our bodies our choice
June 24, 2022 7:22 AM   Subscribe

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe vs. Wade. The opinion: "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. " Information about abortion funds in different states.
posted by fight or flight (1121 comments total) 63 users marked this as a favorite
 
.
posted by chavenet at 7:23 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


.
posted by LizBoBiz at 7:24 AM on June 24




The tyranny of 6 unelected extremists appointed by a minority of voters funded by a handful of warped oligarchs. Supremists delenda est.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 7:25 AM on June 24 [163 favorites]


I hate everything right now
posted by 8dot3 at 7:25 AM on June 24 [65 favorites]


.

This "night of rage" is the falsest flag I have seen since community theater. Stay home, everybody.

I am fed up with tears and plan to send postcards and canvas, as well as volunteering for the local PP. Channel it all into #votebluenomatterwho.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:25 AM on June 24 [30 favorites]


A guide to abortion access in a post-Roe America.

A note about what's coming:
In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

That's what they're coming for next.
posted by fight or flight at 7:25 AM on June 24 [129 favorites]


I didn't expect to be in tears over this. American friends, I am so deeply sorry.
posted by kitcat at 7:26 AM on June 24 [34 favorites]


.
posted by unicorn chaser at 7:26 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


.
posted by dsword at 7:27 AM on June 24


I saw this and immediately posted to my moms group chat. We are not "protest in the streets" kinds of people, but we are discussing where we're going together this weekend as of now.
posted by Alison at 7:27 AM on June 24 [11 favorites]


This fucking country.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:28 AM on June 24 [35 favorites]


This has knocked the wind out of me. In the Year of Our Audre Lorde 2022, our bodies aren't our own.

I just...I just can't right now. Not without curling up into a fetal position.
posted by Kitteh at 7:30 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


I'm absolutely terrified about what this means for everyone who can get pregnant, what this means for women's and queer rights generally, what's going to come next. SCOTUS deciding that even cis straight women's bodily autonomy not mattering on top of their gun-worshipping and anti-Miranda decisions means such bad things for all marginalized people. I'm home with my cats in my safe apartment, I live in a state where abortion is still legal, I'm a lesbian who's had a hysterectomy and so this decision won't kill me personally but I am so afraid for what this means. I'm crying and I'm furious that I'm still expected to work with this going on.
posted by bile and syntax at 7:31 AM on June 24 [62 favorites]


This "night of rage" is the falsest flag I have seen since community theater. Stay home, everybody.

I am fed up with tears and plan to send postcards and canvas, as well as volunteering for the local PP. Channel it all into #votebluenomatterwho.


I think prescriptive instructions on how to appropriately respond to this extremely serious development is misplaced, however well-intentioned. Not everyone thinks that #votebluenomatterwho is the best way to Do Politics, and not everyone has to "stay home" to avoid being labelled as something that the right will label them with regardless of what, if any, action they take.
posted by lazaruslong at 7:31 AM on June 24 [63 favorites]


Just, fuck this. And fuck them. Honestly speechless with grief and rage.
posted by stellaluna at 7:31 AM on June 24 [33 favorites]


I hope doctors & nurses will make a plan now for what they will do when people are bleeding to death in front of them.
posted by bleep at 7:32 AM on June 24 [36 favorites]


It would be great for this thread to become a place to share resources and compassion rather than arguments about the "correct" way to deal with this news and the future, tbh. If you can organise, great. If you have energy to fight, that's awesome. If you don't or can't, that's also totally valid. If you can, share links to help fellow Mefites and their communities!

Either way, remember that it's totally okay to step away and check in with social media and the Endless Doomscroll that has become our lives once you're more fortified. Look out for yourselves out there, folks.
posted by fight or flight at 7:34 AM on June 24 [71 favorites]


I hope that everyone who could have voted for Clinton in 2016 and didn't is happy now. This is exactly what the predictions said would happen if Trump could pick court nominees.
posted by octothorpe at 7:34 AM on June 24 [202 favorites]


.
posted by JoJoPotato at 7:34 AM on June 24


.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:35 AM on June 24


Just crying. That's all.
posted by routergirl at 7:35 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


I actually think it's high time for many nights of rage outside of the conservative judge's homes that overturned this. They should never feel safe again. They don't care about you, us, or anyone except their bubble. They make millions feel unsafe because of their decisions. They should be reminded every time they peek out of the curtain to check the weather. Fuck them.
posted by WeekendJen at 7:36 AM on June 24 [104 favorites]


.
posted by 20 year lurk at 7:36 AM on June 24


.
posted by SillyShepherd at 7:37 AM on June 24


Total garbage ass minority ruled bullshit country with illegitimate supreme court, fuck this place so much
posted by windbox at 7:38 AM on June 24 [38 favorites]


MAKE ABORTION LEGAL AGAIN

In the meantime, we protest and fight. Congress must do the same.
posted by hijinx at 7:39 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


.
posted by devonia at 7:39 AM on June 24


There is an American woman who was just on a vacation in Malta. She was 4 months pregnant, and miscarried while on the trip. The unborn child was stuck in there. She was at severe risk of an infection. But Malta "doesn't do abortions", so they wouldn't touch her and she had to be airlifted to Spain to save her life.

THIS IS A HEALTH CARE ISSUE.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:41 AM on June 24 [179 favorites]


lazaruslong: I am sorry. I didn’t mean to make anyone feel lesser at a time like this. The tears I am tired of are my own. I just caught myself IRL in an impulse to really lash out at somebody unrelated to this.
posted by Countess Elena at 7:41 AM on June 24 [10 favorites]


.
posted by fuse theorem at 7:41 AM on June 24


I'm sure my mom is happy today. She's catholic, and has leaned more and more right over the past decade, just like the American Catholic church. She would never allow herself to see the flaws in the Church, how it basically exploits whole peoples, how it propagates racism, how it preaches poverty while amassing wealth. And let's not even start on how it built a child-raping network.

All she ever talked about was abortion. It was her number one issue. It was her only issue. We had a falling out in late 2000, because she couldn't say for certain how she was going to vote. After everything that had happened, after all of the corruption, all of the bullshit, the kids in cages, all of it. She still couldn't bring herself to vote for Biden, because he was pro-choice. Never mind that her only son married a mexican-american, and had mexican kids, and the alternative to Biden had literally called nazis "good people."

We haven't really talked since then. She wants to, she tries to, but she can't get away from abortion. Well, she won today. She got what she wanted. It came at the cost of her actual son and her actual grandchildren, but hey, at least the make-believe people are safe now.

I'm sure now she'll be happy.
posted by nushustu at 7:43 AM on June 24 [111 favorites]


lazaruslong: I am sorry. I didn’t mean to make anyone feel lesser at a time like this. The tears I am tired of are my own. I just caught myself IRL in an impulse to really lash out at somebody unrelated to this.

Totally understandable -- it's a really fucking dark day. Take care of yourself. Hugs if you want them.
posted by lazaruslong at 7:43 AM on June 24 [15 favorites]


.
posted by madcaptenor at 7:43 AM on June 24


Wow.
I hope this proves incentive for an amendment or maybe for new laws that make this very banal human right inalienable.
Failing that in the near future, I hope this bites them in the ass: because in no way is this the will of the majority of the citizenry.
posted by From Bklyn at 7:44 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


I would like to collect the dots in this thread and use them to spell out:

We Are Not Dead

We are seeing that the fight will never end. And so we will fight on to never stop building.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 7:45 AM on June 24 [19 favorites]


.
posted by Torosaurus at 7:45 AM on June 24


Fuck these christofascists.
posted by lalochezia at 7:47 AM on June 24 [37 favorites]


Well fuck
posted by supermedusa at 7:48 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T BIDEN PACK THE COURT
posted by nushustu at 7:49 AM on June 24 [30 favorites]


In a way, it doesn't matter what we argue about voting, direct action, how much action and how direct, etc. Events are overtaking us. What's happening now is that options are being foreclosed.

What's going to happen in the next few years is that fewer and fewer ways of politics are going to be safe and legal, and the effectiveness is going to drain out of the legal ones - picture some sad little legal protest cage protest surrounded by cops inside a chain link fence, no signs larger than an 8x11 piece of paper, protest will last for exactly thirty minutes at 5pm on a Friday on a holiday weekend, etc.

The choices are going to narrow on down until it's just "get your head down and try to get by" and "take risks in varying degree". Consider Russia, consider Hong Kong. You can crush people if you really try. Let's not crush each other preemptively.

You can take your risks now or take them later, it doesn't matter and it's stupid to argue because events are moving too fast.

I was reading an interview (in the shitty Guardian, yes) with a guy who used to be a dissenting journalist in Hong Kong. His paper is shut down, his friends are in jail, he's working at McDonalds and lucky to have the job. He quoted something that one of his imprisoned friends had written him about understanding what had happened and what was happening.

“Life will nevertheless push us forward, like a stream that brings both hungry and sleeping fishes downstream. Strong wind will lead us towards tomorrow, no matter if we are anxious or calm.”

We're in the stream now, a racing stream swollen with flood water, and we're all going to do what we can to keep from drowning.
posted by Frowner at 7:49 AM on June 24 [189 favorites]


I really hope Biden gets on TV right the fuck now and presents an actual fucking tangible PLAN for fighting this beyond some vague and obvious variation of "you need to make your voices heard" and/or "see this is why you need to vote for us" bullshit, but somehow I highly doubt this. I am BEGGING to be proven wrong.
posted by windbox at 7:51 AM on June 24 [36 favorites]


On the topic of "vote blue, no matter who..." it's worth reminding folks that Democrats let this moment happen.

Democrats have, on multiple occasions, had the opportunity to codify the right to abortions into federal law while they had control of the House, Senate and the presidency. They didn't.
* 117th (2021–now, Biden)... ish.
* 111th congress (2009–2011, Obama)
* 103rd congress (1993–1995, Bill Clinton)
* 96th congress (1979–1981, Carter)

Biden was acting as president of the Senate in 2016 when Republicans disregarded their constitutional duty to "advise and consent" after Obama's nomination of Merick Garland.

Inaction and mismanagement in the face of blatant rule-breaking and anti-democratic tactics have landed us in this moment. I'm sick of Democrats who insist on bringing a whiffleball bat to the baseball game.
posted by neuracnu at 7:53 AM on June 24 [131 favorites]


WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T BIDEN PACK THE COURT

HOW could he have done that?

I really hope Biden gets on TV right the fuck now and presents an actual fucking tangible PLAN for fighting this beyond some vague and obvious variation of "you need to make your voices heard" and/or "see this is why you need to vote for us" bullshit

Two weeks ago he was looking into issuing some executive orders if the court went this route. And it seems like a legit enough plan that Marco Rubio is trying to get a bill through the courts specifically meant to stop him from doing so.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:54 AM on June 24 [28 favorites]


This actually gives me hope that Trump will never be president again. For all the misery it will cause.
posted by Bee'sWing at 7:56 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]


SCOTUS is a farce. They don't give a fuck about states rights. They just struck down a state's gun control law (NY). They hide behind CoNsTiTuTiOnAlIsM OrIgInAlIst or whatever the fuck they want to call it to rapid fire pass agenda. They are making the rules. Play by them. Arm up and employ the implication of violence against them.
posted by WeekendJen at 7:56 AM on June 24 [64 favorites]


this is how the u s gov't has lost legitimacy - a majority is unable to get the government they want to have while a fanatic minority bends and breaks the rules at every opportunity

be hard to govern
posted by pyramid termite at 7:59 AM on June 24 [57 favorites]


I converted to a monthly donation to my state's abortion fund. Or the abortion travel fund, now, I guess.

