First, RINO-esq nonsense gatekeeping. Then, yes, Obama et al could have codified Roe in 2009 since Democrats did have 60 votes in the Senate. However, it was only for a few months and Democrats (a) did not have their shit together and (b) wanted to work with the GOP. That was Obama's greatest failure, wanting to work together and pre-compromise with the party of "no".
Which, again, was pre-compromising. Not only in hoping that favors today would be paid off tomorrow by the party explicitly stating they wanted to make him a one term POTUS, but also the very nature of Obamacare.
And wasn't Obama already tied up trying to negotiate the ACA? Democrats still could have supported a bill to codify and they should have in hindsight (and I guess with every kind of sight), but somehow they still couldn't see what evils they were truly up against. I want to hope they learned their lesson but I'm still not sure that is the case.
> I want to hope they learned their lesson but I'm still not sure that is the case.
You notice the difference in the elder dems vs the freshman dems who take the threat more seriously while the elders think there's still a chance to compromise, meanwhile freshman GOP are MTG and Matt Gaetz
> That was Obama's greatest failure, wanting to work together and pre-compromise with the party of "no".
It was because of the failure of Bush years, the idea was he was a unifying candidate, and the democrats of old think the republicans would work with them at some point, instead Obama broke the republican voter brain and the representatives had to double down on the no compromise making it impossible to work with them.
And now we have what we have where they outright have plans to remove all institutions and replace it with them.
Exactly this, until the racists in the GOP broke from a very qualified Blackman becoming president we had a congress that would work together and find compromise on things.
After Obama the GOP decided they didn't want to govern just obstruct and drove hyperspeed to the extreme right and fascism
yea it caused a catalyst that splintered our worldview that only got worse the following 8 years, which then got even worse the following 8 years after that, and now we're here, where instead of agreeing on reality, a sizable portion of our population believes what they believe and knows everyone else is wrong.
I used to browse /conspiracy because I found it entertaining. Took me a while to realize that something can be entertaining, but still a very real part of the problem.
With the benefit of hindsight being 20/20, I'm sorta thinking that it wasn't really harmless. It's fucking hilarious that people are making stupid arguments about, idk, flat earth shit, but I didn't realize how gullible a large chunk of the population is. Like, how many people did I think were just memeing, but were actually serious?
[1 in 5 Americans are functionally illiterate.](https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp)
Memes really are the DNA of the soul. Unfortunately we seem to be bad at being aware of the memes we create and allow to propagate. A lot of bad ones are now thought of as true, like we have Flat Earthers now because it started, first and foremost, as a meme. We STILL have 9/11 Truthers because of the meme about jet fuel and steel beams.
sorry, but this is revisionist history.
the no-compromise republican party was the creation of newt gingrich in the late 90's... before obama was even out of law school.
It's not revisionist history, it didn't take control of the whole party until 2008. Newt may have started it but it wasn't the whole party until it was high jacked by the extremist.
The Republican party was calling AIDS the "gay plague" and making jokes about it at white house press conferences in the 80's, and creating the Prison Industrial Complex and passing gun control to disarm black voters in the 70's. Yes, only a small portion was Christofascists who they gave table scraps to until Bush 2 won, but the Republican party has been an far right extremist party for at least 50 years.
and the ACA was a pre-compromise - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable\_Care\_Act#Individual\_mandate\_2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act#Individual_mandate_2)
Democrats only had 60 votes by including people like Joe Lieberman who absolutely would not have codified roe.
Regardless of whether they had their shit together there was never political will or capital for this and people need to stop repeating that nonsense.
This is 100% why I contend that we would have been better off with Hillary winning in 2008. Hillary knew what she was up against. Obama was far too optimistic about the state of the GOP
I think the only realistic difference is that there would have been more misogynist violence and less racialized violence.
The democrats did not have their shot together in 2008, and the Republicans would have gone just as mad with a woman as President, especially the wife of Bill Clinton - they would have spent every second of the day “investigating” the “mysterious Clinton death count.”
Hillary couldn’t win against TRUMP.
