On the heels of Roe - same-sex marriage and contraception (1 Viewer)

[Bleu Raeder]

As Supreme Court overturns abortion rights, could same-sex marriage be next to go?

Justice Thomas suggests the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage.

www.houstonchronicle.com

"Justice" Thomas wants to burn it all down...except for interracial marriage.

WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court on Friday declared the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage, as well.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, pointing to landmark decisions that protected the right to obtain contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I think Sanders would have gotten annihilated by Trump in 2016...

Again, all Sanders needed was Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and Trump won those by (IIRC) approximately 30,000 total votes. Sanders would have easily made up that margin in blue collar voters and matched the other blue-leaning states that Hillary won.

 

[Taurus]

I couldn’t agree more…need a younger, more vibrant, qualified individual….Dems need to replace Pelosi as well soon IMO…..

If Biden wants to be top of the ticket, fine. I think he matches up well against Trump. But he desperately needs someone younger and more charismatic as VP. A Democrat who can speak in clear, direct terms and carry a crowd.
While we're at it, this person's unicorn should be a piebald, just to subvert the stereotype.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Biden is damaged goods at this point. Even ignoring the right's nonsensical criticisms, he is objectively a Jimmy Carter in terms of economic results. The DNC needs to go with an outsider.

 

[Booker]

Again, all Sanders needed was Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and Trump won those by (IIRC) approximately 30,000 total votes. Sanders would have easily made up that margin in blue collar voters and matched the other blue-leaning states that Hillary won.

I don't think you should assume that all of Hillary's voters would have voted for Sanders. He would have picked up some that wouldn't have voted for her, sure, but I think there were also voters that reluctantly voted for her over Trump but would have voted for Trump or third party over Sanders. He would have been painted as the boogie man coming to take your money.

 

[Incumbent]

I don't think you should assume that all of Hillary's voters would have voted for Sanders. He would have picked up some that wouldn't have voted for her, sure, but I think there were also voters that reluctantly voted for her over Trump but would have voted for Trump or third party over Sanders. He would have been painted as the boogie man coming to take your money.

Also can't assume Sanders would have won Pennsylvania. Clinton won the state's primary by a 12% margin.

 

[Heathen]

To be fair, nobody in his position would rule out running again at this point in his term. He has to keep that option open at this time.

Agreed, to indicate otherwise would signal a lot of weakness from the party or that he’s “given in”.

 

[bdb13]

Old people are naturally scared of change candidates like Bernie Sanders.. I think a general campaign against Trump would have been absolutely brutal for him and he and seniors would have been something akin to what happened with Biden and Cubans in Florida this past election.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I don't think you should assume that all of Hillary's voters would have voted for Sanders. He would have picked up some that wouldn't have voted for her, sure, but I think there were also voters that reluctantly voted for her over Trump but would have voted for Trump or third party over Sanders. He would have been painted as the boogie man coming to take your money.

I cannot picture many Hillary voters picking Trump over Sanders -- not enough to matter. The same people who would fear higher taxation are the same elites who understand its more important to have a Democrat picking Supreme Court Justices.

 

[Booker]

I cannot picture many Hillary voters picking Trump over Sanders -- not enough to matter. The same people who would fear higher taxation are the same elites who understand its more important to have a Democrat picking Supreme Court Justices.

And when push comes to shove, those people vote in their perceived financial interests. This fall, despite Republican court packing, trying to steal the presidential election, and the rolling back of rights from the new conservative super majority in the Supreme court -- things that one would think should propel a Democratic wave -- Republicans will win both the House and Senate because enough voters will perceive that it is in their financial interest to do so because Democrats have been unable to stop inflation -- despite the fact that inflation is a global issue that politicians really have no control over.

People rationalized voting for Trump over a moderate Democrat -- more would have done so if he was running against a candidate whose message basically said "I'm going to raise taxes because I know how to spend your money better than you do." I just don't think he would have been a very appealing candidate.

 

[wardorican]

It's really not just that.

If you really, truly think that the Democrats could have over the years not mounted a better coalition of ideals, connected with people on the ground (in places like the midwest - crucial to the loss in 2016) and representatives to get to the point that we could have beaten someone as blatantly, openly full of shirt as Trump, then I guess we have nothing else to talk about.

It's hard to imagine that's what is being assumed. But feel free to correct if I misread what seemed to be an oversimplification in your last statement.

I just get frustrated with the whole "democrats are spineless" commentary. They can't compete with the Republicans, because the Republicans of today just hate the idea of the Federal Government, and are willing to break government to get what they want out of it. They'll shut it down. The problem is the Democrats, as a platform, believe in the good that can come from government action and spending, as well as basic decency (at least that's what they message) so they can't play hardball like the Republicans can.

