Again, fuckin’ A.
7 Likes
As @navarro pointed out above, there was a good deal of supposedly progressive men who believed in voting for Trump to quicken “the coming revolution” as well as (as I said) lots of men who refused to vote for Clinton, and absolutely, I believe that their own misogyny was at the root of much of that. That and the marginalization of women’s bodily autonomy. But pushing things to the limit isn’t going to fix this shit. It’s just going to get a lot more women either thrown in jail or killed. And if we keep ignoring rights in our elections in favor of the economy, the whole government is going to end up back in the hands of the far right again. And that’s the drumbeat now, that the “voters” (meaning rich men, primarily) are concerned about inflation. The first chance they get, the GOP will ban all abortions and make embryos people who greater rights then women.
I’ll also note that we can’t change the fact that Roe was never enshrined in law by the Democratic administrations that ended up having to clean up economically after Republican administrations, and had to deal with the increasing lack of ability to work with any members of the GOP as the party got more and more radical. There is only so much you can do when you’re dealing with economic crises and wars created by other administrations. It’s not like there was nothing else on the agenda. But even then, yes, they SHOULD of done something, but since the Democratic party was dominated by men, it was not top of mind for them. Many men do not see it as a rights issue, they see it as a marginal issue that has no impact on their lives. They were also endlessly obsessed with “getting back the white working class”…
16 Likes
Don’t forget about all ‘the Immanentize the Eschaton’ assholes who want to try to “hasten Armageddon”…
5 Likes
Right?
Reminds me of something Zizek said about the apocalypse… that we have an easier time imagining that than we do any kind of positive change in our world. Strikes me that that is a consequence of capitalism as well, as the only way to make change is to destroy rather than transform (creative destruction of Schumpter or however you spell his name).
7 Likes
Cue Nix’s speech, yet again:
I’m so fucking tired of all the lazy muthafuckas out there who are content to just “sink.”
7 Likes
I do.
It isn’t. It’s a very, very bad thing. If I implied at any point that any part of this was good, it wasn’t my intent.
And that’s exactly the issue. I hope it’s not just self-delusion, but I do feel like there is a groundswell of change coming that is evident in women like Sen Warren and “The Squad” among others. That’s the “silver lining” I see here, not some hope that a phoenix will rise from the ashes. This nation has to remain viable and be reformed from within. Who knows when humanity would come around to this form of democracy again if it fails? Even as imperfect as it is.
1 Like
In the mean time… this was a terrible decision which made things worse. Full stop. It really fucking kills me that you believe that this was somehow better because it will make change. Meanwhile, things will get worse.
6 Likes
To be clear, I’m saying that if Roberts had convinced Kavanaugh to uphold the skeleton of Roe, then voted to uphold Mississippi’s ban, in his own words it would have completely negated the viability threshold which would destroy the last vestige of Roe, anyhow. Nothing about this is good.
BlockquoteI do feel like there is a groundswell of change coming that is evident in women like Sen Warren and “The Squad” among others. That’s the “silver lining” I see here, not some hope that a phoenix will rise from the ashes.
Sorry, I don’t see anything good coming out of this. Expecting Congress to get something done and fix things? Haven’t been paying much attention the last couple of decades?
4 Likes
Maybe it’s too much in the details, but even that would be preferable to where we are now. The details are that, in cases of ectopic pregnancy, Roe protected caregivers and hospitals for saving women’s lives. That protection is gone in many states, and women are dying. Not a single death is a fair trade for shaking things up in order to codify Roe.
Zero.
I’ll put a personal note on this. Yesterday was my mom’s birthday. Before I was born, pre-Roe but in a state that had abortion protections, she had an ectopic pregnancy. By the time she got to the hospital, she had lost so much blood that she looked like a corpse. The ER saved her, and with a transfusion of so much blood that if they had tested it, she would have had the DNA of a different person. She had me a little over a year later.
In a whole lot of states right now, in that scenario, my mom would have died. I would never have been born. These laws are evil incarnate. Every day that passes where they are on the books without the protections of Roe women are at risk of dying.
It’s. Not. Fucking. Worth. It.
13 Likes
I can’t help but wondering…is it possible that Roberts is lying about this just to torment the leaker?
I wish you were right. The “pro-lifers” Have less than zero fucks to give about any human life except their own and maybe their like-minded ilk. These people are mean to the bone, none of this will affect them. Women in prison would work into their fantasy masturbatory giggles, they would be trying to get hired as guards. Doctors, fuck them, a bunch of educated assholes, who needs them. As for the Taiban checkpoints, these fucks probably consider the taiban as too liberal. Look at that smarmy bastard kavanaugh, there is no humanity in that creature. These people make zombies seem like intellectuals. I hope I’m wrong.
2 Likes
There’s so many arguments either way. Until Deep Court comes forward and publicly announces their identity/motivations, there’s no way to know for sure. It’s much more likely the leaker came from the liberal contingent, but so the fuck what? It’s a much simpler motivation from the liberal side: “a vast injustice is about to be commited, publicize it immediately!” Rather than the more complicated conservative motivation: “Quick! Get the draft out immediately to lock in place any fence-sitters!”
That happened way before. At least as early as 2000 with Bush v Gore, with Scalia chortling every time he was subsequently asked about it, literally saying “Get over it! It’s so old by now!”
As far as Kavanaugh’s motives are understood, is he an autonomus rw asshole in the SC, or is he still beholden to the rw assholes who cleared his debts in order to foist him onto the court. If it’s the former, he could theoretically choose to be as faithless to his patrons as he is to established law and to his word under oath that Roe was established law. If he’s still under complete ownership/blackmail threat, any talk of convincing him to act against his owner’s interest is just talk.
2 Likes
It is a common and all too understandable mindset, that if something is flawed it is best to destroy it. The idea is that you can rebuild and the next version will be better.
It isn’t a correct view, if you ask me. Often the destroyed thing is never replaced, and it too will not be perfect. But the desire is there. I have had it myself.
Me, I subscribe to the Agile development mindset, that progress is slow because it takes increments, and after each increment we recalibrate, check if the target goals are still the same, things like that. Tearing down and replacing is going to cost more than refining and changing incrementally what we already have.
In this battle, my sympathies are fully for retaining a person’s right to their own body, to full access to health care, to respecting an adult’s relation with their doctor. So yes, I am for letting abortion be legal and ensuring anyone who wants one should be able to have one, safely and without harassment.
(I say “wants” instead of “needs” because it is not up to anyone other than the woman if she should have one. Saying “needs” suggests that there is a difference.)
Your first comment in this thread:
a full overturn is better.
I FULLY disagree with that. Fully.
And it’s bullshit that comes straight out of capitalism. Which I said, above.
2 Likes
But, he’s weak and doesn’t want to look like a looser. Which only makes it worse.
The first google hit was Ballotpedia where Roberts is in the majority more than anyone else. More than 80% of the time, and mostly more than 90% of the time.
Assuming this, and it seems likely, it cements that Roberts cares more about being in the majority than about the actual law. Otherwise, he would have voted the other way, still lost but 5-4.
That’s clearly part of his goal. Along with being seen as some great swing vote and guiding the course of the court. That the reason he’s in the majority so often is because his opinions are the most right.
However, it’s done the reverse. It shows that without a doubt, his vote doesn’t matter at all. That he will vote with whichever way the majority is already going. That he doesn’t have a strong enough conscious and view of the law to vote with what is correct if it’s not already the winning team.
He’s a weak hanger on and not some brave leader. That’s his legacy. That being in the majority was more important than being right. It’s the exact reason the court has fallen so far.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