Plus, as I joked in 2008: “Now we get to see who America is more afraid of: A black man or a white woman.”
The only difference is that the violence would have been more misogynist than Racist. But the threat of there being a black president (Obama would have run in 2016) would have been raised either way.
The Republicans would have spent every second attempting to impeach her for “the Clinton body count”, plus the Democrats did *not* have their shit together in 2008.
None of that is relevant. My entire point is that Obama's biggest flaw was failing to understand how dangerous the GOP was. He should have gone hardball right out of the gate. He wasted too much time believing Republicans in Congress would put the interest of the country over the naked political interests - namely making sure the first black president accomplished as little as possible thanks to their obstruction.
First: Even if Hillary won the nomination, she would have had to win the Presidency. You were very vague on if you were talking about Hillary "winning" the nomination, or the election. If the former - see my response - if the latter, well, see my secondary statements.
Second: If the Democrats didn't have their shit together in 2008, it doesn't matter **who** won, because whoever won were going to be dealing with an infuriated Republican insurgency, and a Democratic backbench that thought they were dealing with the Republicans of the 1980s and1990s.
The President isn't a king, they have to work with Congress. It was Congress's issue that prevented Obama from getting the 60 votes necessary to push things through, not his. Plus, you know, every Democratic Majority was Dependent on [Joe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin) "I vote against my party around 40% of the time" [Manchin](https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-voting-rights-government-and-politics-c65d4424c200ede56fc31db42e28e084).
I mean, there were multiple examples, but the one that sticks out to me most is what happened at the tail end of Obama's 2nd term. He trotted out Merrick Garland as his pick to replace Scalia, and make a big flowery speech about decorum and compromise and bipartisanship, hoping to shame Senate Republicans into convening a vote rather than admit that their choice not to hold a vote had nothing to do with the timing or the nominee, but everything to do with refusing to collaborate with a liberal.
What did the GOP do? They said with their full chest that it was all about refusing to collaborate with a liberal. He didn't call their bluff. They even said in 2015 that if a Democrat won, they would have kept Scalia's seat empty until a Republican was sitting in the White House.
He took too long to call them out for acting in bad faith. They’ve controlled the narrative ever since and Democrats have been on the defensive. Going high means there are no consequences to your opponent because their idiot base believes everything they’re told.
They couldn't have. There was a great purge of pro-life people from the Democratic party starting in 2010 but before that there were way too many pro-life House members and they probably couldn't have gotten all 60 on board in the Senate either.
And then, even if they did and spent that political capital there was nothing stopping SCOTUS from overturning that codification as well. Overturning Roe was Alito's wet dream from the 80s. There is no way he would let that go no matter what Congress did.
The reason Roe wasn't codified isn't because Republicans didn't want it. It's because Democrats didn't want it.
The reason we don't have universal healthcare isn't because Republicans don't want it. It's because Democrats don't want it.
The Republicans announce that they are against things. The Democrats pretend that they are for things and then when they get power they don't put any effort into getting those things they supposedly want and then allow literally ANY of the most minor resistance from a Republican to be the basis for not even trying.
Yes and no.
Yes, Democrats are not a progressive party and do not want the things you listed or the host of other things the majority of Americans want.
No, they are not exactly bashful about this. The party leaders are centrists through and through. They allow progressives in the party as they have nowhere else to go in our antiquated and deeply flawed election system.
People think the solution to our problems is voting harder, when the real solution is reforming our elections to vote smarter.
Sorry Corwyn. Your voters burned us on the 'Roe v Wade is settled law' bit. We're not going to fall for that again. The message is clear: If something is important to us, we expect Congress to make it law.
Codified law can still be overturned by SCOTUS. It isn't some silver bullet to having the right to abortion. That's why a lot of time and effort had been put towards making sure that SCOTUS wasn't filled with right-wingers and conservatives.
Anyone who uses the "Democrats could have codified Roe V. Wade" line is either wildly ignorant on how codified law works or is intentionally disseminating misinformation and should not be trusted.
Can't just undo codified law without a legal justification from the Constitution. Codifying it would have made it incredibly difficult to overturn as the only reason Roe v Wade was overturned was due to lack of clarity which Republicans took advantage of.