Fuck conservatives, fuck Trump, fuck those six assholes, and fuck every Republican Senator.

Also, Roberts' concurrence—and the five pages the majority spends lambasting it—shows he has completely lost whatever grip he might have had on the rest of the conservative majority. The 5 extremists know they can do whatever they want, and they will.
posted by jedicus at 8:00 AM on June 24 [21 favorites]


In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

There's clearly no practical, functional way to break up the US but, especially after the last 5 years, this strikes me as stomping on thin ice. I'm increasingly wondering if, at least from a legal and governance standpoint, we will start to see open resistance to SCOTUS and federal control by the states (vs. the quiet and more technical resistance already happening). Right now this certainly feels like a fatal blow to the Court's contemporary legitimacy, minimally.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:00 AM on June 24 [28 favorites]


All she ever talked about was abortion. It was her number one issue. It was her only issue.

I've read articles where people are quoted as saying "I don't care who [in my local election] wins, as long as they are anti-abortion. They can be the bleedingest of bleeding liberals about everything else for all I care, but they must be anti-abortion." Why are people so obsessed about this issue? Is it our dumbass religious heritage? I so don't get it.
posted by Melismata at 8:03 AM on June 24 [20 favorites]


Via Jezebel: "Where to Send Your Money (That Isn't Planned Parenthood)"
Not only is Planned Parenthood well-resourced—the billionaire MacKenzie Scott poured $275 million into its coffers in March—but it also faced criticism for not providing abortions in several abortion-hostile states, and for its regional health center systems trying to bust their staff unions. Providers say that another group, the National Abortion Federation, has taken such a cautious legal stance that it’s forced more patients to travel out of state than necessary. Giving locally is your best bet.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 8:03 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

Interesting that Thomas doesn't mention Loving v. Virginia. I wonder why.
posted by cubeb at 8:04 AM on June 24 [122 favorites]


Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion says that the Supreme Court should also reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage.

Lawrence v. Texas ruled that punishment for same-sex relationships was unconstitutional.

Griswold v. Connecticut protects access to contraception.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:04 AM on June 24 [39 favorites]


I’m trying to stay focused on the local battlefield as a way to stay semi-calm. Kansas voters are in a unique position in red states in that they get a direct say on whether or not to protect abortion. August 2nd will have a vote on an anti-abortion amendment to the KS constitution. If the amendment fails, abortion will remain legal here. The Kansas Supreme Court ruled abortion is protected under the KS Constitution. So it’s either the amendment or nothing for the forced birth assholes. They can’t simply pass a law like other states have.

This vote isn’t just important for Kansas. It’ll have major ramifications for the region. Missouri will ban all abortions. But if choice stays legal in Kansas, then the Kansas City metro will still have clinics available. Plus, it’s not a bad drive from Oklahoma City to Wichita, or from Omaha to KC.

Polls show a majority of Kansans want abortion to remain legal. There’s a good chance we’ll win this one. Enough of a chance that I’m allowing myself to hope.

Kansans for Constitutional Freedom is the main group organizing the “Vote NO” fight in Kansas. They’re a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, and other groups. If you have a few bucks to spare, please consider them.
posted by Teegeeack AV Club Secretary at 8:05 AM on June 24 [57 favorites]


I've read articles where people are quoted as saying "I don't care who [in my local election] wins, as long as they are anti-abortion. They can be the bleedingest of bleeding liberals about everything else for all I care, but they must be anti-abortion." Why are people so obsessed about this issue?

It's because BABEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ!

Seriously. That's it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:05 AM on June 24 [12 favorites]


.
posted by fourpotatoes at 8:06 AM on June 24


Democrats have, on multiple occasions, had the opportunity to codify the right to abortions into federal law while they had control of the House, Senate and the presidency. They didn't.

Because it would not have mattered. You fail to understand that this case would have just been the SCOTUS majority throwing out that law. Without a constitutional amendment, before this court any law would have been meaningless.

Democrats have on NO occasions since the Roe decision been in the position to pass a constitutional amendment to protect abortion, contraception, gay marriage, or interracial marriage.
posted by tclark at 8:06 AM on June 24 [66 favorites]


Never, ever forget that there are those who would rather see us dead than free.
posted by minervous at 8:06 AM on June 24 [51 favorites]


I thought I was going to be all selfishly whatevs to this because the blessed change has finally arrived and thus I cannot personally suffer, plus I knew it was coming and thought I was resigned. How wrong I was about that! Major instantaneous cortisol dump from fear followed by tears followed by fury, all in like one second. Good ol' home of the brave, always packing the surprises.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:06 AM on June 24 [21 favorites]


I went looking for information on what impact this might have on privacy rights generally, and found this article from a couple of months ago: What Privacy in the United States Could Look Like without Roe v. Wade
posted by clawsoon at 8:08 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


This is, like, the slimmest of slim threads of hope:

So, Ginni Thomas is right now being investigated by the January 6th committee.

Suppose she's found culpable or at fault or involved or whatever.

Suppose then that someone then concludes that she was exerting too much influence over Clarence Thomas, which casts HIM into question.

And then suppose that this leads to his impeachment and expulsion from SCOTUS.

Number one - how likely is that to happen, and number two, would that then call into question all the SCOTUS rulings he contributed to, leading to them needing to be re-legislated?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:11 AM on June 24 [10 favorites]




I've read articles where people are quoted as saying "I don't care who [in my local election] wins, as long as they are anti-abortion. They can be the bleedingest of bleeding liberals about everything else for all I care, but they must be anti-abortion." Why are people so obsessed about this issue? Is it our dumbass religious heritage? I so don't get it.

it's so our leadership can kill and neglect citizens and non-citizens in our country and all over the world and still tell themselves that they're "pro-life" - it's so they can have enough bombs to sterilize the world and still make a claim at being "pro life"

they're liars
posted by pyramid termite at 8:13 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


.
posted by oozy rat in a sanitary zoo at 8:13 AM on June 24


Interesting that Thomas doesn't mention Loving v. Virginia. I wonder why.

He didn't want to let that Ginni out of the bottle.
posted by The Bellman at 8:14 AM on June 24 [68 favorites]


Hate filled day.
posted by filtergik at 8:14 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


.
posted by filtergik at 8:14 AM on June 24


Number one - how likely is that to happen, and number two, would that then call into question all the SCOTUS rulings he contributed to, leading to them needing to be re-legislated?

There is no rule of law in the US that extends to the wealthy and well-connected, just raw power in expensive suits pretending to be civilized.

So, no, Ginni Thomas is not going be to be convicted of anything and, even if she were, she would never serve a day.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:15 AM on June 24 [40 favorites]


.
posted by ilona at 8:15 AM on June 24


In a solo concurring opinion, Thomas says the court should reconsider rulings that protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

You can be absolutely certain that was an intentional dog whistle, bat signal, whatever to the red-state fanatics to spin up low-level court challenges that can be rushed to the Supreme Court.
posted by martin q blank at 8:17 AM on June 24 [32 favorites]


Number one - how likely is that to happen, and number two, would that then call into question all the SCOTUS rulings he contributed to, leading to them needing to be re-legislated?

If the Senate couldn't convict a President which had just tried to end democracy they're not going to convict a Supreme Court justice for being associated with someone who was associated with said coup attempt.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:17 AM on June 24 [37 favorites]


Fucking fuck.

I wish these assholes would have chosen to champion an issue that hurts fewer people. Y'all want to go all in on school prayer? I think it's stupid, but very few lives will be ruined by it. Unlike this.

I appreciate the sentiment behind the dots. But, this is no time for resting in peace.

💣
posted by eotvos at 8:18 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


This is how my great-grandmother died more than a century ago. She was 42, a mother of eight. They were honest and hardworking but poor. Another child was unthinkable, impossible. My grandfather was a boy of 15 at the time, and he was the one who found her and the wire she'd used.

.
posted by mochapickle at 8:20 AM on June 24 [120 favorites]


Roberts concurrence is exactly what I keep saying about him. It's like he's playing Jenga or fucking Kerplunk - he wants everything to crumble, just not on his "turn".
posted by Garm at 8:20 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


What Privacy in the United States Could Look Like without Roe v. Wade
Once Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overturned, it is possible that U.S. private businesses could become either voluntary or involuntary participants in the enforcement of state anti-abortion laws. In particular, numerous popular consumer devices and mobile apps collect an enormous amount of sensitive personal information from users...

If abortion is outlawed in some states, law enforcement officers can use these same tools to track pregnant people and abortion facilities... In addition, data aggregators can compile and sell precise geolocation information related to people who visit reproductive health clinics; for example, SafeGraph recently offered location information of individuals who visit Planned Parenthood and other family planning facilities for approximately $160, including the frequency and length of their visits and other movement activity.
Well that's an additional layer of horrifying.
posted by clawsoon at 8:20 AM on June 24 [58 favorites]


@MonicaLewinsky:
"fuck you roberts.
fuck you thomas.
fuck you alito.
fuck you kavanaugh.
fuck you gorsuch.
fuck you coney barrett."
posted by mazola at 8:21 AM on June 24 [98 favorites]


If the Senate couldn't convict a President which had just tried to end democracy they're not going to convict a Supreme Court justice for being associated with someone who was associated with said coup attempt.

My question about Thomas' impeachment was more procedural than specific - more "is that even a thing the laws on the books would let us do" than "is Mitch McConnell's sentiment thus inclined".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:22 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]


Because it would not have mattered. You fail to understand that this case would have just been the SCOTUS majority throwing out that law. Without a constitutional amendment, before this court any law would have been meaningless.

There are all kinds of laws that could have been passed that would have avoided a constitutional issue while protecting reproductive health access. For example, federal funding for abortion access and training. Requiring health insurance companies to cover abortion (or at least requiring it if they receive any federal subsidies). Explicitly making it legal to ship abortion medication across state lines and to travel for an abortion. None of that requires the existence of a right to privacy that includes abortion; it would all fall under Congress's powers to regulate interstate commerce.

Hell, go full EMTALA and mandate that hospitals that accept Medicare have to provide abortion services. Use the power of the purse. Let all of those sanctimonious Catholic hospitals choose between God and Mammon.

And these are all laws that could still be passed today, even after this decision.
posted by jedicus at 8:22 AM on June 24 [52 favorites]


I think people really need to understand that this is no longer a matter of constitution and law. It doesn't matter what the law says. It doesn't matter what the constitution says. It won't matter what your state laws say in about 2025 or 2026.

The "constitutional interpretation of privacy" is going to be "white straight men and their immediate dependents have privacy; other people don't". The court isn't looking at the constitution and saying "what do we think it means"; they are looking at the constitution and saying "how can we put together a scrim over what we want". When you have a supreme court, you don't in fact need them to adhere to case law, precedent or the constitution; you just need to have police and the army as the enforcers of last resort.

I don't know why I feel the need to say it because it's going to become readily apparent in the next few years: none of the people who have/are going to have power are interested in preserving any rights at all for queer people, people of color, immigrants, poor people, homeless people, women who don't want to be dependents on men and pop out babies every twelve months, rape victims, etc. They are not interested in this. They will provide phony "constitutional" reasons until their boots are firmly on our necks and then it will be naked power.

The Democrats have in fact allowed this, partly because the very wealthy don't care, partly because they have been insulated by party mechanisms from seeing what is going on, partly because they are in fact against the idea of being a mass party of the working class. Some of them will integrate into the GOP, some of them will leave the country, some of them will tend their gardens and the few remaining will get it in the neck.

The reasons for this are various - economic change, white nationalism, christofascism, change in party composition, etc - but they are overdetermined, no single cause, no single cure.

