• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

BirdinBama said:
Just thinking out in writing here.....why don't the Dems draft statutes that would codify the right to abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and try to enact them. Sure, The Pubs would filibuster like hell, but they would look pretty silly filibustering against those things. Why not? At least it would make every fuckin Republican Senator take a stand.
Click to expand...

They did w/r/t abortion (Women's Health Protection Act) after the draft Alito opinion leaked.
 
BirdinBama said:
Just thinking out in writing here.....why don't the Dems draft statutes that would codify the right to abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and try to enact them. Sure, The Pubs would filibuster like hell, but they would look pretty silly filibustering against those things. Why not? At least it would make every fuckin Republican Senator take a stand.
Click to expand...

Wakelaw2006 said:
They did w/r/t abortion (Women's Health Protection Act) after the draft Alito opinion leaked.
Click to expand...


Sure. But put Republicans on the record on same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and contraception.
 
BirdinBama said:
Just thinking out in writing here.....why don't the Dems draft statutes that would codify the right to abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and try to enact them. Sure, The Pubs would filibuster like hell, but they would look pretty silly filibustering against those things. Why not? At least it would make every fuckin Republican Senator take a stand.
Click to expand...

I've been asking the same - put them on record, show you're trying to get things done, focus on the no-brain issues that most Americans want action on. The WHPA was a half assed attempt to do so, except they put up a package too complicated for the average person to understand, and large enough that senators could push back and say they didn't agree with parts of it. Keep it simple.
 
The working theory that I have read multiple times in the past is that bills lose momentum when they fail to pass, and that a failed bill is more likely to lose votes than gain when re-tried. I don’t know if I believe it, but that’s the excuse. Legislators don’t like to put forth serious bills unless they believe they will pass.
 
I can't wait for this new United States of Theocracy.

 
BirdinBama said:
Just thinking out in writing here.....why don't the Dems draft statutes that would codify the right to abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and try to enact them. Sure, The Pubs would filibuster like hell, but they would look pretty silly filibustering against those things. Why not? At least it would make every fuckin Republican Senator take a stand.
Click to expand...


It’d have to be filibuster proof to force the actual vote…right?
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
The working theory that I have read multiple times in the past is that bills lose momentum when they fail to pass, and that a failed bill is more likely to lose votes than gain when re-tried. I don’t know if I believe it, but that’s the excuse. Legislators don’t like to put forth serious bills unless they believe they will pass.
Click to expand...

Yep, for 80% of our Congresspeople the goal is just to stay office. Keep that sweet lobbyist cash flowing in.

They’re all millionaires now, fuck the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
The logic kind of makes sense outside a political context. But in politics failed bills can be a way to motivate your base.
 
PhDeac said:
The logic kind of makes sense outside a political context. But in politics failed bills can be a way to motivate your base.
Click to expand...

Not telling you something you don’t already know, but there are plenty of ways for Congress to bring up debate on a topic without actually bringing a vote on completed legislation, in that regard, Republicans would probably use the filibuster to prevent any vote on abortion, even just a doomed protest motion, simply to prevent their legislators from having to go on record.
 
Last edited:
Sure. I'm pointing out that Republicans who can't pass legislation use their attempts to do so to rally the base. Democrats just decide not to try.

Now part of that is because Democrats are actually trying to get things done so failure to do so is a problem. Republicans don't want government to work so not getting anything done isn't really bad it just stalls them making things worse.

But Democrats lack a messaging apparatus to make their failures seem heroic.
 
HuskyDeac said:
I can't wait for this new United States of Theocracy.

Click to expand...

This is disgusting, but it's going to happen and with the current court it will be codified for a generation at least.
 
"But it’s not clear how those lower court judges should now navigate questions about the separation of church and state. Although the Court overrules Lemon, it does not announce a fleshed-out test that will replace Lemon. Instead, Kennedy announces a vague new rule that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’”"

"Historical practices and understandings" in a country with whitewashed history aimed at teaching people this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles is a backdoor way for SCOTUS to establish a religion and give it preference over others.
 
And historical practices and understandings can be what kinds of laws Henry VIII created.
 
PhDeac said:
"But it’s not clear how those lower court judges should now navigate questions about the separation of church and state. Although the Court overrules Lemon, it does not announce a fleshed-out test that will replace Lemon. Instead, Kennedy announces a vague new rule that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by ‘reference to historical practices and understandings.’”"

"Historical practices and understandings" in a country with whitewashed history aimed at teaching people this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles is a backdoor way for SCOTUS to establish a religion and give it preference over others.
Click to expand...

Yep. I've read social media posts from a number of people joking (in some cases maybe serious) that Muslims or Hindus or even Satanists should try testing some of these new Supreme Court rulings, like praying at school events. If that happened and outraged conservative Christians tried to stop it (and they would) and it went to the courts, the Supreme Court would likely rule that Islam or Satanism doesn't have the "history" in America that Evangelical Christianity or Roman Catholicism do and so they can be treated differently by the courts and public institutions like schools. There will always be some way they can spin these decisions to favor the GOP base over everyone else.
 
PhDeac said:
"Historical practices and understandings" in a country with whitewashed history aimed at teaching people this is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles is a backdoor way for SCOTUS to establish a religion and give it preference over others.
Click to expand...


Exactly the aim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top