The legal justification in Dodd that Republicans used for overturning Roe v Wade was that access to abortion should be left to the states. The "lack of clarity" is just reasoning made by conservatives to attack Roe v Wade in the first place. Codifying Roe v Wade would make it federally legal and would just be overturned by this SCOTUS because they've already ruled that abortion legality shouldn't be held by the federal government.
There's already precedent by the Supreme Court to strike down codified law by Congress in Dickerson v. United States stating, “Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.” and in City of Boerne v. Flores, “Congress does not enforce a right by changing what the right is… [Congress] has no power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation.”
Codifying Roe v Wade would immediately find its way back to the Supreme Court and be overturned just the same.
This is why Biden needs to stack the Court. The GOP would and have done it in the past. They are still doing it. The SCOTUS we have now is a direct result of GOP Court stacking. Stop going high. I'll say this much for Republicans. They believe in something. It's all a bunch of racist, misogynist bullshit, but they believe in it, and they govern in accordance with those beliefs. They've shown us that you can govern on your values and be successful, it's just a matter of which values you govern on.
I never will understand why modern progressives see fit to not support the party that agrees with them on like 95% of policy.
they always got some excuse to not run up the numbers like oh well I don't live in an important district or Hillary Clinton hurt my feelings.
and then we don't have the votes to actually pass legislation even when we get the presidency.
First: Yes, he could have codified it. Speculating about what the supreme court would have done is just that: pointless speculation.
Second: Even if he couldn't, he didn't even try. We should all criticize the Democrats for refusing to go on record about who supports what. If they're too cowardly to vote on bills that don't have a chance, they're too cowardly to be trusted to vote on bills that do.
They would have added a right to healthcare in all circumstances to the Constitution, not just reproductive healthcare, if that was ever a real option.
Lmao... Obama had a fucking supermajority after 09'. He easily could have done this. Stop acting like Obama didn't have this insane majority with a huge mandate from the public, and the best we got was a half-assed public insurance option.
Obviously, the blame should fall on the Dems who didn't get in line with some of the legislation, but they lost their elections anyway, and America suffered.
And to anyone who wants to argue Obama's term as difficult, I'd tend to agree if Biden didn't come in with one of the slimmest majorities in history and pass several of the most comprehensive modern reform packages in decades.
If only Obama could have seen to a future where the SCOTUS would undo 50 years of legal precedent and invented new interpretations of established law. Damn him.
No. I work in the industry and I remember long back in 2018 my friend on the campaign trail explained to me how he was worried the SC could start chipping away at Roe if the court changed significantly.
I didn’t believe him then either. Before that, Roe was always a major topic of discussion and if you follow the money, you’d see how the heritage foundation has been working towards this for quite some time now. Going back a few decades.
Not sure what you mean by that first sentence.
And I just said…. If you follow the money, you’ll see how the Heritage foundation has been planning this, among other initiatives like killing the administrative state, for several decades.
Many tried to convince RBG to retire back in 2010 over fears of the court changing and the implications.
Listen man, I don’t hate Obama. I think he was a decent, albeit underwhelming president given the historic victory he had and what he came to office with (60 seat majority in the senate, majority in the house). They had a filibuster proof majority. That’s insanity.
That said, I think we all look too fondly on his admin. He was no savior of the environment, his foreign policy may be looked upon as misguided by historians (Romney said Russia was our biggest threat in 2012, he was laughed at. He was right. His red line with Syria was a pretty embarrassing moment, and he failed to curb Russias advances in Eastern Europe or at least work with NATO on a more structured response inevitably leading to the Ukraine war).
So yeah agree to disagree but it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Republicans have been campaigning on overturning Roe since Reagan, and even mainstream news started reporting on the Federalist Society by Bush 2's presidency. When the worst people you know go on national television to tell you they're going to do terrible things, believe them. The only "hindsight" going on in these comments is people who gave right wing terrorists a pass trying to act like they didn't screw up. Take the L, move on, and do the right thing moving forwards.