As the fellow said, you can be active with the activists or sleep in with the sleepers, but things are going to get dramatically worse until there's some large outside event that provides a break and weakens the political composition of the regime.
posted by Frowner at 8:22 AM on June 24 [118 favorites]


I think the worst part of all of this is that there’s this pervasive sense that we’re all on our own. Democratic leadership will make soothing tsk tsk noises at the fascists and tell us all to protect our rights by voting. Well, we did. My brother in Christ you are literally the president and we gave you House and Senate majorities and you did fuck all with them. Literally the first order of business on January 20, 2021 should have been introduction of a bill to add 7 seats to the Supreme Court. We want you to DO SOMETHING. Even if it fails. This is an emergency; act like it.
posted by rhymedirective at 8:23 AM on June 24 [101 favorites]


Well that's an additional layer of horrifying.

I keep thinking about that news story a few years back about a teenager who was sent vouchers for maternity items from a big box store and ended up outing her as pregnant to her family. Those same algorithms are tracking pregnant people across the US. Fertility apps, period tracking apps, search results.. it's all potentially going to be weaponised.

If you're in an unsafe state and someone who may need an abortion in the future, I would strongly consider locking down your privacy tools and possibly deleting any apps that monitor your health or fertility.
posted by fight or flight at 8:23 AM on June 24 [35 favorites]


would that then call into question all the SCOTUS rulings he contributed to, leading to them needing to be re-legislated?

No. If Thomas were removed - and please understand that there is very little I would like more than to see him removed, preferably on video, set to music - he would just be removed, and would not get to make further decisions.
posted by bile and syntax at 8:24 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]


In addition, data aggregators can compile and sell precise geolocation information related to people who visit reproductive health clinics; for example, SafeGraph recently offered location information of individuals who visit Planned Parenthood and other family planning facilities for approximately $160, including the frequency and length of their visits and other movement activity.

Hang on a second.

Is there a way to target the data aggregators for this specific thing? Like, "data aggregators are not allowed to sell geolocation information on anyone to anyone for ANY reason"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:24 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]


From a previously, menstrual extraction.
posted by clawsoon at 8:24 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]


https://aidaccess.org/ will ship mifepristone & misoprostol anywhere in the US for $150 regardless of your state's abortion restrictions. They will also provide the pills prospectively - meaning you do not have to currently be pregnant (there is no shortage of these medications, so don't worry that you're taking it from someone else; they prioritize pregnant people's orders first in any event). Order some to have on hand if you can do so; you never know when someone in your life might need an abortion.
posted by ohneat at 8:25 AM on June 24 [73 favorites]


Since the Alito court is so in love with "Originalism," can we go back to the Originalist position that Catholics aren't allowed into high office?

PS I was raised Catholic, 12 years of their hellish "educational" system. Believe you me, the laws don't matter to them if the pointy hatted king says otherwise.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:26 AM on June 24 [19 favorites]


My question about Thomas' impeachment was more procedural than specific - more "is that even a thing the laws on the books would let us do" than "is Mitch McConnell's sentiment thus inclined".

I think the way this would work, if you could do it, would be to remove and replace Thomas and then codify Roe in law, and hope that you can shame John Roberts into siding with the liberals to uphold the law.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:27 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


Surely, this…

The only mote of hope I can muster is that maybe, just maybe, this will open eyes to the Christian theocratic coup the GOP is currently orchestrating. This shit will take decades to sort out.
posted by gnutron at 8:28 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Hell, go full EMTALA and mandate that hospitals that accept Medicare have to provide abortion services. Use the power of the purse. Let all of those sanctimonious Catholic hospitals choose between God and Mammon.

Fun fact: Medicare currently doesn't even cover contraception. I had to get an IUD to stop from bleeding to death and the hospital fought me on it until we could code it correctly.
posted by mochapickle at 8:28 AM on June 24 [31 favorites]


I think the way this would work, if you could do it, would be to remove and replace Thomas and then codify Roe in law, and hope that you can shame John Roberts into siding with the liberals to uphold the law.

Again, none of this is going to happen - history teaches a repeated, consistent lesson about how fascists are defeated, and it never involves legal maneuvering or moral appeals.
posted by ryanshepard at 8:29 AM on June 24 [96 favorites]


I kind of mentioned this in an AskMe answer, but the DAY that the brief leaked I emailed my GYN with a detailed request for scheduling sterilization. I told her “…with the autonomy issues currently being debated between old ass men who think they have a right to police women’s bodies, I want to again raise the question of considering sterilization. I am almost 39 years old, and my partner is almost 55. We do NOT want children. I am now on state health insurance. I’m serious about this, because I cannot afford a pregnancy financially, emotionally, physically, or any other adverb.”
For almost 22 years I have fought for contraceptive permanency, and because it looks like they are going to come for my Paraguard (I can’t tolerate hormones) and while I’m perimenopausal, I ain’t free and clear yet, I am past ready. My doctor immediately scheduled me for a well-woman visit and pre-op consult. I am so grateful to have the healthcare team that I do and access to the resources I need.
But it’s bullshit. People with child-bearing reproductive organs (hey that’s almost all humans!) shouldn’t have to fight or beg for this. It shouldn’t be an issue. Why the fuck does the government care if I procreate or not? So fucking stupid.
Trying to take away the right to bodily autonomy, to civil marriage, to contraception…but supposedly me, as a socialist, wants to cram “government” down everyone’s throat.
This is the stupidest fucking timeline.
posted by sara is disenchanted at 8:35 AM on June 24 [61 favorites]


Amnesty International USA has some resources.

A page which helps you generate a protest to your state's governor:
https://act.amnestyusa.org/page/107548/action/1

Some organizing service:
https://act.amnestyusa.org/page/105768/subscribe/1
posted by doctornemo at 8:37 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]


It won't matter what your state laws say in about 2025 or 2026.

The most likely course of events is that the Republican +2.3 generic ballot advantage translates to a 4-5% majority in the House and taking the Senate. It's early days, but polling for 2024 shows Trump winning consistently, and DeSantis would probably do even better. Statistically, if DeSantis wins in 2024 he will also probably win in 2028. So yeah, absent a major external event or the emergence of a generational talent Democratic candidate who is so persuasive that Biden and Harris both step aside in 2024, I see the next 2-10 years as being dark days indeed.
posted by jedicus at 8:37 AM on June 24 [16 favorites]


I scanned the thread, and I see lots of recriminations against Dem politicians, and some few people noticing that this is going to be just the start of something big: that next they'll be coming for the right to be gay (just being gay will be illegal, forget about gay marriage), and the right to have sex that's not meant to make babies.

People, you are not nearly afraid enough. The world is not going back to 1972, when there were relatively a lot of legally-done and gray-market abortions. All that was before the Drug War made all rights contingent on not offending the moral purists in control of the criminal "justice" system. All that was before there was an Internet that can be made into an ineluctably intrusive surveillance system aimed at anyone who wants to be a participant in the modern world.

The enforcement is going to be brutal. Someplace, as you read this, a prosecutor is eyeing the local doctors trying to pick a few to publicly destroy as encouragement to the rest. The Womb Patrol will be given power to administratively order subpoenas, for fishing expeditions into people's internet activity, to identify candidates for prosecution. There will be mandatory minimum sentences, and it will become hard to staff women's health facilities because of the fear of criminal liability and the risks of just being investigated for providing or facilitating an abortion.

It's not going to be sustainable over the long run, but 1) in the long run, we're all dead, and 2) this is another of those "the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent" situations. Incredibly harmful and morally indefensible puritanism can stay on the books for a long, long time. Consider the fact that there is still a sentencing disparity between crack and powder forms of cocaine.

It's a bit wearying to read "Biden better do something about this!!11" comments, or talk about Amendments (except the guy who pointed out that there has never been a possibility of getting an Amendment ratified in the last 50 years, just look what happened with the ERA). I despair about the fact that so few people understand our insanely complicated system of government well enough to know what is and isn't procedurally possible, let alone what's politically feasible.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 8:38 AM on June 24 [99 favorites]


From what I've been seeing, if the court's Republicans hoped to blunt the outrage of this decision by leaking it in advance, their gambit failed.

Good.
posted by Gelatin at 8:39 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


This is bad enough on its face, it pierces whatever childhood notion of being the good guys on a constant course towards justice might still remain in our minds, but the effect is multiplied by the obvious fact that they expect this whole thing to just... work, and for their authority to be acknowledged and for all abortions to stop. They think the same thing about other bedrock rights cases where their opinion is in the minority. They think they can just make dramatic changes to society and people will salute and obey. The arch conservatives are sprinting towards true calamity while craning their necks to watch their sunrise.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:40 AM on June 24 [11 favorites]


The DNC just called me to ask for money.

HOW ABOUT YOU FUCKERS DO SOMETHING TO DESERVE IT?
posted by donpardo at 8:41 AM on June 24 [45 favorites]


ACLU has a map of upcoming protests:
https://map.wewontgoback.com/?source=aiusa
posted by doctornemo at 8:41 AM on June 24 [10 favorites]


God Fucking Damn It.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:44 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]


It's a bit wearying to read "Biden better do something about this!!11" comments, or talk about Amendments (except the guy who pointed out that there has never been a possibility of getting an Amendment ratified in the last 50 years, just look what happened with the ERA). I despair about the fact that so few people understand our insanely complicated system of government well enough to know what is and isn't procedurally possible, let alone what's politically feasible.

I think most people here understand this, but it sure would be swell if Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership actually acted like this is an emergency. Yeah, they can't magically fix everything by reciting a spell, but they could... do shit. Fuck, Biden could issue an EO today dissolving the Supreme Court. It wouldn't work in the long run, but why not? What have we got to lose? Not our democracy; that's pretty much gone.
posted by rhymedirective at 8:45 AM on June 24 [36 favorites]


Oh no, these justices aren't political hacks! They are just more supreme than the justices who made those other rulings. Just more supreme. So supreme, their gawdalmighty supremeness just bends my mind, like a banana is bent, in any banana republic I can think of.
posted by Oyéah at 8:45 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]


On top of the horror of this decision, all Stare Decisis precedent standards are now invalid. The commonly held arguments and agreements that bound US jurisprudence are no more. No rulings are established any more, and anything can be taken away going back to the Bill of Rights.

John Roberts made a huge deal out of how he couldn't allow Stare Decisis to break during his sham congressional hearings. But hey, we all knew they were lying under oath, didn't we?
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:46 AM on June 24 [45 favorites]


It really seems like all bets are off about the election at this point. I'm right there with you in terms of worrying what they are aiming at next, but this is going to stir people like nothing else has recently and I don't think any election modeling can account for this, especially right now.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:47 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]


it sure would be swell if Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership actually acted like this is an emergency

Biden is doing a public address on the ruling at 12:30 PM.
Hopeful that he is announcing something of substance.
posted by martin q blank at 8:50 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


I have been collecting plants to put into a bed in the community garden; one that isn't meant for any individual, but is rather a plain patch that we're working on turning into a bed to attract pollinating insects.

