Senator Elizabeth Warren's impassioned remarks on the coming abortion ban

Originally published at: Senator Elizabeth Warren's impassioned remarks on the coming abortion ban | Boing Boing


and the person heckling sen. warren about not wanting mutilated fetuses at the beginning was, wait for it, a man. even after 60 years on this planet i am still amazed at the people who not only want to tell you what is “morally right”, but try and force everyone else to feel the same way. believe what you want! just mind your own fucking business, not mine.


The leaked judgement is a first draft. They let Alito write it because he’s wanted to write conservative doctrine into law so long he probably enthusiastically volunteered, and they knew they couldn’t stop him from including his own statement. Once they actually saw it in print back in February (and especially since they’ve seen the public’s response to it) they are trading messages saying “OMG that wording is too brutal! It makes us sound like we’re the bad guys! We have to find gentler language to lock this down, but still say and mean exactly the same things.” The second draft is going to be less strident, less startling, and face it, a far less honest position - making it a far easier sell to a public who are inclined to say “well, it’s not as bad as the last one.” Just remember, it will be just as bad, possibly even worse, just by being couched in vague, soft language.


I’m unsure what Congress’s move is here, though. I think a rapid removal of the filibuster right now would be a terrible idea, even if it could work, because the Republicans are very likely to take over the Senate in a few months, and a no-filibuster republican majority right now would be bat-shit terrifying.

Hopefully the Dems can just be super good at getting out the message that this needs to be solved at the ballot, and then if we win in November then focus on the filibuster.

1 Like

I hate to say it but I’m convinced most by the theory that a conservative leaked it, as they were worried that Justice X (presumably Roberts) is about to bolt and this makes it less easy for X to do so (because it’ll look like X caved to public opinion).


It’s not a first draft second draft system apparently. As part of deliberations different judges write different draft opinions, and repeated votes are taken.

Sounds like one of the drafts, which may have already seen multiple version , get’s selected to become the framework for an opinion.

How hard or soft the language is doesn’t matter, and the law doesn’t really do vague. This shows that at least as of February the Court had the votes to kill Roe and Casey. This shows the legal theories they’re endorsing to justify that.

With the current breakdown of the court. Roberts voting against it wouldn’t change the majority.


The softer language isn’t a legal strategy - it’s a Republican strategy. It’s about the midterms.


Can’t say I agree that softer language would make this decision any more palatable to more than like, 1% of voters of any stripe. What will matter is the effect – no more nationwide protection of voting rights, and outlawing of abortion in many, many places.

I mean, who reads Supreme Court decisions?


And do you seriously think the Republicans will hesitate for one second to remove the filibuster themselves when it gets in the way of their radical white supremacist agenda?


“Soft language” or not. Overturning Roe v Wade isn’t gonna float by. Cause half the country is going to wake up to banned abortion, and every GOP candidate is gonna be screaming about birth control being next.

And there is practically no way to do this without endorsing hardline, fringe legal ideas. This opinion doesn’t read harsh because of language. It’s not a tone issue. The logic for doing this rests on those extreme claims and nothing else.


What makes you think that if the Republicans had 51 votes for anything they wouldn’t just change the filibuster to allow that specific vote anyway?

Doesn’t matter if it’s done now or not. The Republicans already live in a no-filibuster world for anything they actually have enough votes and agreement on. That they haven’t already removed it is because they didn’t actually have enough votes for other stuff. They just hide that by pointing at the filibuster, it’s not a real limiting concern for them.



This is probably true. I guess I worry that removing the filibuster before the election guarantees that the Republicans win, and takes the wind out of the Dems sails. And that waiting until after means Dems get to use the outrage. But I’m probably over-thinking it. I don’t know, the whole thing makes me sick and it all looks dark. All I can do is give money to good organizations and feel helpless.


If the Dems can’t pass any of the (very popular) legislative agenda they have in the pipeline in the next couple of months to demonstrate they stand for something, the Republicans will win anyway.


Look Here Reaction GIF by Paul McCartney


Two DINOS stand in the way of progress.



I honestly think there’s far more people upset with the Democrats not getting rid of the filibuster than there are people who would be mad at them for getting rid of it. It’s something that’s been used primarily (if not exclusively) to block progress.


Well, and 50 Rs.
Just saying.


Oh Good Dog & Butter, the Supremes opened a can of worms of epic proportions, that look on Warren’s face, that’s going to get some folks off their hineys and get to the voting booth.


The filibuster shouldn’t exist. Period. It’s long expired milk being used as a tool for marketing obstruction to prevent the governmening from government at all, bringing the Senate to a useless pudding off toothless geriatrics cashing checks. For a decades the public facing strategy of the GOP has been to not pass laws and only legislate from the bench, and if they were ever forced to actually publicly vote on their unpopular policy on a regular basis even their lying media empire couldn’t keep up. It would be a disaster for them and literally the single worst case scenario for the entire Republican party.

That’s why the people most opposed to the removal are the GOP and the worst of the worst corrupt Democrats, and why the excuse if based around “norms” and the threat of vague future uses and not about what positive action could be taken now. The GOP does not want to reverse popular legal action in a tit for tat.