ChiGoose

Without Roe and Casey, those exceptions are no longer required

Pretty dismissive of the women who will die because of this.

If we had IQ tests here, there would be no posts on PPP.

Except for the guy who tried to run down protesters in his truck.

In America, we protect the right for a kid to be born and then killed in a school shooting. It’s the American way!

I'm going to answer this to the best of my knowledge and in good faith, but before I do so, I want to make a quick(ish) point. The current Democratic Party is far more heterogenous than the modern Republican Party. While there is common ground that accounts for a significant percentage of the GOP, the Democratic Party is very decentralized. From a political science perspective, it does not make sense that people like AOC and Bernie Sanders are in the same party as Joe Manchin and John Tester. In a society with a political media that can best be described as terrible, that means that one can take a statement from one person and try to ascribe it to everyone in the same party, regardless of the truth of the exercise. I state this not to try to wiggle out of answering your questions but more to underscore that just because some people in the party espouse a view does not mean that is the view of the party as a whole. Anyway, to your questions: 1. Inflation Traditionally, the Fed targets an inflation rate of around 2%. However, for years we were well below that despite the Fed's best efforts. It had been understood that there was a relationship between inflation and unemployment, but that uncoupled in the recovery from the great recession. Unemployment kept dropping but inflation stayed low and was still unable to meet the 2% target. During the pandemic, we passed several stimulus bills to keep the economy afloat and inflation still stayed below target. So it seemed to many like a good time to invest in our infrastructure and economy. No matter how much we spent over the past several decades, we couldn't even get inflation as high as we wanted, so why not? This is where the transitory idea came from. They pumped money into an economy that seemed very receptive to it, but they unwittingly passed the threshold. While we were coming out of COVID, the economy hadn't righted itself yet. We were still spending disproportionately on goods instead of services. And unlike services, goods relied on the supply chain. So now we have more money coming in for goods into a supply chain that is broken, China has a new COVID outbreak and shuts down major cities, the supply chain hasn't fixed itself yet, and then the war in Ukraine starts. What, to some, seemed like a transitory problem quickly became recognized as a real problem. Janet Yellen recently owned up to this, saying she was wrong. 2. Crime There has recently been a recognition that our rate of incarceration is abhorrent. We have, I believe, the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Unless you think that Americans are inherently criminals (which I do not), that would seem at odds with our view of American greatness and freedom. There has been really good work on how to intervene to prevent crime and arrests in different cities that show real progress. The CAHOOTS program in Oregon routed certain types of calls to social workers instead of police for certain calls and it's been a success. Generally, what you see are different attempts at trying to weigh the reactions to certain crimes. Is it justified to end someone's life over a property crime? At what point does chasing a criminal actually pose more risk to the public than letting them go for the moment? If a kid does something stupid like shoplifting a couple of things, do they need to enter the judicial system and all that entails, or could they be diverted in a way that reduces the chances of future incarceration? Police are inherently reactionary and not proactive. So there is a movement for earlier intervention to prevent the need for police in certain situations. Unfortunately, some people who may be more well read on policy and study than the average American decided that "defund the police" was the right slogan for this. They focus on the end result instead of spending more time on root causes. Obviously, most people who spend most of their focus on their family and their career, would be absolutely befuddled by that idea. And it certainly doesn't help that these sorts of changes would take a generation to show a return and in the meantime their advocates would be (rightly) ridiculed. This anti-cop attitude, in combination with instances of awful actions by some police, has driven a big divide about cops that should not exist. Ideally, we would establish many of the reforms that reduce violence and make things easier for cops, but do so in a way that doesn't create an "Us vs. Them" mentality between the cops and the public. But the slogans matter to a very vocal minority, which throws a wrench in real, meaningful reform. 3. Democratic Leadership I don't think I've ever seen an organization so starved of leadership than the modern Democratic Party. I spent most of my life dismissing the Dems and supporting the GOP. During the late Bush years and then the Obama administration, I was a proponent of serious GOP reform (i.e. I did not understand why a small government party would have a problem with gays being married). But I finally left the party during the Trump administration, realizing that the party I wanted to be a part of would never exist. I use that as a preface to say that joining the Democratic Party SUCKS. They spend most of their time infighting and blaming each other for everything and very little time on how to get power and then do something with it. Every Democrat I know wishes we had a version of Mitch McConnell: a ruthless leader who keeps everyone in line and drives the party towards power. Instead, we have senate leader Chuck Schumer, who spent months publicly feuding with Joe Manchin before it was revealed he was sitting on Manchin's list of requirements. I've never been a big Nancy Pelosi fan, but I recognize her skill during the Obama administration in navigation legislation. But why in the world is an 82 year old leading the party? Unlike the GOP, which has a decent crop of younger politicians, the Dems set their rank almost solely on seniority. Which is why they are far older, and act as a gerontocracy that is totally unable to meet the moment. I have a hard time in believing theories that there is some grand plan they are pushing because they lost to a failed businessman in 2016 and continue to get destroyed in elections across the country. They are completely incompetent and not up to the moment. 4. Blitz I haven't been on the board very long, but I have yet to see Blitz post anything that even closely approximates a rational thought, so going forward, dismissing their posts is generally a good idea.