I am seriously contemplating putting a bunch of pennyroyal plants in there now. Hey, they're easy to care for and have attractive flowers...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:51 AM on June 24 [35 favorites]


The rage and anguish are bad, but this feeling of powerlessness is what I think might actually kill me right now. What can I do? I can vote for and donate money to the same political "leaders" who have failed to codify Roe into law for my entire life. I can try to win hearts and minds through protest or more gentle forms of suasion. But the pro-forced-childbirth side of the aisle has already made it abundantly clear that they aren't listening to me, whether I use my quiet voice or my loud voice. So what's left? Is there any place I can sign up to make the spare room in my California apartment available for people who are visiting from out-of-state for abortion care? I feel like that is the only meaningful thing I have to give to this fight.
posted by la glaneuse at 8:53 AM on June 24 [34 favorites]


FYI on my comments above, i'm not actually advocating for banning Catholics from office. Certainly Jews and atheists would be next (although they are de facto outlawed in most districts by Jezoid voters). I just would like the Originalist hypocrites to see what Original really looks like.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 8:55 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


I am super, super angry today at all the people around me saying some variant of "you/we live in Safe State, we're Rich, you're old enough, this doesn't -really- affect us".

I can't hear this as anything but "the poors, why don't they eat the cake?".

That's exactly the divisive, oligarchy, fascist Gilead patriarchy that the crypto-christians wanted.

I predict that a year from now we'll see all kinds of women-specific regulations and invasive monitoring of potentially occupied uteri.

And we all, rich or in safe state or old or queer or not, have to live here, Under His Eye.
posted by Dashy at 8:58 AM on June 24 [48 favorites]


I just read this article today - this is a death sentence for American women: U.S. woman denied abortion in Malta to be airlifted out amid fears for her life
posted by Toddles at 8:58 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


Biden could issue an EO today dissolving the Supreme Court.

First off, it would be ultra vires and have no legal effect, and second if Biden decided to try to enforce it with extralegal means, that doesn't do anything on the ground in states with trigger laws. Federal judges will still be bound by SCOTUS' decision, so they will permit state trigger laws to go into effect anyway.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:59 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


So this means the American government is officially, inarguably broken, right?

Unelected officials, answerable to no one, stripping long held rights ("settled law") for transparently ideological reasons.

It seems like this is just the tip of the spear for impending tyranny.

I can't help but think about the 100 Mile Border Zone, containing 2/3 of the population.

Or when militarized unidentified officers from the Bureau of Prisons were mobilized in DC.

Or the federal officers in unmarked vans in Portland abducting people off the streets.

Or how Trump repeatedly called protestors anarchists.

Or how Guantanamo Bay is still up and running.

Doesn't seem like it would take very much to start removing undesirables and malcontents.
posted by rustybullrake at 9:06 AM on June 24 [60 favorites]


The Democrats will not save us. They brought us to this point. They have no interest in correcting this grave evil.

Fortunately we don't need them.

We have the three tools we need to fix this ourselves:

1) General strike. We must, right now, agree that the economy is shut down until the Republican minority resigns and the Supreme Court is repalced by a legitimate body.

2) Mass protest. Not a few little marches that do nothing. I refer to the sort of protest that happened in Egypt. The sort of protest that shuts down major highways and ends commerce for its duration. Again, as with a general strike, the point is that the economy stops unless the evil stops.

3) Escrache. No Republcian, not the "Justices", not the Senators, not the House Members, not your local Republican mayor, not the local chair of your Republican Party, **NONE OF THEM** ever gets to go outside without facing protesters. They never get to eat out without people screaming at them until they leave the restaurant. They get no goods, no services, no nothing, without facing protesters until they get so sick of it that they resign to gain one tiny moment of peace.

We cannot expect the Democrats to fix this. They will not. They will say some words about how horrible it is, and then that will be the end of that.

We the people are the ones with the power. We are the ones who can end this.

We should have done this when Trump stole the election. We should have done this when Junior stole the election.

But if you've been waiting for a sign, here's the sign. Now is the time. We have the tools, the only question is if we have the will.
posted by sotonohito at 9:06 AM on June 24 [73 favorites]


I just had another idea for small public protest (if you can't/aren't able to do anything bigger)

July 4th is about 10 days away. So...on that day, wear black, instead of all the red/white/blue stuff everyone else will be wearing. Do all the stuff you were going to do, the picnics or barbecues or whatever just...wear black, the color of mourning.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:08 AM on June 24 [34 favorites]


So what's left? Is there any place I can sign up to make the spare room in my California apartment available for people who are visiting from out-of-state for abortion care? I feel like that is the only meaningful thing I have to give to this fight.

Obviously do anything that is still legal, but we should all be sitting down and having a think about our limits when those things aren't legal. What can be stockpiled and are you willing to go to jail for distributing it? If you are in a position to offer medical/legal/social services to someone illegally (ie, gender affirming care, birth control, etc) are you going to do that?

I would strongly suggest that we all try to make more friends/friendly acquaintances through political work now while it's legal. It's going to be a lot easier to plug into whatever resources are out there if you know more people, for one thing, and kinds of resistance that seem impossible when it's just you start to seem easier when it's a group.

Read up on security and security culture - when it becomes flat out illegal to [be gay, use birth control pills, etc] how will you know that your comrades aren't FBI moles? How will you make your social circles secure?

Another thing: write stuff down securely - phone numbers, addresses. As things darken, talk to your friends about fall-back meetup spots. Communicating over the internet is going to be less and less safe, communicating by text should be reserved for minimal talk about legal stuff, Signal, etc are not as secure as people think, phone calls are probably sorta safe because harder to surveille on a mass level if you don't just come out with "we're going to do a terrorism at 9pm on Friday", but ultimately people are going to have to figure out ways to communicate that are going to slow the cops down.

Think about what you're going to do if a friend needs something illegal. If you plan to mostly keep your head well down, what is going to happen when a friend needs an abortion or goes to jail? Are you going to hide a teenager who has run away because they got outed?

Honestly, a lot of people are going to go silent and that's just what it is. People should not have to choose between, eg, helping someone get birth control and staying out of prison; we're not built for that and people have children, health issues, etc to think of.

Brace yourself, because a lot of things we're not even thinking about are going to get worse. A lot of things we don't usually worry about (for instance, the border patrol has basically unlimited powers now and the vast majority of the US actually lives under border patrol sway) are going to be in play.
posted by Frowner at 9:09 AM on June 24 [57 favorites]


I don't know the details of agency oversight but it's there any possibility that the FDA could make mifepristone and misoprostol (and, hell, hormonal birth control while we're at it) OTC as a unilateral action not requiring Congressional approval? That seems like an executive action which could really help (not a panacea of course, because surgical abortion is still necessary and much harder to protect), but a way to claw back some options here.
posted by jackbishop at 9:09 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


I'll just leave this here for those who haven't seen it before...

Council for National Policy

"The CNP was founded in 1981 by a small group of archconservatives
who realized that the tides of history had turned against them. They
represented an American past dominated by white Protestant male property
owners. They dreamed of restoring a nineteenth-century patriarchy that
limited the civil rights of women, minorities, immigrants, and workers, with
no income tax to vex the rich or social safety net to aid the poor. Now they
faced a future in which minorities, women, gays, and atheists were gaining
in number, rights, and political influence. If the country abided by a clear-
cut democratic process, these constituencies, leaning Democratic, would
consolidate their power based on majority rule.

"So the CNP decided to change the rules. This task would require
developing a long-range strategy to target critical districts and activate
previously unengaged voting blocs. But, as author David Daley has pointed
out, the conservatives faced a deadline: once Democratic-leaning youth and
minorities reached a decisive majority—which could be as early as 2031—
there might be no turning back. "
-- Anne Nelson, The Shadow Network
posted by zaixfeep at 9:10 AM on June 24 [15 favorites]


Why are people so obsessed about this issue? Is it our dumbass religious heritage? I so don't get it.
In a lot of ways, yes. Abortion is the highly contestable tip of an iceberg of issues for authoritarian religious fundamentalists. Opposition to abortion is explained as a belief in fetal personhood but constructed as one component of a God-ordained moral framework governing human relationships. The concept of content, body autonomy, and more are functionally irrelevant to that moral framework, and the penumbra of related issues Thomas mentions in his opinion are there because the human choices they legalize are also violations of that God-ordained moral framework.
posted by verb at 9:11 AM on June 24 [16 favorites]


When does the doxxing campaign start if there's no right to privacy?
posted by WeekendJen at 9:14 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]


I follow this hyper-religious influencer who's probably cheering about abortion bans today... and on other days, she shills skincare made of stem cells and reassures her followers that it "contains no human DNA".
I don't know how we fix anything.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 9:16 AM on June 24 [11 favorites]


Virtual hugs to everyone who needs 'em. Abortion has made it possible for lots of women I know to have the adult lives they wanted. Everything about this decision, and the folks who made it, is fucked. We all know that. It's like the court just blew up the 21st century, at least in the US.

*
posted by Bella Donna at 9:16 AM on June 24 [19 favorites]


the tides of history had turned against them...conservatives faced a deadline: once Democratic-leaning youth and minorities reached a decisive majority

This liberal belief of an already-assured eternal victory in the Inevitable Demographic Future is absolutely poisonous and partially to blame for where we are now.
posted by star gentle uterus at 9:17 AM on June 24 [60 favorites]


From The Guardian: Although an estimated 85% of Americans support legal abortion under certain circumstances, extreme partisan manipulation of electoral districts, or gerrymandering, has insulated right-leaning Republican leaders from popular opinion. ... Internationally, the decision will make the US one of only four countries since 1994 to restrict abortion, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, the other countries being Poland, Nicaragua and El Salvador. This will further set America apart from peer countries as life expectancy falls.
posted by Bella Donna at 9:18 AM on June 24 [19 favorites]


First off, it would be ultra vires and have no legal effect, and second if Biden decided to try to enforce it with extralegal means, that doesn't do anything on the ground in states with trigger laws. Federal judges will still be bound by SCOTUS' decision, so they will permit state trigger laws to go into effect anyway.

Who cares? The wheels are coming off the bus. Time to crash it.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:19 AM on June 24 [11 favorites]


Why are people so obsessed about this issue? Is it our dumbass religious heritage?

Nope, it's racism. They think there aren't enough white children being born and seek to reverse decades of demographic change. Back in the 19th century, "immigrants outbreeding the sturdy colonial stock" was presented as a reason for abortion bans; religious justifications aside, this isn't any different.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:19 AM on June 24 [43 favorites]


I hope doctors & nurses will make a plan now for what they will do when people are bleeding to death in front of them.

I think one of the things neoliberalism's and conservativism's attacks on labour have done successfully is to put civil disobedience into the realm of things only bad people do. We are hopefully moving (again) towards an age where the morality of an action is prior to the legality of it, and doctors and nurses (and those who support them) will do the right thing, even if it means there will be consequences.

On the other hand, Canada welcomed draft dodgers during the Vietnam war, and we currently have a shortage of doctors, so...
posted by klanawa at 9:20 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


It's infuriating to me how many men I personally know whose lives are what they are today because one or several women they impregnated were able to get safe, legal abortions, thus freeing the men from a lifetime of financial and attentive obligation to a child they didn't want. Abortion is a men's issue too. Where are those men? Where are their voices??
posted by nouvelle-personne at 9:20 AM on June 24 [106 favorites]


One other thing: we need a law passed that prohibits any hospital or other healthcare organization from being run by, managed by, influenced by, or affiliated with any religion at all.

Take away the hospitals from the Catholics. Any religious owned hospital should be confiscated and turned into a non-profit worker owned cooperative corporation the hospitals. No compensation for the Church, just a hearty fuck you and government expropriation of their property.
posted by sotonohito at 9:21 AM on June 24 [37 favorites]


Also, a list of CNP members, quoted from The Shadow Network ('current' = 2019)

THE FUNDAMENTALISTS
*Paul Pressler III: Texas lawyer and later judge; helped launch the Southern Baptist Convention’s Conservative Resurgence.
*Paige Patterson: Southern Baptist pastor; helped launch the Conservative Resurgence. Later president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth.
*Tony Perkins: president, Family Research Council; president (as of 2016) of the Council for National Policy.
*Richard Land: president, Southern Evangelical Seminary; former president, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; co-author, Family Research Council iVoterGuide; member, President Donald Trump’s Evangelical Advisory Council.
*Tim LaHaye: California pastor; first president of the Council for National Policy; co-author of bestselling Left Behind series of novels about the Rapture.
*Beverly LaHaye: Tim’s wife; founder of Concerned Women for America.
*James Dobson: fundamentalist psychologist; founder of Focus on the Family and its media empire, as well as the Family Research Council.

