No Future for the GOP?

Clinamenic

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Mr. Tea said:
So they're overturning Roe vs. Wade now? I mean is this really going to happen?
Click to expand...
From Reuters:

WASHINGTON, May 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court looks set to vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico on Monday.

[...]

Reuters was not able to confirm the authenticity of the draft. The Supreme Court and the White House declined to comment.

[...]

In a post on Twitter, Neal Katyal, a lawyer who regularly argues before the court, said if the report was accurate it would be "the first major leak from the Supreme Court ever."
Click to expand...

www.reuters.com

U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, Politico reports

The U.S. Supreme Court looks set to vote to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico on Monday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
thoughts are that the leak was by an anti-choice person who wanted to lock in the five judges who originally voted to overturn it, makes it pretty much impossible for any of them to potentially walk it back if they've wobbled in the months since this early opinion was written five or six months ago.
 
Last edited:
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
all signs were pointing to this decision to be made at some point, but one potential benefit to Dems is it might rally more voters to their side in the midterms.
 
Last edited:
M

mind_philip

saw the light
Not surprising. For some reason all five Republican appointees are Catholics (with Sotomayor the only Catholic Dem appointee) despite the country being only 20% Catholic (and that 20% being famously selective in which elements of doctrine they follow).
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mind_philip said:
Not surprising. For some reason all five Republican appointees are Catholics (with Sotomayor the only Catholic Dem appointee) despite the country being only 20% Catholic (and that 20% being famously selective in which elements of doctrine they follow).
Click to expand...
Is that significant, though, given that Baptists (the more hardline ones, anyway) and Evangelicals tend to be as anti-abortion as the most zealous Catholics anyway?

Or is it about appealing to Hispanic voters, or what?

Edit: looks like it depends which Baptists you're talking about - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/
 
M

mind_philip

saw the light
Mr. Tea said:
Is that significant, though, given that Baptists (the more hardline ones, anyway) and Evangelicals tend to be as anti-abortion as the most zealous Catholics anyway?

Or is it about appealing to Hispanic voters, or what?

Edit: looks like it depends which Baptists you're talking about - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/21/where-major-religious-groups-stand-on-abortion/
Click to expand...
To be honest, I'm not quite sure how or why they've done it this way. The court-packing strategy has been in place for at least a decade and probably more, and each time they get a chance they put a conservative Catholic on the bench. Being lapsed in a family of deeply conservative Catholics, I could guess at an intellectual/textual inflexibility that aligns with originalist legal thinking and that might not be so prevalent in other strains of Christianity (which seem to have more of an emphasis on revelation and personal spirituality), but that's probably 99% my personal prejudice.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mind_philip said:
To be honest, I'm not quite sure how or why they've done it this way. The court-packing strategy has been in place for at least a decade and probably more, and each time they get a chance they put a conservative Catholic on the bench. Being lapsed in a family of deeply conservative Catholics, I could guess at an intellectual/textual inflexibility that aligns with originalist legal thinking and that might not be so prevalent in other strains of Christianity (which seem to have more of an emphasis on revelation and personal spirituality), but that's probably 99% my personal prejudice.
Click to expand...
"Originalist" meaning obsessed with the Constitution, right?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mind_philip said:
Specifically, trying to interpret it only in the sense that it was understood/intended at the time of writing. Which as intellectual frameworks go is pretty fucking idiotic for one of the three bodies charged with guiding a country into the future.
Click to expand...
Sounds a lot like how Salafists think about the Quran.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
he's also tremendously inappropriate to be a member of congress, a 25 year old who knows nothing -- nor cares -- about legislating. it's all just about being a MAGA world celebrity.
 
Leo

Leo

Well-known member
btw, @mind_philip, welcome back. I always wonder why someone who joined dissensus almost 20 years ago decides to reemerge (unless of course maybe I haven't been reading the threads you been posting on for the last 20 years, in which case my bad).
 
Last edited:
M

mind_philip

saw the light
Leo said:
btw, @mind_philip, welcome back. I always wonder why someone who joined dissensus almost 20 years ago decides to reemerge (unless of course maybe I haven't been reading the threads you been posting on for the last 20 years, in which case my bad).
Click to expand...
Thanks - I've popped back a few times over the past year, but not to post much. It was hearing about Mark Fisher that brought me back originally after a decade or so away. From mid-twenties precarity in London to early 40s relative comfort in Silicon Valley, Dissensus feels very different, though I'm glad it's still here (and that my log-in still worked after going unused for so long).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top