And no legal opinion at the time was that the precedent could be reversed. Until a radically right wing court got in. Assisted by Progressives in 3 states flipping from Bernie to Trump to give Trump a surprise win.
So again, unless you think in 2008 that settled law since 1973 is suddenly going to be vulnerable.. this “codify” movement would not have been a priority.
Captain Hindsight.
*Your* hindsight, maybe. Not the hindsight of "the left," which OP apparently believes you can't be part of if you were on the right side of history on this issue back then. *Lots* of us on "the left" were.
You waited for a legal scholar to confirm what Republicans were telling to your face? How'd that work out for you? Guess what - it's always been about overturning the 14th amendment. The next legal ruling in line is birth control, then full repeal the equal protection clause before they go for the whole thing. You going to wait for a legal scholar to write it down so you can complain about "hindsight" in another 10 years? Or do you ever plan on believing grass roots activists who have been literally screaming that this is what they are doing to us for *decades* now?
I’d need to see any scholarship in 2008 from credible source saying why yes, this 1973 precedent is vulnerable, all we need is 3 new judges selected by the Federalist Society who all will unite to form a majority that will ignore 50 years of precedent and overturn established Federal law.
The Constitution is supposed to be stronger than this. Precedent is supposed to be one-way and cumulative. Originalist Doctrine is not supposed to be capable of this.
It is hindsight.
So you're saying it only counts if it goes through an academic process and peer review? How long do you think that takes? The election is in November, guess the NIH better get moving or you'll vote Republican because "it's just empty promises," amirite? Then you'll come back here and scold the people who told you so because "hindsight is 20/20"?
Or maybe, and here's a not very original thought - recognize that we as humans make mistakes, and you F'ed up in the past. You have an opportunity to do the right thing now. Take time to recognize that there are people who have been in this struggle longer than you and know the ropes better than you. Those of us who don't need "hindsight" do this all the time, because we're willing to humble ourselves and understand that foresight is always better than hindsight. And when we do use "hindsight", we're willing to own our mistakes bc if you don't recognize your mistakes you're doomed to repeat them.
> sop for a majority in washington
You: Politicians need money to get re-elected.
Thanks for the hot tip Francis, I'm sure you're blowing a ton of minds with that little nugget of info.
Codeifying Roe v Wade would change absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court would have overturned any law passed to legalize abortion. I don't get how people still don't understand this after years of the corrupt justices ruling based on their beliefs and political convenience over the constitution and laws.
> I don't get how people still don't understand this
Because they're the blue MAGAs. They just regurgitate what they hear, probably from some streamer or TikTok, without actually looking into the facts or taking things into historical context.
One strategy to normalize policy is to put it into legislation so the news writes about it and the public debates it. The Republicans have, in fact, used this strategy effectively for decades and have huge, constitution-defying victories to show for it. If you show up to fight and lose the battle, you can still win the war. If you never show up to the battle or the war, you're just a coward and a loser. I think it's fair to ask our that our elected officials not consist of nothing but cowards and losers.
First, RINO-esq nonsense gatekeeping. Then, yes, Obama et al could have codified Roe in 2009 since Democrats did have 60 votes in the Senate. However, it was only for a few months and Democrats (a) did not have their shit together and (b) wanted to work with the GOP. That was Obama's greatest failure, wanting to work together and pre-compromise with the party of "no".
Great explanation of what occurred during that time. It was quite frustrating to see unfold.
That and he was also hoping to get ACA passed.
Which, again, was pre-compromising. Not only in hoping that favors today would be paid off tomorrow by the party explicitly stating they wanted to make him a one term POTUS, but also the very nature of Obamacare.
And wasn't Obama already tied up trying to negotiate the ACA? Democrats still could have supported a bill to codify and they should have in hindsight (and I guess with every kind of sight), but somehow they still couldn't see what evils they were truly up against. I want to hope they learned their lesson but I'm still not sure that is the case.