THE POLITICAL OPERATIVES
*Edwin Meese III: counselor to President Ronald Reagan; U.S. attorney general (1985–1988); president, CNP, 1996.
*Paul Weyrich: conservative visionary, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, among others.
*Richard Viguerie: chairman, American Target Advertising; pioneer in the use of direct mail in political campaigns.
*Morton Blackwell: founder and president of the Leadership Institute, which trains candidates and activists in campaign technology.
*Paul Teller: former executive director of the House Republican Study Committee; special assistant to President Donald Trump for legislative affairs.
*Kellyanne Conway: pollster and political consultant; former secretary/treasurer of CNP; counselor to President Donald Trump.
*Ralph Reed: former director of the Christian Coalition; chairman of the Faith & Freedom Coalition; key figure in the United in Purpose initiative.
*Bill Dallas: director, United in Purpose coalition, created to register and engage evangelical voting blocs through data mining and canvassing.

THE MEDIA
*Stuart W. Epperson: co-founder and chairman, Salem Communications; former president, Council for National Policy (2012).
*Edward G. Atsinger: co-founder and CEO, Salem Communications.
*Richard P. Bott Sr.: founder and chairman, Bott Radio Network;
*Richard P. Bott II is president and CEO.
*Donald Wildmon: Mississippi minister who founded the American Family Association and American Family Radio;
*Tim Wildmon, current president of the AFA and Wildmon’s son
*Neil Patel: co-founder and publisher, the Daily Caller.
*Steve Bannon: former executive chairman of Breitbart News; former
senior counselor to President Donald Trump.
*Todd Starnes: Fox News Radio host and Fox News commentator.

THE MONEY
*Richard DeVos Sr.: co-founder, Amway; *Richard DeVos Jr.: former CEO, Amway.
*Edgar Prince: founder, Prince Corporation; *Elsa Prince Broekhuizen, chairman, EDP Management (widow).
*Erik Prince: son of Edgar and Elsa Prince; former Navy SEAL; founder and former CEO of Blackwater security company (now called Academi). [Betsy DeVos is Edgar's daughter, Erik's brother and Richard Jr.'s wife]
*Foster Friess: former manager of the Brandywine Fund; co-founder and president, Friess Family Foundation.
*Robert Mercer: former co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies, and daughter *Rebekah Mercer; investor in Cambridge Analytica.

HEADS OF ORGANIZATIONS
*Wayne LaPierre: CEO, National Rifle Association.
*Marjorie Dannenfelser: President, Susan B. Anthony List.
*Penny Nance: President and CEO, Concerned Women for America
*Jenny Beth Martin: founder and CEO, Tea Party Patriots.
*Kristan Hawkins: president, Students for Life of America.
*Lila Rose: founder and president, Live Action.
*Jay Sekulow: chief counsel, American Center for Law & Justice; key
attorney for Donald Trump.
*Leonard Leo: executive vice president, Federalist Society.
*Tim Phillips: president, Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch Brothers.

Wow, look at all these names that keep popping up in the media (with no inconvenient disclosure of this agenda).

These people appear to support not just reversal of abortion, contraception and non tradhet relationships. They seem to want to literally sociopolitically roll America back to the 18th century. No joke, no exaggeration.
posted by zaixfeep at 9:21 AM on June 24 [38 favorites]


I follow this hyper-religious influencer who's probably cheering about abortion bans today...and on other days, she shills skincare made of stem cells and reassures her followers that it "contains no human DNA".

Hmm.

What state is she in? If she's from one of the states with trigger laws, I say that THE SECOND they go into effect, REPORT HER ASS. Let THEM put her through the legal hoops she would need to go through to prove that "it contains no human DNA". At the very least she's lost a whole shitload of time and money clearing her name, at most she finds that the stem cells DO contain human DNA and she's thrown into jail for doing the very thing she campaigned against.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:22 AM on June 24 [39 favorites]


This vote isn’t just important for Kansas. It’ll have major ramifications for the region. Missouri will ban all abortions. But if choice stays legal in Kansas, then the Kansas City metro will still have clinics available. Plus, it’s not a bad drive from Oklahoma City to Wichita, or from Omaha to KC.

Polls show a majority of Kansans want abortion to remain legal. There’s a good chance we’ll win this one. Enough of a chance that I’m allowing myself to hope.

Kansans for Constitutional Freedom is the main group organizing the “Vote NO” fight in Kansas. They’re a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, and other groups. If you have a few bucks to spare, please consider them.


I want to second this. This is a major opportunity to do something positive for reproductive rights in the near term.
posted by jedicus at 9:22 AM on June 24 [18 favorites]


Here's a tangible action that you can make today that will help folks seeking abortion in Appalachia. Bristol Regional Women's Center in Bristol TN is less than half a mile away from the Virginia border. Tennessee will be outlawing abortion, while abortion will remain accessible in Virginia. The clinic has secured a new space and is in the process of moving across the border, but they need some financial help. You can donate here to help with the move.

Another clinic, Red River Women's Clinic in Fargo ND is moving to Moorhead MN, and they are also raising funds for their move.
posted by kimdog at 9:25 AM on June 24 [71 favorites]


Once this is firmly in place and more desperately poor women are without resources and pregnant, I just bet the Catholic Church will be chomping at the bit to restart all those "Mother's Hospitals". Restarting such agony for young women and forcefully adopted children in the past. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if the Southern Baptists decided to get a piece of that pie.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 9:28 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


I wish I had so many people's confidence that the SCOTUS that overturned 50 year old precedent wouldn't simply strike down a federal law protecting abortion rights as unconstitutional immediately.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 9:29 AM on June 24 [21 favorites]


A high school friend works in human resources, doing recruiting. He mostly works with tech firms doing remote work, so he's based in one place but handling recruiting all around the country, and similarly handling candidates from all around the country.

He says that around lunchtime today, he had an interview with a middle-aged dude, about a position with a San Francisco tech firm. The candidate asked him about the "culture" of the company. My friend doesn't really like that question, so he just said that well...it's a San Francisco-based firm trying to increase access to medical testing and make it more affordable, and there are probably things you could deduce from that. The candidate withdrew from the application, saying "I was excited this morning because we just got this amazing news, but now I have to walk away from what seems like a cool job because I just can’t work with any Biden lovers.”

So y'know, that's what the other half is thinking.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:30 AM on June 24 [45 favorites]


.
posted by sciencegeek at 9:31 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


I just bet the Catholic Church will be chomping at the bit to restart all those "Mother's Hospitals"

My mother suffered through pregnancy in one of those hell holes. The nuns then put the baby to her skin to form the emotional bond and then yanked it away to give to some good Catholic family. She's been justifiably damaged and abusive my entire life, and this was the root of it.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 9:32 AM on June 24 [28 favorites]


Once this is firmly in place and more desperately poor women are without resources and pregnant, I just bet the Catholic Church will be chomping at the bit to restart all those "Mother's Hospitals". Restarting such agony for young women and forcefully adopted children in the past. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if the Southern Baptists decided to get a piece of that pie.

Just like they're gunning to take the children of trans and queer people, just like they "adopt" semi-stolen children from poor families all over the world. Evangelicals are child-thieves and they abuse the children they steal. Their big dream is to be able to steal tens of thousands of children and bring them up as inferior to their bio kids while beating them. Remember how as soon as things went bad in Ukraine there were several scandals where fundies got caught with busloads of kids they were trying to smuggle out? Child theft is a huge motivator for them.
posted by Frowner at 9:32 AM on June 24 [60 favorites]


"I was excited this morning because we just got this amazing news, but now I have to walk away from what seems like a cool job because I just can’t work with any Biden lovers.”

Good, fuck that guy. We don't want to work with him. I'm glad he doesn't get to work at a progressive firm.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 9:33 AM on June 24 [44 favorites]


Why are people so obsessed about this issue? Is it our dumbass religious heritage? I so don't get it.

This story has been told many times, but it's worth telling again: when Roe v Wade passed in 1973, evangelical protestants mostly did not care. Conservative Catholics cared, but evangelical protestants mostly didn't. Jerry Falwell didn't preach against abortion until YEARS after Roe v Wade. It was not until 1979 that evangelical protestants used abortion as a rallying cry against electing Jimmy Carter for a second term.

What happened? The IRS ruled against tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University and other private religious schools that enforced racial segregation. Many conservative evangelicals were outraged. But by the late 70s, it was getting to be a really bad look to say that you wanted tax-exempt status for the segregation academy you sent your kids to. So you started getting a groundswell of activism from conservative evangelicals about how evil the Democrats were, not because of the IRS ruling against segregation academies, but because of abortion. Because that messaging goes over better with people who are starting to become uncomfortable with overt white supremacy.

And I think there are a lot of conservative evangelical protestants who genuinely aren't aware of this, at least at an explicit level. But they're uncomfortable with progressive social change, and they're uncomfortable with women being financially independent, and they're quite comfortable with covert white supremacy as long as it doesn't become too overt, and... they really believe that it is about the murder of unborn babies, but also, it is useful for them to believe that, in ways they do not acknowledge.
posted by Jeanne at 9:34 AM on June 24 [165 favorites]


The tyranny of 6 unelected extremists appointed by a minority of voters funded by a handful of warped oligarchs

what a piece of luck that the US has the second amendment for protection against this kind of thing
posted by flabdablet at 9:35 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


President Biden is going to speak on this.
Link.
posted by doctornemo at 9:36 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Thomas will never be removed from the SC. Our elected officials with few exceptions do not have the will or courage to do something like this, or to reform the SC in any way.

And the comment upthread about his separate opinion is indeed a dog whistle.

Clarence Thomas hates women.

The SC is an illegitimate unelected branch of the legislature.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:38 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


This is so unbelievably bleak... At the risk of sounding obvious, there are no safe states - they are temporarily safe states until the minority obtains power again in '24 and makes abortion illegal nationwide - cause you know when DeSantis loses by 10 million votes but the court installs him the insurrections arguments about state legislatures being the actual deciders that is so fucking happening (Jan 6th committee laid it all out for us) - and then nationwide bans on gay rights, trans medical care, contraception (can't wait to see what happens till the fascists daughters can't get IVF cause of the precious embryos) maybe throw in a little reversal for Plessy v Ferguson.

There are no states rights for this nightmare court - anyone who thinks otherwise isn't reading yesterday's 'guns are people too' ruling.

Massive demonstrations are a good start - but what happens when the gun fetishists show up and start shooting

Seconding Frowners list of things to do.
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:39 AM on June 24 [16 favorites]


President Biden is going to speak on this.
Link.
posted by doctornemo at 9:36 AM


Biden was chair of the judiciary committee that confirmed Clarence Thomas.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:40 AM on June 24 [26 favorites]


Abortion is a men's issue too. Where are those men? Where are their voices??