The Republicans are rewarded for cheating and breaking the system, Democrats get blamed for not being the adults in the room.

Everything else you said in this post, I agree with. I'm just calling BS on the spineless part. It's just not fair.

 

[wardorican]

Then why do Democrats still praise Republicans? What did Biden call Mitch? A man of honor, and his good friend.

That happened this year.

After Mitch's decades long campaign of "no to everything", and refusing to appoint Garland.

Heathen is right. When do the gloves come off?

See above reply to Heathen.

You don't bring ungloved fists to a gun fight.

 

[Heathen]

I just get frustrated with the whole "democrats are spineless" commentary. They can't compete with the Republicans, because the Republicans of today just hate the idea of the Federal Government, and are willing to break government to get what they want out of it. They'll shut it down. The problem is the Democrats, as a platform, believe in the good that can come from government action and spending, as well as basic decency (at least that's what they message) so they can't play hardball like the Republicans can.

I think Democrats are spineless because in response to Republicans more and more playing hardball over the years, Democrats' response has been largely shrugging and pointing fingers. "We can't do anything because the other side - is _______". You don't win by blaming the other side. You win by making your side more effective.
I disagree and think hardball is not only an option, but THE only way forward. Dems consistently have to rely on moderates to get things done, and that's pathetic. Sinema, Manchin, etc. have consistently voted in ways that would put them squarely in the thick of the right, yet when things go awry for Democrats - they shift the blame to these 'moderates'. How then is that a problem with the moderates? If you hire someone to your company who has a track record of problematic behavior but fits the job description, is it the fault of that individual that they effect your company in a negative way? It's more and more a problem with the Democratic party allowing moderates to dictate the fate of policy. That should NEVER happen.

So what's my suggestion? Democrats vociferously primary the Sinemas and Manchins of the world. You could argue that this would endanger their razor thin majority - and you'd be right. But playing that 'don't rock the boat' game to keep your right-leaning Democrats in office is bound to have longer lasting consequences down the road as the party learns to, again, rely on them. Pressure all senators to end the filibuster. Look to admitting new states - DC, PR, etc., review expanding the SC, block every conservative that is appointed to the SC with every measure you have and call out their wishing for a theocracy as an imminent threat to the American people. Because..it is.

Finally, call Republicans out for what they are in Congress and all over this country - a threat to Democracy. The GOP deserves every bit of slander they get and then some. Joe Biden needs to stop calling people who have pushed extremely harmful legislation on the American people "good guys".

If we're relying on this idea of centrism and 'most people are in the middle' myth, we will lose. And in landslides.

The Republicans are rewarded for cheating and breaking the system, Democrats get blamed for not being the adults in the room.

Everything else you said in this post, I agree with. I'm just calling BS on the spineless part. It's just not fair.

I see what you're getting at, but honestly, who really cares about decorum or being the most 'adult-like', especially from the vantage point of right leaning voters? Again, Democrats have ways to beat Repubs at their own game. I refuse to believe they're out of options here. The GOP and their base will cry until the end of time about 'the regressive left' and call anyone including their own members of that group if they don't quench their immediate thirst.

It's completely fair - there are editorials upon editorials from most every major publication pressing the Democrats on why they don't play hardball. And it's enraging because Democrats don't have to settle with it. They need to focus on action instead of finger pointing.

The GOP's attack on voting is shameless. The Democratic response is spineless. - WaPO

 

[brandon]

It's more and more a problem with the Democratic party allowing moderates to dictate the fate of policy. That should NEVER happen.

I would absolutely disagree with this if the Republicans had any moderates on their side that were willing to stop legislation. But the "moderate" Republicans (Romney, Cheney, Kinzinger, Collins, etc) never actually get in the way of Republican legislation when the time comes.

In an ideal world, those moderating forces on both sides of the aisle would keep the country centered. Instead, they effectively enable the Republicans to consistently steamroll the Dems.

 

[Incumbent]

I saw in a discussion somewhere else the claim that progressives make up 7% of registered voters. I thought that was surprisingly low but found Pew Research as a source of that figure.

11. Progressive Left

Members of the Progressive Left have very liberal views across a range of issues – including the size and scope of government, foreign policy, immigration and race.

www.pewresearch.org

I think it has become confusing the distinctions between, for instance, progressive and liberal in how people identify or are identified, and I think ideologies get blurred even extending out to include moderates, so I don't think a clear picture of the Left really exists, other than to recognize that there is diversity. Polling on policies can be deceptive - I've seen outcomes where conservatives approved of ACA protections when unaware that was "Obamacare". What I think is more telling are election outcomes. Are there strong indications that progressive politics is expanding outside of traditionally blue districts and translating into election victories, or is it more so that some blue districts are becoming more progressive?