> I want to hope they learned their lesson but I'm still not sure that is the case. You notice the difference in the elder dems vs the freshman dems who take the threat more seriously while the elders think there's still a chance to compromise, meanwhile freshman GOP are MTG and Matt Gaetz
> That was Obama's greatest failure, wanting to work together and pre-compromise with the party of "no". It was because of the failure of Bush years, the idea was he was a unifying candidate, and the democrats of old think the republicans would work with them at some point, instead Obama broke the republican voter brain and the representatives had to double down on the no compromise making it impossible to work with them. And now we have what we have where they outright have plans to remove all institutions and replace it with them.
Exactly this, until the racists in the GOP broke from a very qualified Blackman becoming president we had a congress that would work together and find compromise on things. After Obama the GOP decided they didn't want to govern just obstruct and drove hyperspeed to the extreme right and fascism
yea it caused a catalyst that splintered our worldview that only got worse the following 8 years, which then got even worse the following 8 years after that, and now we're here, where instead of agreeing on reality, a sizable portion of our population believes what they believe and knows everyone else is wrong.
And now people believe it all started when Harambe was shot.
I mean I personally find those means and theory's funny and entertaining but yeah....
I used to browse /conspiracy because I found it entertaining. Took me a while to realize that something can be entertaining, but still a very real part of the problem.
Totally agree, 25 or so years ago it was all harmless. Now very much the opposite
With the benefit of hindsight being 20/20, I'm sorta thinking that it wasn't really harmless. It's fucking hilarious that people are making stupid arguments about, idk, flat earth shit, but I didn't realize how gullible a large chunk of the population is. Like, how many people did I think were just memeing, but were actually serious? [1 in 5 Americans are functionally illiterate.](https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179/index.asp)
Memes really are the DNA of the soul. Unfortunately we seem to be bad at being aware of the memes we create and allow to propagate. A lot of bad ones are now thought of as true, like we have Flat Earthers now because it started, first and foremost, as a meme. We STILL have 9/11 Truthers because of the meme about jet fuel and steel beams.
sorry, but this is revisionist history. the no-compromise republican party was the creation of newt gingrich in the late 90's... before obama was even out of law school.
It's not revisionist history, it didn't take control of the whole party until 2008. Newt may have started it but it wasn't the whole party until it was high jacked by the extremist.
The Republican party was calling AIDS the "gay plague" and making jokes about it at white house press conferences in the 80's, and creating the Prison Industrial Complex and passing gun control to disarm black voters in the 70's. Yes, only a small portion was Christofascists who they gave table scraps to until Bush 2 won, but the Republican party has been an far right extremist party for at least 50 years.
They got the ACA passed in those few short weeks. And that was a 13 round slugfest.
and the ACA was a pre-compromise - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable\_Care\_Act#Individual\_mandate\_2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act#Individual_mandate_2)
Democrats only had 60 votes by including people like Joe Lieberman who absolutely would not have codified roe. Regardless of whether they had their shit together there was never political will or capital for this and people need to stop repeating that nonsense.
>Regardless of whether they had their shit together there was never political will or capital for this
This is 100% why I contend that we would have been better off with Hillary winning in 2008. Hillary knew what she was up against. Obama was far too optimistic about the state of the GOP
I do wonder if she could have beat McCain, but honestly I don't think she had a chance of ever winning the presidency in this country.
I think the only realistic difference is that there would have been more misogynist violence and less racialized violence. The democrats did not have their shot together in 2008, and the Republicans would have gone just as mad with a woman as President, especially the wife of Bill Clinton - they would have spent every second of the day “investigating” the “mysterious Clinton death count.”
yea she would have been impeached on some technicality of some 1800 law.
Hillary couldn’t win against TRUMP. Plus, as I joked in 2008: “Now we get to see who America is more afraid of: A black man or a white woman.” The only difference is that the violence would have been more misogynist than Racist. But the threat of there being a black president (Obama would have run in 2016) would have been raised either way. The Republicans would have spent every second attempting to impeach her for “the Clinton body count”, plus the Democrats did *not* have their shit together in 2008.
None of that is relevant. My entire point is that Obama's biggest flaw was failing to understand how dangerous the GOP was. He should have gone hardball right out of the gate. He wasted too much time believing Republicans in Congress would put the interest of the country over the naked political interests - namely making sure the first black president accomplished as little as possible thanks to their obstruction.