I'm borrowing this as a jumping off point to post a general reminder that this is an issue for trans men and AFAB non-binary people, not just women. Trans masculine people are disproportionately harmed by reducing access to sexual and reproductive health as it is and framing abortion as an issue that only impacts women adds to this divide. Where possible, please try to reflect this in the language you use to talk about and fight these injustices. Saying "people who need abortions" instead of "women who need abortions" is a good first step.
posted by fight or flight at 9:41 AM on June 24 [36 favorites]


EmpressCallipygos It goes the other way too.

My current employer is Catholic. I've been vaguely looking for a better job for while. Today I'm wondering if I should just quit while I look for a job not owned by a villain.
posted by sotonohito at 9:42 AM on June 24 [12 favorites]


I'm too hollow to make a snerson-robert evans joke today. But, I will still make some content recommendations.

Behind the Bastards: George Tann, the person who kicked off adoption as a trend and industry in the United States; another good one is the Magdalene Laundries of Ireland, which. .

Season 2 of This Land: How a string of custody battles over Native children became a federal lawsuit that threatens everything from tribal sovereignty to civil rights. They discuss the adoption industry. You know, about the "domestic supply of infants." It's not just white babies, though white babies are, of course, best. It's about Evangelicals exercising their right to charity by destroying everyone else's lives.

The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade : self explanatory. We're entering another baby scoop era.

I am saying this not to preclude any other actions anyone may take towards opposing this evil, but to make myself available for those who are considering it: I am AFAB and got my tubes removed a few years ago. If you have questions about the procedure or the aftermath, you are welcome to memail me. There are also several subreddits devoted to becoming sterilized I can recommend for general discussion.
posted by snerson at 9:43 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


Biden just shifted from reading to speaking from heart. Somber.

Probably still reading but, he made some kind of shift during that pause.
posted by filtergik at 9:44 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


GOD DAMMIT BIDEN.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:44 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]


WatTylerJr If any Republican with a gun shows up and starts shooting then we "fear for our lives" and "stand our ground" and "defend ourselves".

Contact your local branch of the Socialist Rifle Association for details. It's time they learned we can shoot back.
posted by sotonohito at 9:44 AM on June 24 [25 favorites]


FFS: Is Biden really just saying "The only way to fix this is to vote". And also, "You'll need to travel for your abortion. Hope that's not too hard for you, lol".
posted by sharp pointy objects at 9:45 AM on June 24 [18 favorites]


Biden's fall back position - women can travel to get an abortion out of state. Thanks.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:45 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


Biden: started out okay then went into the “go out and vote” bullshit.

No help is coming. Nothing will be done. We live in hell.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:45 AM on June 24 [37 favorites]


Danny DeVito @DannyDeVito
Supreme Court my ass
posted by Bella Donna at 9:46 AM on June 24 [28 favorites]


If there was ever a time to announce he was going to attempt to pack the court, this was the time. He ain't doing it. He doesn't have the juice.
posted by rhymedirective at 9:46 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


Slight sidebar/derail response to Biden's comments. I am so tired of Democrats saying that what we can do is vote. Historic turnout for Biden, historic turnout for Obama and this is where we are.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:46 AM on June 24 [51 favorites]


Ugh. Voting doesn't help here.
posted by filtergik at 9:47 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


Roe is no longer on the ballot dang it, whatever comes next is on the ballot. Roe doesn’t come back, something else does.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:47 AM on June 24 [6 favorites]


Oh, hang on, he's calling out Thomas for wanting to re-examine Griswold and Obergefell.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:48 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


Yes, good, call Thomas a bastard.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:48 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


SCOTUS is going to keep going down this route. SCOTUS is able to do this via the (long accepted) power grab that was Marbury v Madison.

If you want to go on the attack now against a corrupt legal system directly, it's Marbury v Madison (which was a "nothing in the rules says the dog can't play basketball" decision locking us into a strict constitution as opposed to a guideposts constitution).

Its a great time to question it, Major Questions Doctrine (the conservatives lovely "but the rules have to say the dog can play basketball" philosophical club of the moment) inadvertently opens the door. They own one federal branch, will keep dems at a draw in the other at worst, and sometimes flip the last. This is going to have to work state by state now, which only happens for lefty ideas when Marbury isn't acknowledged.

The republican controlled states cannot be recovered now. SCOTUS gives them election and election map rulings they need and largely turns a blind eye.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:49 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


NOPE, FUCK PEACEFUL PROTESTS. We are beyond that now. Beyond speech. Beyond civility. Tear it down.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 9:49 AM on June 24 [19 favorites]


It is over. Sorry, Joe.
posted by all about eevee at 9:50 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]


Biden: "With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is. ... It must not be the final word."
posted by Bella Donna at 9:50 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]


Also, Roberts' concurrence—and the five pages the majority spends lambasting it—shows he has completely lost whatever grip he might have had on the rest of the conservative majority. The 5 extremists know they can do whatever they want, and they will.

I think this is really worth highlighting as it's probably the scariest thing yet. It is important to remember that Roberts, problematic as he often is, was a compromise. Alito was bad, sure, and we all knew that back when we were protesting his confirmation, but he also was tamped down during those years.

But then Trump got 3 nominees and had no desire to follow rules or norms and nominated the most batshit people who were the least bound by the rule of law. And they aren't even bound by their own rules and norms. They are fully off the deep end into the wildest shit they can possibly do. The table is overturned.

Is there any potential avenue for replacing the absolute fucking off-the-rails justices? Can the Senate do this?
posted by corb at 9:50 AM on June 24 [16 favorites]


Susan Collins, bless her heart:
Senator Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who was a key supporter of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in his 2018 confirmation, says in a new statement that Kavanaugh and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch misrepresented their views on Roe in private meetings with her. “This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon,” she said. Ms. Collins said that “throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a century is not conservative. It is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to political chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government.”
tl;dr I am shocked that the face-eating leopard ate my face after telling me he was not going eat my face
posted by snortasprocket at 9:51 AM on June 24 [112 favorites]


Susan Collins is living in another century in another congress.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:52 AM on June 24 [14 favorites]


Watching that speech was the moment I knew that we're in deep trouble. I knew what he was going to say, but I didn't want to, couldn't, believe it, until it happened. Blaming people for not voting and then warning them not to get violent.

Jesus fucking Christ. The entire Democratic Party leadership should immediately resign. What good are they?
posted by rhymedirective at 9:52 AM on June 24 [49 favorites]


It's cool everyone, Biden says a woman has the right to travel (out of state to get a chance at a safe abortion denied her by her home state). Soon he'll be protecting a woman's right to move (to a different state so she can stay married to her wife). Or a woman's right to leave (the country so she can access the gender reassignment surgery she needs). Or maybe even a woman's right to a lawyer when she's arrested and found in possession of contraceptive devices even though she's not married.
posted by fight or flight at 9:52 AM on June 24 [48 favorites]


Why do the bad 'guys' (cause we know who the bad people are) always get to pound on the good people? Seems like the fight needs to go the other way. The bad guys live for making others suffer. Seems like they should get it right back at them. They want to fight, so lets fight, its not like they're going to wake up and leave us alone - they won't give up till they get their death squads and 'camps'.

Sclerotic national Dem leadership need to step aside - no one needs Schumer or Pelosi's useless pontificating on this. If any of us failed at our jobs as much as these people do without fail, we'd long ago have been fired. AOC, Klobuchar and Katie Porter should be leading the national party.
posted by WatTylerJr at 9:53 AM on June 24 [10 favorites]


I turned off Biden's speech when he started going on about how "protests have to be peaceful!" in addition to his "vote in November!" crap.

As though what's being done to us has ever been peaceful. As though voting has helped, when the democrats are more invested in reaching across the aisle to the "very fine people" on the other side.
posted by bile and syntax at 9:53 AM on June 24 [18 favorites]


As long as partisan redistricting is a thing, and it is, we are fucked. We have been for awhile, and it is getting worse. I don't know how we vote ourselves out of this. Of course I will still vote blue but that is not enough. It will never be enough.
posted by Bella Donna at 9:54 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


Susan Collins in living in another century in another congress

Better for everybody if she actually were.
posted by flabdablet at 9:55 AM on June 24 [12 favorites]


I live in a state where abortion is still legal. My daughter is ace. We just decided as a family to order the pills online as contingency plan for her future. She’s also on a BC patch for heavy periods and is freaking out about the possibility of losing that, too. I kept randomly crying all morning. Now I feel numb.
posted by Ruki at 9:56 AM on June 24 [25 favorites]


WE FUCKING VOTE, Joe. It's not because people don't vote, it's because Republicans are fascists who've gerrymandered the shit out of Congressional districts, and it's because our antiquated system designed to hand power to slavers means 18% of the population control a majority in the Senate. This is how a president who lost the popular vote nominated three supreme court justices who were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the population. What we have now is a full-blown legitimacy crisis, and it's kind of shocking that more people don't see it.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:56 AM on June 24 [151 favorites]


I'm not going to call him out for repeating the "Vote" message, because House and Senate control are basically hanging on turnout. (Yes, the Democrats haven't delivered in the past. But a) Democrats didn't have a true Senate majority and b) you really don't want to see Republicans majorities, especially veto-proof majorities.)

That said.. they've seen this coming for weeks. They could have had a plan in place and today announced specific executive actions to help women. (All I heard was a vague reference that he'd direct HHS to assist, somehow, and that he'd have more to announce in weeks to come.)

One bonus point for calling out Thomas on his dog-whistle opinion, but nowhere near enough. Really disappointing.
posted by martin q blank at 9:57 AM on June 24 [16 favorites]


Oh Ruki, I can't even. I am so sorry.
posted by Bella Donna at 9:57 AM on June 24 [7 favorites]


If there was ever a time to announce he was going to attempt to pack the court, this was the time. He ain't doing it. He doesn't have the juice votes.

The size of the Supreme Court is set by law -- outdated law, yes, from back when there were only nine circuits. To increase the size of the Court, you'd need either ten Republicans to vote against their own SCOTUS majority or Sinema and Manchin to ashcan the filibuster.

Even if Biden just sent ten card-carrying Communists as nominees regardless of the law, would Manchin or Sinema vote to confirm them? Would Roberts seat them, and what could Biden do if -- no, when -- Roberts refused?

We have a stupid counter-majoritarian system in place that heavily favors Republicans, and Republicans are voting for state laws that require Democrats to have a supermajority of votes just to get elected (likewise, thanks to the Electoral College, historical turnouts can lead to bare EC victories). It sucks, but Democrats can't just wish that system away. It takes votes to overcome -- votes that Manchin and Sinema, to name two, won't provide.

It isn't satisfying, but Biden is right -- the thing the Republicans are afraid of is that there are more of us than there are of them, and the way out of this mess is to turn out and vote. That's how we take power, and that's what Republicans have been working against for decades.
posted by Gelatin at 10:00 AM on June 24 [30 favorites]


I'm not going to call him out for repeating the "Vote" message, because House and Senate control are basically hanging on turnout. (Yes, the Democrats haven't delivered in the past. But a) Democrats didn't have a true Senate majority and b) you really don't want to see Republicans majorities, especially veto-proof majorities.)

It's just that that's what we hear when we hear from Democratic politicians. It's as if putting these people in office has little impact. Yeah, I vote, I will continue to vote but when politicians tell me that's all that can be done, my head feels like it's going to explode. And it is in such contrast to the seeming takeover of my country by Republican fascists.
posted by bluesky43 at 10:00 AM on June 24 [6 favorites]


I mean, yeah we all better at least fucking vote, because if those monsters get a landslide in November from us not showing up it'll get even worse. But we need to do a lot more than just vote, start with all the great action lists people have posted above.

Personally I'm on an even more extreme team, but won't advocate for it here (for respect of the mods if nothing else).
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 10:00 AM on June 24 [26 favorites]


As far as I can see, all that stands in the way of congress passing abortion legislation (and the necessary eliminaton of the filabuster) is Manchin. Well, technically...

