Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Some comments from Senator Kevin Cramer. He says his constituents won’t take solace that abortion is banned in his state when they can just go somewhere else and get one. He expects there to be calls for “federal protections”

Putting aside the legality of that, that’s pretty much exactly what I said this morning. There will absolutely be a push to ban or restrict abortion on a national level, successful or not.

There will almost certainly be attempts to ban it at the national level. Short of the Rs getting a supermajority in both houses, those attempts will fail.

[Da Geezer]

You know what? I don't doubt you've spent a good amount of time wagging your self-righteous finger in the face of the 3 or 4 Jews you've met over your 92 years, lecturing them on what it means to be a 'good Jew' and the 'one and only' correct way to interpret the Torah.

Not true. I've talked with a great many Rabbis and countless Jews. You might want to check out the site followtherabbi.com.

Jesus was an itinerant Rabbi in the first century. There were others. To try to fully understand the teachings of Christ you need to know the context in which he lived and taught. I believe you can only know that through studying Judaism. The only Jew I've ever gotten heated argument with was a guy named Jerry Israel who taught criminal law at UoM. A complete asshole, but I digress.

When you stoop to ad hominem attacks, you can know you are losing an argument. DSL, you are losing this one. The Jews and the Protestants have the same basic scripture in what Protestants call the Old Testament. Read it and see what you think it says about the unborn. Why recite what some hard-left prog magazine tells you when you can go to a primary source and find out for yourself.

[Da Geezer]

And if you think that the rhetoric, propaganda, intimidation and scare tactics couldn't any worse than what we've seen since 2016, then, well, there's (more than) a few barrels for of beer that we'll be asked to hold.

The WSJ today raised the specter of one of the five conservative justices being assassinated before the final opinion is released. The final decision should be released immediately unless there are justices that need more time.

[lineygoblue]

The "people" will not decide abortion laws. Gerrymandered state legislatures will decide

I agree. Illinois (read: Chicago), New York, California, New Jersey and basically all of New England want to tell everyone else what the decision will be.

[CGVT]

I agree. Illinois (read: Chicago), New York, California, New Jersey and basically all of New England want to tell everyone else what the decision will be.

Yep, but in those states it will be the will of the majority of the people, unlike predominately blue states that are gerrymandered to have red majorities in their legislature

[CGVT]

Americans are more united in support of abortion than you might assume


For decades, the debate over abortion has been entrenched in American politics. That’s meant in the World War I dug-in-by-the-Somme sense — a furious, impassioned struggle in which little movement was seen.

Then the wall cracked. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell held a Supreme Court seat open during Barack Obama’s term, giving a Republican president the chance to appoint three conservative justices to the bench. Donald Trump was unusually explicit about appointing justices who would reconsider Roe v. Wade, and he upheld that promise. Cases moved to the court that would allow for Roe to be overturned, and then, unexpectedly, we learned on Monday night that such a decision might be imminent. The long battle might suddenly end, with foes of abortion emerging victorious.

Should that happen, it’s useful to consider one underrecognized point. Very few Americans support outlawing abortion entirely and more than half think it should be legal for any reason. It’s yet another reminder that the court is not beholden to public opinion — a particularly useful thing to remember given the draft opinion leaked to Politico also mentions the court’s historic ruling on same-sex marriage as shaky.

The General Social Survey (GSS) is a national biannual poll that for half a century has asked Americans their views on various social issues — including abortion. While support for abortion can vary in individual polls, the GSS gives us a sense of how views of social issues have changed over time.

From the GSS, for example, we can see that most Americans now support the availability of legal abortion in any circumstance where a woman seeks one. We can also see that this is largely a function of increased Democratic support for that position since the late 1980s. (The graphs below include independents who lean toward one party or the other; for the sake of simplicity, I’ll just refer to the views of the parties broadly.) In the 1970s, both Democrats and Republicans were generally skeptical of the idea. Since then, Republican support for legal abortion without conditions has remained flat while Democratic support has surged.

That increase was significant enough that it pushed the percentage of Americans who support abortion without condition past 50 percent in the past two GSS surveys.

Again, this is the broadest scenario, legal abortion for any reason at all. If we start looking at narrower situations, support increases dramatically. For example, consider cases of rape, one of the most common exceptions to abortion bans that emerge in political discussions. More than 4 in 5 Americans support the availability of legal abortion under such conditions, including three-quarters of Republicans.

Notice the political divergence here, though. As Democrats were becoming more supportive of abortion without conditions in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Republicans were becoming less supportive of abortion even in cases of rape. This reflects the way in which abortion was politicized during that era and began trends that continue to this day.

But even with that politicization, most Republicans do support the availability of legal abortion in some circumstances. That’s most true in cases where the woman’s health is at serious risk. Four in 5 Republicans think that abortion should be legal in such a situation.

The draft opinion released this week includes no consideration of exceptions, simply allowing states to determine their own laws governing the practice. It is expected to be offered in response to a law passed in Mississippi that includes few exceptions past the 15th week of pregnancy. Rape is not excepted; the woman’s health is. But, should the draft opinion stand, there’s no reason it would have to be.