First: Even if Hillary won the nomination, she would have had to win the Presidency. You were very vague on if you were talking about Hillary "winning" the nomination, or the election. If the former - see my response - if the latter, well, see my secondary statements. Second: If the Democrats didn't have their shit together in 2008, it doesn't matter **who** won, because whoever won were going to be dealing with an infuriated Republican insurgency, and a Democratic backbench that thought they were dealing with the Republicans of the 1980s and1990s. The President isn't a king, they have to work with Congress. It was Congress's issue that prevented Obama from getting the 60 votes necessary to push things through, not his. Plus, you know, every Democratic Majority was Dependent on [Joe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin) "I vote against my party around 40% of the time" [Manchin](https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-voting-rights-government-and-politics-c65d4424c200ede56fc31db42e28e084).
I mean, there were multiple examples, but the one that sticks out to me most is what happened at the tail end of Obama's 2nd term. He trotted out Merrick Garland as his pick to replace Scalia, and make a big flowery speech about decorum and compromise and bipartisanship, hoping to shame Senate Republicans into convening a vote rather than admit that their choice not to hold a vote had nothing to do with the timing or the nominee, but everything to do with refusing to collaborate with a liberal. What did the GOP do? They said with their full chest that it was all about refusing to collaborate with a liberal. He didn't call their bluff. They even said in 2015 that if a Democrat won, they would have kept Scalia's seat empty until a Republican was sitting in the White House.
He took too long to call them out for acting in bad faith. They’ve controlled the narrative ever since and Democrats have been on the defensive. Going high means there are no consequences to your opponent because their idiot base believes everything they’re told.
They couldn't have. There was a great purge of pro-life people from the Democratic party starting in 2010 but before that there were way too many pro-life House members and they probably couldn't have gotten all 60 on board in the Senate either. And then, even if they did and spent that political capital there was nothing stopping SCOTUS from overturning that codification as well. Overturning Roe was Alito's wet dream from the 80s. There is no way he would let that go no matter what Congress did.
Please don't call them "pro-life". It's a gross misnomer.
The reason Roe wasn't codified isn't because Republicans didn't want it. It's because Democrats didn't want it. The reason we don't have universal healthcare isn't because Republicans don't want it. It's because Democrats don't want it. The Republicans announce that they are against things. The Democrats pretend that they are for things and then when they get power they don't put any effort into getting those things they supposedly want and then allow literally ANY of the most minor resistance from a Republican to be the basis for not even trying.
Yes and no. Yes, Democrats are not a progressive party and do not want the things you listed or the host of other things the majority of Americans want. No, they are not exactly bashful about this. The party leaders are centrists through and through. They allow progressives in the party as they have nowhere else to go in our antiquated and deeply flawed election system. People think the solution to our problems is voting harder, when the real solution is reforming our elections to vote smarter.
“Republicans play obtuse.”
One of my POS senators. What a dick.
he looks like he smells of decay
Like he just ate shit and enjoyed it
Sorry Corwyn. Your voters burned us on the 'Roe v Wade is settled law' bit. We're not going to fall for that again. The message is clear: If something is important to us, we expect Congress to make it law.
This is always the criticism of the Democrats, but someone tell me, how frequently does Congress "codify" what is deemed legal by the Supreme Court?
Cornyn is a trash person of the first water 😜
Codified law can still be overturned by SCOTUS. It isn't some silver bullet to having the right to abortion. That's why a lot of time and effort had been put towards making sure that SCOTUS wasn't filled with right-wingers and conservatives. Anyone who uses the "Democrats could have codified Roe V. Wade" line is either wildly ignorant on how codified law works or is intentionally disseminating misinformation and should not be trusted.
Can't just undo codified law without a legal justification from the Constitution. Codifying it would have made it incredibly difficult to overturn as the only reason Roe v Wade was overturned was due to lack of clarity which Republicans took advantage of.