Also probably the actual will to do it, and the cold calculus that it's worth inflicting this on the poor who won't be able to travel to get an abortion, in order to rile up the base.
posted by joeyh at 10:01 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


I'm so angry and disappointed. I keep starting sentences then not finishing them. It's already hard enough to raise kids in this country. Now, just... fuck!

.
posted by lock robster at 10:01 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


The majority in this country is being oppressed by a loud minority. The tone I’m hearing from a lot of people I know is that they are done being nice.
posted by azpenguin at 10:03 AM on June 24 [12 favorites]


Is there any potential avenue for replacing the absolute fucking off-the-rails justices? Can the Senate do this?

Absolutely. It just takes a two-thirds majority of the Senate to do so.

That'd be same Senate whose Republicans wouldn't remove Trump for conducting a coup against it.
posted by Gelatin at 10:04 AM on June 24 [18 favorites]


The whole “the Supreme Court is taking away a right” framing is a nice reminder that, for all the language about rights being “God-given”, the practical reality is that rights flow from the state and from the community. We create our rights, we give them to each other.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:04 AM on June 24 [40 favorites]


Here's a slogan for you:

"No Donation Until Legislation".

The Democrats want our money.

We want Roe reinstated.

It's a simple exchange: they vote to reinstate Roe and ONLY THEN do they get one single penny in donations.
posted by sotonohito at 10:05 AM on June 24 [19 favorites]


I knew it was coming. Still devastated. I was in high school when girls went to New York state for abortions, vanished for 5 - 6 months, had a baby at 16, or sought a scary alternative, because they had no other option. Roe enabled so much freedom for women. Ending that freedom is the goal. They really, really hate women and want to control us.

.
posted by theora55 at 10:08 AM on June 24 [30 favorites]


This is the most unimaginative administration we have ever had.
posted by all about eevee at 10:10 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


Not SCOTUS, SCOURGE-US.
posted by filtergik at 10:12 AM on June 24


What Actually Happens When a Country Bans Abortion: Romania under Ceausescu created a dystopian horror of overcrowded, filthy orphanages, and thousands died from back-alley abortions.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:12 AM on June 24 [37 favorites]


Lots of believers in Green Lantern theory, I see. Is it really that hard to grasp that it's the legislative branch that enacts laws and that, yeah, voters put these people into office?
posted by SPrintF at 10:13 AM on June 24 [23 favorites]


I’m sending anyone a hug who needs/wants it. But like, a rage-filled solidarity hug. I have this fantasy where all the GOP and SC mistresses/daughters/rape victims who have had abortions and the doctors who provided those abortions will break their NDA’s and reveal these shitheads for the hypocritical, non G-d fearing pieces of trash that they are. And then their shitty wives leave them and take all the alimony money and use it to fund a vast network of underground safe reproductive health centers. It’s full Lysistrata time AFAIC.
posted by sleepingwithcats at 10:13 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


It's a simple exchange: they vote to reinstate Roe and ONLY THEN do they get one single penny in donations.

Serious question: Does it count if every Democrat except Sinema and Manchin vote for the legislation, but it fails?

Does it count if Sinema and Manchin do vote for the legislation and this lawless SCOTUS strikes it down?

Speaking of lawless, one thing I wish would get more attention is that the Republicans are doing what they long accused Democrats of doing (big surprise, there) -- starting with the result they want and then working backwards. That's why you can have SCOTUS say states can't regulate guns one day and the next say the Federal government can't protect the right to abortion.

They don't care if it's inconsistent -- the hypocrisy is a demonstration of power, and that's the point. But I doubt the American people will long tolerate minority rule.
posted by Gelatin at 10:14 AM on June 24 [24 favorites]


This is on Biden and the Dems - everyone saw this coming miles away. Biden should have packed the court LAST YEAR. He had the momentum even if the 49th and 50th senators were iffy. Even if they failed it would at least show they had the courage to do something other than roll over and show their bellies like they've done for the past 4-30 years. The court signaled that they're going after gay marriage, contraception, privacy, and they're going to say that embryos are "persons" thus making abortion illegal everywhere including my blue state of Massachusetts.

I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Warren but JFC - the Dems show up to a gun fight with a binder full of talking points and then wonder how we ended up here. And I've heard that the demographics are going to favor democrats for THIRTY F*ING YEARS and it hasn't played out that way.

I'd argue that Drumpf's 3 SC court picks all lied under oath and should be removed, but the Dems won't do it because they're spineless. Just like nothing will be done with the 1/6 commission - great video, no arrests, not even any charges.

It's just going to get worse - the 2024 presidential election will be a disaster and I'm not sure how we recover from that. How many times have we said "surely this"?

What are the dems going to do when SCOTUS says the EPA can't legislate climate change on Monday? Oh, right, nothing.
posted by Farce_First at 10:15 AM on June 24 [25 favorites]


Legislation when the country is designed for minority rule and further law enforce this is not something anyone is seriously considering, right?
posted by Slackermagee at 10:15 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


I know that's not how it's pronounced, but every time I see Lysistrata written out, my brain insists on pronouncing it Listeria in my head.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:15 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]


The tone I’m hearing from a lot of people I know is that they are done being nice.

I just texted a dude I know who's low-level outdoorsy (although he's more a fisherman than a huntsman) and asked how I could get a gun.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:15 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


.
posted by Flight Hardware, do not touch at 10:16 AM on June 24


Roberts is right about one thing -- SCOTUS is fast losing its legitimacy, and if there's one bright spot it's that there's nothing he can do about it.
posted by Gelatin at 10:16 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]


Biden should have packed the court LAST YEAR.

How?
posted by Gelatin at 10:17 AM on June 24 [20 favorites]


Is it really that hard to grasp that it's the legislative branch that enacts laws and that, yeah, voters put these people into office?

Is it really that hard for YOU to grasp that the people who PUT those people into office might be just a TINY bit angry that the people we've put into office aren't doing the things we've sent them there to do?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:17 AM on June 24 [30 favorites]


I have said this in other threads but I will say it again:

I do not expect the United States in its current form as a democratic republic to outlive me. If that sounds pessimistic for a young person, bear in mind: I am not young. I am pushing fifty.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:18 AM on June 24 [67 favorites]


I don't see how, after all the J6 hearings, anyone at all could ever have faith in "vote! turnout!"

I mean, aside from the gerrymandering that's been going on at various levels for decades, the fact that the fascists have plans! in writing! to burn our precious votes in a pile is now crystal clear. Played out on TV in broad daylight. For God's sake, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.

Voting is so 20th century. Voting is dead. Long live democracy, that's not where we are anymore.
posted by Dashy at 10:18 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


It's ok. Nancy Pelosi read a poem.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 10:19 AM on June 24 [6 favorites]


.

I'm so sorry. I hope this will be the beginning of a reckoning, and I fear it is another step towards the fascist ethno-state.

Since I'm not American, I don't know what the answer is, but I feel that impeaching and removing the last three judges for lying under oath is the simplest and also most effective solution. This is about reinstating the rule of law after four years of lawlessness. It could potentially be the first step in a big unraveling. What about all the other Trump-appointed judges? And when they are out, what about all the state laws that may be unconstitutional?
posted by mumimor at 10:20 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


REDEFINE GESTATIONAL AGE. Those of you with doctors in the family, it's time to act. The legal restrictions are based on the medical definition of conception - 10 weeks, 16 weeks, whatever.

The current definition counts fetal age starts with the Last Period as Day 1. That is outdated and wrong. Absolutely nothing existed at that moment in time. But that's how the laws are written.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology needs to push back by redefining the timeline of pregnancy. Yes, they'll have to change their textbooks. Yes they'll have to change their protocols. But it's totally doable, like changing to the Julian calendar. And it will totally mess up and confuse the laws, as it should.
posted by dum spiro spero at 10:21 AM on June 24 [36 favorites]


I'd argue that Drumpf's 3 SC court picks all lied under oath and should be removed, but the Dems won't do it because they're spineless.

Every Senate Democrat, including Manchin and Sinema, could vote today to oust every Republican on the Court including John Roberts, and without 16 Republican Senators joining them it wouldn't matter a bit.
posted by Gelatin at 10:21 AM on June 24 [18 favorites]


Is it really that hard to grasp that it's the legislative branch that enacts laws and that, yeah, voters put these people into office

Well, this is a smug and useless comment. Democrats won five million more votes overall in House races in 2020 and LOST 13 seats thanks to gerrymandering. And the Senate? Again, 18% of the population controls a majority in the Senate. No way to "just vote" our way out of that.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:22 AM on June 24 [39 favorites]


I hope that everyone who could have voted for Clinton

Come on, man


Where's the lie? This wouldn't be happening if Clinton had been elected in 2016 so the blame goes to every single person who was of age to vote and didn't vote for her. I for one will go to my grave without forgiving a single person.
posted by octothorpe at 10:22 AM on June 24 [80 favorites]


have this fantasy where all the GOP and SC mistresses/daughters/rape victims who have had abortions and the doctors who provided those abortions will break their NDA’s and reveal these shitheads for the hypocritical, non G-d fearing pieces of trash that they are.

At least you recognize this as a fantasy.

Snark aside, I don’t think it does much good to underestimate just how many fanatically sincere forced birth crusaders (many of them women themselves) there are out there.
posted by non canadian guy at 10:23 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]


The legal restrictions are based on the medical definition of conception - 10 weeks, 16 weeks, whatever.

Conservatives have no trouble ignoring science on this and every other issue. They will happily ignore doctors and medical associations changing the definition of gestational age and substitute their own definition.

Also, as a legal matter, the legal restrictions are based on the definition of conception in the statute or at the time the statute was enacted. Changing the content of a textbook won't affect the law.
posted by jedicus at 10:23 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


For clarity's sake, make sure you take a Pascal's wager approach to voting.

You might not have faith in it, VOTE anyhow.
posted by filtergik at 10:24 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


Is it really that hard to grasp that it's the legislative branch that enacts laws and that, yeah, voters put these people into office?

Biden and democrats have had weeks to prepare for this moment and seemingly all they have done in that time is swiftly sign a bi-partisan bill into law providing extra security protection for Supreme Court Justices so that these soft little christofascist fucks don't have to worry as much about their lives being disrupted when they make their inevitable shitty unpopular decisions. This was put on the floor a couple days after the leaked draft statement, had 191 Dem votes in the house, and was handedly signed by the president a couple days later. God fucking forbid a SCOTUS justice must consider their own personal safety when making the explicit decision to threaten the safety of millions. Wow thank you so much president Biden, thank you so much democrats for at least protecting some people.

If we can't demand that Biden and congressional democrats FUCKING DO something, can we at least demand they FUCKING STOP doing objectively shitty things?
posted by windbox at 10:24 AM on June 24 [51 favorites]


Lots of believers in Green Lantern theory, I see. Is it really that hard to grasp that it's the legislative branch that enacts laws and that, yeah, voters put these people into office?

Refusing to continue to give the dems money and time when they absolutely fail to have a plan in place or to prioritize civil rights over bipartisanship is not a belief in Green Lantern theory. It's an acknowledgement that the dems' plan for us to just vote harder and continue giving them money while they do nothing to stem the rise of christian fascism is not viable and they need to step up now. Half of them won't even say "abortion".
posted by bile and syntax at 10:26 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


I don't see how, after all the J6 hearings, anyone at all could ever have faith in "vote! turnout!"