 

[zztop]

I've seen outcomes where conservatives approved of ACA protections when unaware that was "Obamacare".

years ago there was a comic, I think Jay Leno maybe, who went on the street and asked people about aca vs obamacare. He'd ask them if they were in favor of obamacare, and many were not. Then asked them if they were in favor of aca, and most found it appealing.

 

[SFIDC3]

years ago there was a comic, I think Jay Leno maybe, who went on the street and asked people about aca vs obamacare. He'd ask them if they were in favor of obamacare, and many were not. Then asked them if they were in favor of aca, and most found it appealing.

I remember shortly after Trump became president there was a show where Sarah Silverman went around and interview families that voted for Trump…..I don’t have any reason to believe it was staged, though it may have been. One family in LA (I think Chalmette or Arabi) that voted for Trump the parents (with adult children) didn’t even know that they were enrolled in ACA…..it was hilarious….

 

[MT15]

I saw in a discussion somewhere else the claim that progressives make up 7% of registered voters. I thought that was surprisingly low but found Pew Research as a source of that figure.

11. Progressive Left

Members of the Progressive Left have very liberal views across a range of issues – including the size and scope of government, foreign policy, immigration and race.

www.pewresearch.org

I think it has become confusing the distinctions between, for instance, progressive and liberal in how people identify or are identified, and I think ideologies get blurred even extending out to include moderates, so I don't think a clear picture of the Left really exists, other than to recognize that there is diversity. Polling on policies can be deceptive - I've seen outcomes where conservatives approved of ACA protections when unaware that was "Obamacare". What I think is more telling are election outcomes. Are there strong indications that progressive politics is expanding outside of traditionally blue districts and translating into election victories, or is it more so that some blue districts are becoming more progressive?

I think this is probably true. Cities and areas that are traditionally progressive are getting more so, while the rest of the country has moved slightly right, with red areas really moving right. Just my hunch, though. And while I wish that Biden would push for expanding the SC, and/or more cases where they suspend the filibuster, I don’t see much if any support for that where I live. I can agree that it is frustrating.

 

[wardorican]

I think Democrats are spineless because in response to Republicans more and more playing hardball over the years, Democrats' response has been largely shrugging and pointing fingers. "We can't do anything because the other side - is _______". You don't win by blaming the other side. You win by making your side more effective.
I disagree and think hardball is not only an option, but THE only way forward. Dems consistently have to rely on moderates to get things done, and that's pathetic. Sinema, Manchin, etc. have consistently voted in ways that would put them squarely in the thick of the right, yet when things go awry for Democrats - they shift the blame to these 'moderates'. How then is that a problem with the moderates? If you hire someone to your company who has a track record of problematic behavior but fits the job description, is it the fault of that individual that they effect your company in a negative way? It's more and more a problem with the Democratic party allowing moderates to dictate the fate of policy. That should NEVER happen.

So what's my suggestion? Democrats vociferously primary the Sinemas and Manchins of the world. You could argue that this would endanger their razor thin majority - and you'd be right. But playing that 'don't rock the boat' game to keep your right-leaning Democrats in office is bound to have longer lasting consequences down the road as the party learns to, again, rely on them. Pressure all senators to end the filibuster. Look to admitting new states - DC, PR, etc., review expanding the SC, block every conservative that is appointed to the SC with every measure you have and call out their wishing for a theocracy as an imminent threat to the American people. Because..it is.

Finally, call Republicans out for what they are in Congress and all over this country - a threat to Democracy. The GOP deserves every bit of slander they get and then some. Joe Biden needs to stop calling people who have pushed extremely harmful legislation on the American people "good guys".

If we're relying on this idea of centrism and 'most people are in the middle' myth, we will lose. And in landslides.



I see what you're getting at, but honestly, who really cares about decorum or being the most 'adult-like', especially from the vantage point of right leaning voters? Again, Democrats have ways to beat Repubs at their own game. I refuse to believe they're out of options here. The GOP and their base will cry until the end of time about 'the regressive left' and call anyone including their own members of that group if they don't quench their immediate thirst.

It's completely fair - there are editorials upon editorials from most every major publication pressing the Democrats on why they don't play hardball. And it's enraging because Democrats don't have to settle with it. They need to focus on action instead of finger pointing.

The GOP's attack on voting is shameless. The Democratic response is spineless. - WaPO

I wouldn't call Manchin a Moderate. He's a conservative democrat.

And if the party tries to "primary him", they'd just lose the seat to a Republican. I don't think West Virginia is voting in a liberal / progressive democrat. But, who knows.