I've been seeing a lot of anti-voting sentiment going around. Can't believe I have to say this, but you need to vote. Not only is there more to the election than just the president. (State policy, Senate, house), but not voting is not an act of protest. C'mon guys

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because you can’t unilaterally pass federal laws as the minority party?

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If you're the majority party on the Supreme Court I think it's quite evident that neither of the other two branches really matter.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What laws have the Supreme Court passed, exactly?

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Depends, are you asking in the literal sense or in the functional sense?

In the functional sense, it seems quite obvious.

In the literal sense, none, but that doesn't matter in terms of the fears about the erosion of rights that we're discussing in the first place.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Has the Supreme Court passed a national abortion ban? Do you think it can/will? Do you think a Republican legislature and President can/will?

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the Supreme Court about to pass judgement on whether it's legal to obtain mifepristone by overturning an FDA approval from the bench? Overturning medical determinations based on research is new territory.

If you don't think the best conservative thinkers money can buy are currently examining legal avenues by which they can federally ban abortion through a court decision then I'm not sure you're paying attention. Jerry Falwell's not paying me and also I'm not a lawyer, but until a few years ago, liberals though Roe was safe, too.

I wouldn't put it past them, and you come off as incredibly naive if you do.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the Supreme Court about to pass judgement on whether it's legal to obtain mifepristone by overturning an FDA approval from the bench?

No, they are not. Mifepristone will continue to be available regardless of their verdict. It may, however, become less accessible if they decide to uphold the the Fifth Circuit Court’s position and revert to pre-2016 prescription requirements. That is, unless Democrats pass a law guaranteeing access to the medication.

Overturning medical determinations based on research is new territory.

It is not. You can to sue the FDA for a variety of reasons, just like any other government agency.

If you don't think the best conservative thinkers money can buy are currently examining legal avenues by which they can federally ban abortion through a court decision then I'm not sure you're paying attention.

Of course they are. They are also spending billions of dollars yearly to convince as many would-be Democrats as possible to just roll over, because it’s way easier to execute these goals with control of the legislature and presidency.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

unless Democrats pass a law guaranteeing access to the medication.

Why would that hypothetical law (which won't get passed: see their promise to protect Roe v. Wade) not just get overturned by SCOTUS? They clearly play by their own rules.

If anything, your link to the Ivermectin case thing is further proof of that.

The fact is that a Democratic presidency and legislature can do nothing in the face of a Supreme Court that they still view as wielding discretionary power of them, and Democrats are too weak to play any sort of Constitutional Crisis hardball.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Why would that hypothetical law (which won't get passed: see their promise to protect Roe v. Wade)…

I never said it was a guarantee, or even particularly likely, that such a law will be passed in the near future. Democrats don’t need to pass a law to protect abortion in blue states, while Republicans need to pass one to ban it.

I appreciate your attempt to turn this into a discussion about what a Democratic legislature would or wouldn’t do, but I am very clearly talking about what Republican legislature can and will do.

If anything, your link to the Ivermectin case thing is further proof of that.

Well, that currently has nothing to do with SCOTUS, so that tells me just about everything I need to know regarding how much thought you put into any of this.

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hey you're the one who still has faith in institutions in the year 2024.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I have faith that these institutions can do extremely horrible things and cause irreparable harm, yes. I also know for a fact (not “faith”) that the severity and extent of the damage will differ drastically depending on which party is behind the wheel. If you think that the two parties will have an identical effect, let’s return to the topic of a national abortion ban, shall we?

[–] regul@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

I think one party has fully grasped the ability to affect change regardless of who is in power in the other 2/3rds of the federal government, and the other party both does not differ drastically in their limited designs and also lacks the will to accomplish them, largely due to their reverence for institutions.

Support for abortion rights isn't even a hard and fast rule for Democrats. Part of the reason they failed to enshrine Roe was because the party is not unified on it. Very little has changed in that respect.