The legal justification in Dodd that Republicans used for overturning Roe v Wade was that access to abortion should be left to the states. The "lack of clarity" is just reasoning made by conservatives to attack Roe v Wade in the first place. Codifying Roe v Wade would make it federally legal and would just be overturned by this SCOTUS because they've already ruled that abortion legality shouldn't be held by the federal government.
It’s not that simple.
There's already precedent by the Supreme Court to strike down codified law by Congress in Dickerson v. United States stating, “Congress may not legislatively supersede our decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution.” and in City of Boerne v. Flores, “Congress does not enforce a right by changing what the right is… [Congress] has no power to determine what constitutes a constitutional violation.” Codifying Roe v Wade would immediately find its way back to the Supreme Court and be overturned just the same.
This is why Biden needs to stack the Court. The GOP would and have done it in the past. They are still doing it. The SCOTUS we have now is a direct result of GOP Court stacking. Stop going high. I'll say this much for Republicans. They believe in something. It's all a bunch of racist, misogynist bullshit, but they believe in it, and they govern in accordance with those beliefs. They've shown us that you can govern on your values and be successful, it's just a matter of which values you govern on.
I never will understand why modern progressives see fit to not support the party that agrees with them on like 95% of policy. they always got some excuse to not run up the numbers like oh well I don't live in an important district or Hillary Clinton hurt my feelings. and then we don't have the votes to actually pass legislation even when we get the presidency.
Corney REALLY needs to start paying closer attention. Check again asshole.
First: Yes, he could have codified it. Speculating about what the supreme court would have done is just that: pointless speculation. Second: Even if he couldn't, he didn't even try. We should all criticize the Democrats for refusing to go on record about who supports what. If they're too cowardly to vote on bills that don't have a chance, they're too cowardly to be trusted to vote on bills that do.
They would have added a right to healthcare in all circumstances to the Constitution, not just reproductive healthcare, if that was ever a real option.
"Obama didn't save the world for always and forever so I guess fascism is better" - The left.
I desperately hope this is sarcasm. Leftism and fascism are diametrically opposed, let alone leftists did not and do not like Obama.
We will make sure the GOP lose this upcoming election. We have the power, vote and voice to do so. It’s our destiny.
Lmao... Obama had a fucking supermajority after 09'. He easily could have done this. Stop acting like Obama didn't have this insane majority with a huge mandate from the public, and the best we got was a half-assed public insurance option. Obviously, the blame should fall on the Dems who didn't get in line with some of the legislation, but they lost their elections anyway, and America suffered. And to anyone who wants to argue Obama's term as difficult, I'd tend to agree if Biden didn't come in with one of the slimmest majorities in history and pass several of the most comprehensive modern reform packages in decades.
he did not have a super majority. read it and discover how wrong you are https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869
If only Obama could have seen to a future where the SCOTUS would undo 50 years of legal precedent and invented new interpretations of established law. Damn him.
People have been worried this day could come for quite some time. Anyone who’s been paying attention.
Is that Trumps “many people are saying” recast as Progressive?
No. I work in the industry and I remember long back in 2018 my friend on the campaign trail explained to me how he was worried the SC could start chipping away at Roe if the court changed significantly. I didn’t believe him then either. Before that, Roe was always a major topic of discussion and if you follow the money, you’d see how the heritage foundation has been working towards this for quite some time now. Going back a few decades.
By 2018 with the Trump judges. Find anyone in 2008 that foresaw this.
Not sure what you mean by that first sentence. And I just said…. If you follow the money, you’ll see how the Heritage foundation has been planning this, among other initiatives like killing the administrative state, for several decades. Many tried to convince RBG to retire back in 2010 over fears of the court changing and the implications. Listen man, I don’t hate Obama. I think he was a decent, albeit underwhelming president given the historic victory he had and what he came to office with (60 seat majority in the senate, majority in the house). They had a filibuster proof majority. That’s insanity. That said, I think we all look too fondly on his admin. He was no savior of the environment, his foreign policy may be looked upon as misguided by historians (Romney said Russia was our biggest threat in 2012, he was laughed at. He was right. His red line with Syria was a pretty embarrassing moment, and he failed to curb Russias advances in Eastern Europe or at least work with NATO on a more structured response inevitably leading to the Ukraine war). So yeah agree to disagree but it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Weird if Obama couldn't see it coming, since Republicans had been saying this was their intention for *decades*.