It doesn’t matter what they want, they’re too incompetent to get it. They couldn’t organize a pizza party if they tried, nonetheless secure power. They spent months negotiating privately and in public with Manchin over Biden’s signature legislation only for it to turn out that Manchin had given his list of wants to Schumer months ago but Schumer failed to mention that. They are in way over their heads and the idea that they are going to do somehow take over everything is laughable.

The Dems have had: 13 months since SCOTUS granted cert to Dobbs. 6 months since oral arguments 1 month since the opinion was leaked, confirming their worst fears Most of a week knowing the most likely day the opinion would come out. And their best plan was to… sing on the Capitol steps, fundraise, and say they will get around to doing something about this. These ideas that the Dems are behind the scenes doing sinister conspiracies with the deep state and the FBI and the media and colleges and reverse vampires or whatever, is completely undercut by the fact that the Democratic Party is probably the most incompetent organization on the planet.

Mask, err hood, off

He is probably upset his bid for Congress isn't going well so he's going to try and whip up the clownshow.

What if she did not consent? What if she could not consent? What if she did consent and wanted the pregnancy but now it endangers her life? Without the protections of Roe and Casey, there are no guardrails for these scenarios. It is completely up to state legislatures on how to handle them.

I’m in central time, so I still have an hour or so before bedtime. What did I say that was histrionic?

The states will all set their own laws, so that rich people always have access to abortion but poor people may not. Some states will enact long arm statutes to punish people seeking abortions elsewhere. People in some states will have more rights than people in other states. People in some states may be prosecuted for miscarriages, needing to spend money on a lawyer to fight the charges. Taxpayers in some states will have to pay for care for people fleeing other states for medical care. That is what “letting the states decide” means.

It means that if you’re pregnant and then not pregnant, you can be investigated for an abortion. Which is why everyone should delete their period tracking apps.

Everyone knew they were lying at the time. Collins and Manchin are fools.

They are. And who’s gonna stop them?

Something I've noticed is that some people only see things through the lens of winning or losing, not principles. You see that with people claiming the Jan 6th committee is a plot to influence the midterms, which would be very dumb because the midterms are too far away. If that was the actual plan, they would have started in September and ran through October. There's obviously value in creating a historical record of what led to the events on Jan 6th and what happened that day, regardless of whether or not it helps a particular party. But to believe that, you need to value things beyond your side winning. So when you see posts about the committee failing, or not moving the needle for the election, I think it's just because those people cannot see a reason for action other than personal or political gain. Who is winning the horse race? That's all that matters to them. If the GOP is still expected to win in the midterms, it must mean the committee is meaningless.

Funnily enough, Roe v. Wade was decided on similar privacy grounds as Obergfell v. Hodges, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Loving v. Virginia. In his concurrence, Thomas stated that they should look at cases to revisit all of those except Loving v. Virginia.

Originalism is the idea that the justices can know with certainty what the founders intended about any issue, and therefore any precedent that contradicts it should be overturned. So justices get to ask themselves questions like "What did the founders think about airplane regulations?" come to a conclusion and write that decision. It's an easy way to decide the issue however you want and them make up a reason to support your decision. Under originalism, we would never have had Brown v. Board of Education. You may be thinking of textualism, which is to simply focus on the plain meaning of the text. It's a legit method of constitutional interpretation but is often confused with originalism. Traditional judicial precedent interpretation takes into account the constitution, the law in question, as well as the history of the law as applied to the facts of the case. It promotes stability of the law as opposed to the quickly changing law we find ourselves in with an originalist court.

Originalism is a bunk jurisprudence.

Maybe it should be left to the states?

We're basically in a race to see if Boomers can install permanent minority rule before they die off and lose power. I think we're losing.

Because it's about control.

Thanks, and that's why I wanted to point it out. Our public discourse on abortions generally just assumes we are talking about unwanted pregnancies and that the laws are super clear and only impact those cases. The reality is much more complicated. Ideally, I would not have the government intervene in medical care and instead let the patient and their doctor make the best decision they can. That is going to be much more difficult for pregnancies moving forward with Roe and Casey being struck down. Abortions are a difficult, traumatic, and awful thing. I wish we would focus on proven methods to prevent unwanted pregnancies such as comprehensive sex ed and easy access to contraceptives. And to make it easier for people in difficult positions trying to decide what to do, I wish we had pro-natalist policies like affordable healthcare, parental leave, and affordable (or even free) childcare. Those kinds of things would reduce abortions for unwanted pregnancies (because there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies) and reduce abortions for poor and struggling people by providing them help to ensure that they will be able to afford and keep their baby. But the actual medical decision? The government should have no place there.

They did lie and every person in the world knew they were lying at the time except Susan Collins and Joe Manchin. Reversing Roe is not pointless because it'll get abortion banned in a good number, if not mot, states without a nationwide ban (which has a higher bar to clear). So it's a big win for the anti-choice movement. Many animals eat their own babies.