Watch Jen Psaki point out the idiocy of Texas Gov Abbott's defense of the dangerous and absurd six-week abortion ban

boing
41

That is one of the pieces I had in mind when I was talking about cuts too close to assuming they don’t actually believe or want this shit.

Yeah there’s political cynicism involved. That’s the whole core of the wedge issue strategy.

But they didn’t just use abortion as an excuse to pack the Supreme Court with pro business, party before country types. They built a federal bench made up of people who are actively and actually opposed to Roe v Wade. They’ve elected, appointed, and hired anti-choice true believers. And they’ve been nickel and diming abortion access in real ways for decades.

There’s a very big difference between the GOP not really having any policy base or goals beyond this, fear of backlash and consequences. And the assertion that they prefer not to win, or didn’t really want it to happen.

I just think there are way less of these than most people assume. It’s a common cognitive bias to assume the other side is disingenuous, but when people actually study it. That’s usually not the case.

Take Moscow Mitch. The biggest soulless, principleless hack in the business.

If he was just using this to remain in power, to pass what he really wanted by the rubes. Then why did he expend all that political capital, rat fuck the constitution and all political norms, probably damage the medium term prospects of his party to build a specifically anti-abortion judiciary? It’s not like we’re talking people who are paying lip service, or willing to go along but are really pro-wall street judges or anti-immigration judges or whatever. He said the courts were most important because of Roe v Wade, and he actually built a bench and a SC on that model.

We are not watching some show law that will go unenforced right now. It’s not some simple thing proposed while there was no chance of it passing, or with a self destruct clause that would get it tossed out before it was ever enacted.

It’s carefully designed to maximally restrict access to reproductive and women’s health services, allow broad punishment of the political opposition, while skirting challenge or repeal.

It does what it says on the tin. They did the thing they told us they were gonna do. And there is no reason to believe they view the damage it’ll cause as bad in any way.

3 Likes
42

Maybe the same exact reason that Trump (a former pro-choicer who once sponsored a fundraiser for pro-choice causes at the Plaza hotel) did the same thing? It’s simply required if you want to count on the support of a certain element of the party.

3 Likes
43

I had this dream during the time I was taking a class (and, so, the dream took place) at Austin Community College. I will omit some of the insalubrious details*, but part of the dream’s premise was that Texas passed a law where interracial and/or multiethnic births, occurring outside of a marriage, required the father to pay extra money to the mother (on top of child support). The ostensible reason for this payment was to document theretofore underdocumented ancestry of minority-group members. 25, 26 years later, the dream seems like something they’d actually do, at best just to be a pain-in-the-ass.

*(Except to say: (1) babydoll dresses were still a thing, and (2) the dream ended with me, stunned, collapsed on a women’s restroom floor and holding the very stun-weapon which had put me down there.)

3 Likes
44

He HAS remained in power by playing the rubes and giving them what he thinks they want. That’s why he’s still Senate Minority Leader.

8 Likes
45

In theory, that’s what all the district courts are there for. Most cases are supposed to be handled by them, with only a bare minimum requiring the SC’s personal attention.

46

In theory from like 100 years ago. For one there’s a massive backlog at the district courts as well. For another there are far more appeals and actions sent up to the Supreme Court than they could possible render in a year. Meaning they have to pass on most, including a bunch that require their attention. How a particular case makes it in front of them is driven as much by politics, pressure and who the parties or lawyers are as it is by any supposed need.

Quite a lot is actually decided out of public view, whether through the whole shadow docket thing (as with this Texas law). Or what the court simply declines to take on. With no chance for redress or argument and out of public view.

More over the bigger the court is. The less chance than any given appointment will swing the court a particular way. There’s less chance that a full third of the court will clear out in a given four year span. And as appointments more generally will be more common a lot of the weight will be taken off them. It will be less feasible to pack the court, and there will be less drive to politicize it.

The same can be done up and down the federal courts. Like I said the District Courts are facing similar problems, the backlog goes all the way down in terms of federal courts. Its exaggerated by the large number of unfilled seats and the continuing shit fight over filling them. But it doesn’t start there. A bigger less manipulatable Federal bench could help solve that over time.

Since the structure and size of the court is not even addressed in the constitution. There is no reason not to structure it in a way that is practical and works. And a much bigger court would solve a lot.

47

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.