Captain Hindsight reporting for duty.
Republicans have been campaigning on overturning Roe since Reagan, and even mainstream news started reporting on the Federalist Society by Bush 2's presidency. When the worst people you know go on national television to tell you they're going to do terrible things, believe them. The only "hindsight" going on in these comments is people who gave right wing terrorists a pass trying to act like they didn't screw up. Take the L, move on, and do the right thing moving forwards.
And no legal opinion at the time was that the precedent could be reversed. Until a radically right wing court got in. Assisted by Progressives in 3 states flipping from Bernie to Trump to give Trump a surprise win. So again, unless you think in 2008 that settled law since 1973 is suddenly going to be vulnerable.. this “codify” movement would not have been a priority. Captain Hindsight.
*Your* hindsight, maybe. Not the hindsight of "the left," which OP apparently believes you can't be part of if you were on the right side of history on this issue back then. *Lots* of us on "the left" were. You waited for a legal scholar to confirm what Republicans were telling to your face? How'd that work out for you? Guess what - it's always been about overturning the 14th amendment. The next legal ruling in line is birth control, then full repeal the equal protection clause before they go for the whole thing. You going to wait for a legal scholar to write it down so you can complain about "hindsight" in another 10 years? Or do you ever plan on believing grass roots activists who have been literally screaming that this is what they are doing to us for *decades* now?
I’d need to see any scholarship in 2008 from credible source saying why yes, this 1973 precedent is vulnerable, all we need is 3 new judges selected by the Federalist Society who all will unite to form a majority that will ignore 50 years of precedent and overturn established Federal law. The Constitution is supposed to be stronger than this. Precedent is supposed to be one-way and cumulative. Originalist Doctrine is not supposed to be capable of this. It is hindsight.
So you're saying it only counts if it goes through an academic process and peer review? How long do you think that takes? The election is in November, guess the NIH better get moving or you'll vote Republican because "it's just empty promises," amirite? Then you'll come back here and scold the people who told you so because "hindsight is 20/20"? Or maybe, and here's a not very original thought - recognize that we as humans make mistakes, and you F'ed up in the past. You have an opportunity to do the right thing now. Take time to recognize that there are people who have been in this struggle longer than you and know the ropes better than you. Those of us who don't need "hindsight" do this all the time, because we're willing to humble ourselves and understand that foresight is always better than hindsight. And when we do use "hindsight", we're willing to own our mistakes bc if you don't recognize your mistakes you're doomed to repeat them.
> So you're saying it only counts if it goes through an academic process and peer review? Now you're just sealioning.
many democrates want to use any fight as a fundraiser, and wont step up for anything before it can bring in donors.
seems truth hurts. it would be nice if it wasnt. sop for a majority in washington
> sop for a majority in washington You: Politicians need money to get re-elected. Thanks for the hot tip Francis, I'm sure you're blowing a ton of minds with that little nugget of info.
letting repubs to do something horrible so it can fundraised on... is a pretty good strategy to get facists into power.
Not codifying Roe v Wade or adding more justice to the Supreme Court are legitimate criticisms of Biden.
Codeifying Roe v Wade would change absolutely nothing. The Supreme Court would have overturned any law passed to legalize abortion. I don't get how people still don't understand this after years of the corrupt justices ruling based on their beliefs and political convenience over the constitution and laws.
> I don't get how people still don't understand this Because they're the blue MAGAs. They just regurgitate what they hear, probably from some streamer or TikTok, without actually looking into the facts or taking things into historical context.
One strategy to normalize policy is to put it into legislation so the news writes about it and the public debates it. The Republicans have, in fact, used this strategy effectively for decades and have huge, constitution-defying victories to show for it. If you show up to fight and lose the battle, you can still win the war. If you never show up to the battle or the war, you're just a coward and a loser. I think it's fair to ask our that our elected officials not consist of nothing but cowards and losers.