Of course, since it is a Supreme Court opinion — or would be, if confirmed and published — it isn’t simply an abdication of evaluating the issue. In the opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. (its author) argues that abortion should not be considered a protected right because it is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” quoting Washington v. Glucksberg.

“Until the later part of the 20th century,” the draft reads, “such a right was entirely unknown in American law.”

This reasoning has sent up red flags for other groups that have enjoyed protections instituted by the court in recent years. For example, the brief contrasts Roe with both Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges, the former of which threw out sodomy laws and the latter of which offered protection to same-sex marriage. Those, too, lack “any claim to being deeply rooted in history,” the draft reads.

Both of those practices have seen remarkable surges in support in recent years. Same-sex marriage is now supported by even a majority of Republicans.

Two-thirds of Americans similarly say that there is nothing at all wrong with same-sex relations.

The draft opinion differentiates abortion from those practices because of “the critical moral question posed by abortion.” The decisions in Lawrence and Obergefell “do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.”

It’s worth noting, though, how the court has changed since Obergefell was decided in 2015. Then, the court voted 5 to 4 in support of ending restrictions on same-sex marriage. Alito was in the minority, along with Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts. Of the five justices in the majority, though, three have since died or retired, replaced by the three justices appointed by Trump — three justices who will apparently join with Alito’s majority opinion repealing Roe.

Whether public opinion or any assurances from the court serve as robust protections for decisions like Obergefell is left as an exercise for the reader.

[iam416]

Since it’s so wildly popular our democratic institutions should largely produce favorable pro-abortion laws. Excellent.

[iam416]

Voters will also go to polls in November to vote in Federal elections. Given the overwhelming popularity of pro-abortionists I can only assume Rs are in real trouble.

[CGVT]

Voters will also go to polls in November to vote in Federal elections. Given the overwhelming popularity of pro-abortionists I can only assume Rs are in real trouble.

Look at that Mr Intentionally Obtuse has chimed in with and intentionally obtuse take on the subject. What a surprise.

It would be a slam dunk. Except for....Gerrymandering.

But you know that.

[CGVT]

From 538 This speaks to seats in congress.


The latest with redistricting


APRIL 28, 2022

Forty states — most recently Florida — have now finished redrawing their congressional maps (not counting the six states with only one congressional district). Only four states do not currently have congressional maps in place for the 2022 election: Missouri and New Hampshire, which have not yet enacted a map, and Kansas and New York, where new maps were enacted but then struck down in court.

Although Republicans went into the cycle with control over drawing more districts, redistricting has actually chipped away at the GOP bias in the House of Representatives. So far, redistricting has created seven more Democratic-leaning seats nationally vs. one more Republican-leaning seat. This is due to aggressive map-drawing by Democrats in states such as Illinois as well as court decisions overturning Republican gerrymanders in Kansas and North Carolina.

After accounting for incumbency, however, Republicans are actually the ones who have gained ground from redistricting so far: The GOP is positioned for a net gain of about four or five seats in 2022 just thanks to the new lines alone. Republicans have benefited from their own brazen cartography in states like Florida and courts striking down Democratic gerrymanders in states like Maryland and New York. Republicans have also shored up their existing position by converting light-red districts into safer seats in states like Texas.

With 40 districts yet to be drawn and lawsuits still pending in several states, the exact partisan upshot of redistricting is still subject to change. But two other takeaways seem inevitable at this point. First, the number of swing seats will continue to decline; the new maps so far have seven fewer highly competitive districts than the old ones. And second, people of color will remain underrepresented in Congress.

[iam416]

Ah, the excuses. Everyone agrees with the Ds unless [insert excuse].

When Ds lose districts that went for Biden in 2020 and remain unchanged it’ll still be gerrymandering!!! Or voter suppression!!! Or propoganda!!! Or Putin!!!! Or…

[CGVT]

Another shitpost from the king of shitposts

Gentry Progs!!!!!

[iam416]

Also, per 538 — because I read Rakich and know the numbers — current redistributing will net Ds 7 D-leaning districts and Rs 1 R-leaning district. It was way more until NY struck down that map.

So, with more D-leaning districts — per CGVT’s own link — AND the hugely popular pro-abortion side rolling, the Ds are in great shape.

Gerrymandering!

Uh, the new maps are +6 for the Ds per you own link.

How dare you quote that link!

[iam416]

Nathaniel, Galen and Nate are worth the listen on their politics podcast, and Nathaniel does a nice job of tracking the redistricting. A lot of the other stuff is pretty solidly left leaning to way left. But there’s value in 538.

[CGVT]

Read the rest of the post, dumbass.

After accounting for incumbency, however, Republicans are actually the ones who have gained ground from redistricting so far: The GOP is positioned for a net gain of about four or five seats in 2022 just thanks to the new lines alone. Republicans have benefited from their own brazen cartography in states like Florida and courts striking down Democratic gerrymanders in states like Maryland and New York. Republicans have also shored up their existing position by converting light-red districts into safer seats in states like Texas.

More intentionally obtuse bullshit.

But why should we expect anything different.

Or wait. How about a strawman? You tend to throw those out pretty regularly too.