new issues. Democrat controlled states have used the tactics of the Republicans that they feel achieve their goals. They just don't do it very well.

[Too Little Time]

States in 1789 were individual things, quite different cultures and ways of life. It could take weeks for a letter to get from New York to Philadelphia, and moving people and goods around was dodgy at best. These days, despite regional differences, we're one country, states are administrative divisions, and the idea of giving states with smaller populations disproportionate representation is an obsolete relic from 250 years ago. There is no reason at all that Vermont and Wyoming should have 3X the electoral votes per person as California and Texas, much less 40X the number of senators per person. People have rights, not states.

TLT demonstrates very clearly how an excess of cynicism plays right into the hands of those traitors who are attempting to replace imperfect democracy with authoritarian quiasi-fascism.

Stating facts does not make me cynical. No more than you misstating facts makes you correct.

The rules for selecting Senators have been changed by amending the Constitution. While it might have been better to eliminate the Senate, that is not what was chosen.

[leikec]

States in 1789 were individual things, quite different cultures and ways of life. It could take weeks for a letter to get from New York to Philadelphia, and moving people and goods around was dodgy at best. These days, despite regional differences, we're one country, states are administrative divisions, and the idea of giving states with smaller populations disproportionate representation is an obsolete relic from 250 years ago. There is no reason at all that Vermont and Wyoming should have 3X the electoral votes per person as California and Texas, much less 40X the number of senators per person. People have rights, not states.

TLT demonstrates very clearly how an excess of cynicism plays right into the hands of those traitors who are attempting to replace imperfect democracy with authoritarian quiasi-fascism.

I don’t see it as cynicism—I see a small mind collecting flysh!t, grinding it into ersatz pepper, and thinking that his “special” process for turning small dookey into tiny dookey is evidence of some sort of extraordinary wisdom…

Jeff C

[LeeG]

This is what the “pro-life” Christian nationalists have done.

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...on/7788415001/

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.


Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

[David G]

'This Is People Power': Michigan Groups Submit Signatures to Put Abortion Rights on the Ballot

Advocates turned in a record-shattering 753,759 signatures to place on the November ballot a proposal to enshrine abortion rights in the Michigan state constitution.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...-rights-ballot

[David G]

[skuthorp]

The civl war continues…(yes that one)

[David G]

The civl war continues…(yes that one)

Yes, we made two huge mistakes that we're still paying for and struggling to overcome.

[David G]

Some thinking conservatives were worried at the time that SCOTUS making this sort of over-reach, on this issue, might result in some blowback that would affect the midterms.

Here's some early evidence that such might be the case. Early days, though --


Poll Shows Tight Race for Control of Congress as Class Divide Widens

With President Joe Biden’s approval rating mired in the 30s and with nearly 80% of voters saying the country is heading in the wrong direction, all the ingredients seem to be in place for a Republican sweep in the November midterm elections.
But Democrats and Republicans begin the campaign in a surprisingly close race for control of Congress, according to the first New York Times/Siena College survey of the cycle.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
Overall among registered voters, 41% said they preferred Democrats to control Congress compared with 40% who preferred Republican control.
Among likely voters, Republicans led by 1 percentage point, 44% to 43%, reflecting the tendency for the party out of power to enjoy a turnout advantage in midterms.

The results suggest that the wave of mass shootings and the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade have at least temporarily insulated the Democrats from an otherwise hostile national political environment while energizing the party’s predominantly liberal activist base.

But the confluence of economic problems and resurgent cultural issues has helped turn the emerging class divide in the Democratic coalition into a chasm, as Republicans appear to be making new inroads among nonwhite and working-class voters — perhaps especially Hispanic voters — who remain more concerned about the economy and inflation than abortion rights and guns.

For the first time in a Times/Siena national survey, Democrats had a larger share of support among white college graduates than among nonwhite voters — a striking indication of the shifting balance of political energy in the Democratic coalition. As recently as the 2016 congressional elections, Democrats won more than 70% of nonwhite voters while losing among white college graduates.

With four months to go until the election, it is far too soon to say whether the campaign will remain focused on issues such as abortion and gun control for long enough for the Democrats to avoid a long-expected midterm rout. If it does, a close national vote would probably translate to a close race for control of Congress, as neither party enjoys a clear structural advantage in the race.
Partisan gerrymandering has slightly tilted the map toward the Republicans in the House, but Democrats enjoy the advantages of incumbency and superior fundraising in key districts.

Recent unfavorable news for Democrats, in the form of Supreme Court rulings, and some tragic news nationally might ordinarily mean trouble for the party in power, but that is not what the results suggest.
The survey began 11 days after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, when cellphones were still buzzing with news alerts about the mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/u...-congress.html

[Too Little Time]

TLT demonstrates very clearly how an excess of cynicism plays right into the hands of those traitors who are attempting to replace imperfect democracy with authoritarian quiasi-fascism.

I have stated what I see in the political parties. The Republicans work for the 1%. The Democrats work for the 24% below that. The remaining 75% are given little.

I also have stated what needs to be done to save the imperfect democracy. That is for the Democrats to work for the remaining 75%.

But that will not happen because Democrats make the choice of who to work for.

From post #275

For the first time in a Times/Siena national survey, Democrats had a larger share of support among white college graduates than among nonwhite voters — a striking indication of the shifting balance of political energy in the Democratic coalition. As recently as the 2016 congressional elections, Democrats won more than 70% of nonwhite voters while losing among white college graduates.

Moving in the wrong direction.