Someone told me once that we never really finished the Civil War, and today it feels more like it than ever. It's not just voting. We say voting as an answer, but voting doesn't actually solve the issue of more than a third of the country being actively opposed to good things and willing to organize to defeat them.
posted by corb at 10:26 AM on June 24 [22 favorites]


It's ok. Nancy Pelosi read a poem.

God Bless America.
posted by non canadian guy at 10:27 AM on June 24


I think about women dying from ectopic and non-viable pregnancies, and I think about the fact that the Republicans know and they don't care. It simply is not a matter of informing and educating.

When you look into the eyes of a Republican, remember that they might be gracious and welcoming, they might raise funds for charity and do good works, they might be solid upstanding citizens in every way, but deep inside, they are thinking: "women dying from medically treatable conditions -- yes, I know, but it is an acceptable sacrifice, the price they pay for my dearly-held beliefs. It's all for the best."
posted by dum spiro spero at 10:27 AM on June 24 [50 favorites]


This outcome may have been likely when the Republicans on the Supreme Court picked George W. Bush to nominate more justices in 2000, but it became inevitable when Trump won in 2016. Not to assign blame, but facts are facts; Trump got to replace two, then three Supreme Court justices, including the one the Republican Senate stole from Obama. And the Republican Court of course then gave its blessing to Republican gerrymandering.

The Democrats have to be as organized as the Republicans in taking power, and then use it to the benefit of the majority they represent. No, I don't know how that happens, either.
posted by Gelatin at 10:28 AM on June 24 [31 favorites]


In addition to my new hobby horse that is Marbury, people being elected to state office should be asked (or be thinking) about how they would guide their state in a situation akin to the break up of Yugoslavia.

And if that doesn't happen, what blocs form in an ostensibly united country.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:29 AM on June 24 [10 favorites]


Is it our dumbass religious heritage?

Non-conservative voters are usually outflanked by religious voters, because it is never apparent who the religious candidates are because they play a hidden game to win control of the government as their divine promise. They use a simple strategy of promoting emotionalism during elections, where no neutrality or objectivity dwells. Two real problems facing America is the widespread belief that religious identity makes people better, when it only makes them more qualified for a private exclusive heaven; and the fact that irrational beliefs will cause people to lie and cheat to secure those beliefs, never to play nice, fair, or even within reason. I note that an ultra-religious bureaucrat named James Comey sank Hillary Clinton at the last moment with a memo of investigation to Congress, against all advice from legal counsel at the FBI. What people might want to think about is how to stay unified during general elections because at that stage it is a game to lose, beware of those who are fine with losing to make a point.
posted by Brian B. at 10:29 AM on June 24 [16 favorites]


When you look into the eyes of a Republican, remember that they might be gracious and welcoming, they might raise funds for charity and do good works, they might be solid upstanding citizens in every way, but deep inside, they are thinking: "women dying from medically treatable conditions -- yes, I know, but it is an acceptable sacrifice, the price they pay for our beliefs."

Hey, come on! That isn't fair at all.

They are also willing to tolerate schoolkids slaughtered in mass shootings.
posted by Gelatin at 10:30 AM on June 24 [53 favorites]


Biden should have packed the court LAST YEAR.

How?


I DON'T CARE HOW.

Do you think the fascists Republicans care about the nuances? Pull some senators into a room and cut off their Federal funding. Put their states on a list where SSN money won't get mailed. Hell promise them money for some boondoggle project.

I get it, it's hard and we should all play by the rules but THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE.

How much worse do things have to get? Unfortunately we're going to find out.
posted by Farce_First at 10:30 AM on June 24 [29 favorites]


DO NOT GET MAD! GET EVEN! Do not be complacent. Many people have been for too long. Do not think your vote does not count. I have watched as huge swathes of eligible voters have simply not voted, not lobbied etc. Meanwhile rights and freedoms are continuing to be eroded and have been for several decades. Remember Martin Niemöller?



First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

VOTE! Get involved.
posted by IndelibleUnderpants at 10:32 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]


we never really finished the Civil War

Nope, we absolutely should've fucking executed Confederate traitors and enforced civil rights instead of prioritising comity among white people. The Democratic Party's present failures are partly due to similar reasons: being thirsty for those suburban swing voters and having a party self-perception that skews much more white than reality (because that's who most of the big-money donors are) is part of why we're here, too (Pelosi and Clyburn just spent a lot of time supporting anti-choicer Henry Cuellar, because fuck you, I guess).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:32 AM on June 24 [39 favorites]


"Nonviolence is fine as long as it works."

-- Malcolm X
posted by swift at 10:33 AM on June 24 [65 favorites]


Gelatin No money until legislation is passed.

They clearly aren't motivated enough by the fact that the Republicans are gutting our rights and killing pregnant people.

But they care a lot about money. Every single fucking communication I get from a Democrat is nothing but "gimmie gimmie gimmie".

OK, so we know what they care about.

No donation until legislation.

And that means "legislation passed".

You say that sounds like it'd be hard for the Democrats to do? OK. I don't care. They're supposedly the super genius political 11 dimensional chess players who know everything and I'm just a lowley peon good for nothing but votes and extracting donations.

They can fucking work for their donations from now on.

They reinstate Roe and then and ONLY then will I consider donating anything at all from my time to my money to any Democrat.

I pay for restults, not excuses.
posted by sotonohito at 10:34 AM on June 24 [15 favorites]


Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. Pay attention.

But we could have done better in some states (and thus, carried the electoral college) that were lost that year because people in those specific states didn't show up to vote.
posted by all about eevee at 10:34 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


My point exactly. We're not a democracy and it's a rigged system.
posted by bluesky43 at 10:35 AM on June 24 [11 favorites]


What's the over/under on AskMes per day that will now be about moving away from their state/region/the US?

I'm so sorry, everybody.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:36 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


re: EmpressCallipygos, sotonohito, WatTylerJr and others -- I'm on the west coast of FL and am willing to help if any MeFites are interested in purchasing or training with a gun, but want a friend and ally when they do it. I'm currently looking for facilities/ranges that would be appropriate.

If that's not useful, I'm also going to spend the afternoon putting a handful of links in my profile for friendly and like-minded firearms clubs and companies and mutual defense organizations. If you don't see anything of substance in there yet, check back by the end of the day.

Solidarity, friends.
posted by penduluum at 10:37 AM on June 24 [24 favorites]


The Republicans are better game players than we are. They know how to organize around a cause and fight dirty and work that rigged system much much better than we do. Would Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi ever have blocked a Republican President's nomination to the Supreme Court? No way. They're too busy looking up poems.
posted by all about eevee at 10:38 AM on June 24 [10 favorites]


I'm a man. However, I've been married long enough to know where real power lies and, it's not in the hands of men. The way forward through all of this is a women's general strike. No family chores, no outside work, no sex with men, no cooking, no cleaning, no daycare, no nothing until this ruling is reversed. A non-violent strike led by women, by and for women. You've got the numbers. Go do it.
posted by Xurando at 10:39 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


We are also TERRIBLE at picking candidates for Congress and for President. Just awful choices, over and over again, for years.
posted by all about eevee at 10:39 AM on June 24 [6 favorites]


.
posted by dlugoczaj at 10:41 AM on June 24


A plea to anyone, anywhere who cares about any of this who has any amount of privilege or energy left:

It should not be the sole fight and burden of the marginalized to protest, advocate and enact positive, progressive change. We've been doing this for decades.

I'm fucking exhausted. I've been protesting and advocating since I was still a youth.

My first protest and march happened when I was maybe 10, trying to stop a freeway from being built through pristine, protected lands. During the first Gulf War I walked out of high school with half a dozen people out of a student body of over 4000 and was threatened with arrest and expulsion by school admins. I protested for LGBTQIA rights and participated in die-ins associated with ACT UP long before I accepted myself as queer. I have protested every war in my life. I rode with Critical Mass for bicycle rights back when it meant something and involved tear gas. I was there for OWS and BLM. I've been shot at with sandbags and rubber bullets and pepper spray. I know what a flashbang sounds and feels like from a few feet away. I know what a nightstick or baton sounds like on human bone and flesh.

I have spent my entire life standing up against bullies attacking others, while absorbing abuse from the same bullies and shrugging it off. I have spent so much of my life taking punches and yet only getting mad as hell when a bully attacks or threatens a friend.

I. AM. FUCKING. EXHAUSTED.

Do you have a relatively normal, stable and productive life?

We need you to stand up. We've needed you all this time. We've needed you to forgo comfort and safety, to take risks and be there with us. We need more than donations, more than talking points, more than voting. We need you to be mad as hell with us and put yourself in our shoes and see far beyond the justifiable outrage and fear and really feel it and be mad as hell with us for yourself.

We need you to advocate for us. We need you to protect us. We need your help. We've always needed your help. We need you to see us and use your privilege and really risk it to help protect us

It's not going to stop with Roe vs. Wade. This isn't just about abortion rights, or women's rights. After they exhaust all of us trying to protect ourselves they're coming for you when there's no one left to stand up for you. This has been their plan all along.

That plan is working and you should be outraged and terrified.

We need you on the ramparts. We always have.
posted by loquacious at 10:41 AM on June 24 [86 favorites]


A Texas Teen-Ager’s Abortion Odyssey. (newyorker). The Heartbeat Act is forcing families to journey to oversubscribed clinics in other states—offering a preview of life in post-Roe America.
posted by bluesky43 at 10:41 AM on June 24 [4 favorites]




What's the over/under on AskMes per day that will now be about moving away from their state/region/the US?

I have my plan but I'm not publicizing how for fear that Americans will overload it.

Armed vigilantes are storming Pride marches and drag queen story hour, and a sitting Supreme Court justice writes that he thinks sodomy laws and same-sex marriage are next. I'm out.
posted by rhymedirective at 10:45 AM on June 24 [14 favorites]


We're all angry here, justifiably. And when we're angry there's a tendency to lash out at the closest apparent target. But for those of you saying that voting doesn't matter, because we did vote and this still happened, you're wrong. "We," broadly constructed as the population who believe that abortion is a medical issue of bodily autonomy, which is most Americans, didn't vote, not enough. Yes, 2020 was historic in its turnout, the highest in a century. Historic because almost 67% of the voting-eligible population actually voted.

67%. One in every three people who could have voted didn't.

And while I don't have statistics on the breakdown of support for abortion rights among the nonvoting population, considering that conservatives are in general much more likely to vote than the rest of the population, it's very likely that the majority of that 33% who didn't vote are actually opposed to this decision. If that 1 in 3 had shown up to the polls, none of the gerrymandering, none of the manipulations and fraud and shenanigans that Republicans use to twist elections their way despite not having the popular vote, none of that would have mattered.

We don't know what would happen if "we" actually voted, because "we" never have, not completely. No, scratch that, we do know what would happen: Republicans would be out on their asses and this fucking bullshit Supreme Court wouldn't be stuffed full of Federalist Society zealots taking away our rights. The insistence that voting hasn't worked is exactly what keeps that 1 in 3 people who could be saving the republic home on election day. Stop doing the Republicans' work for them.
posted by biogeo at 10:45 AM on June 24 [34 favorites]


We’re Not Going Back to the Time Before Roe. We’re Going Somewhere Worse
We are entering an era not just of unsafe abortions but of the widespread criminalization of pregnancy.
By Jia Tolentino (newyorker).

*women who have miscarried will be forced to prove they did not use the abortion pill, or be charged with murder.
posted by bluesky43 at 10:46 AM on June 24 [11 favorites]


Xurando,

I fear that such a strike would mostly lead to the Repugs using it as a banner to beat the drum of "women can't be expected to do anything right" "look what women did to the US by acting up, they need less rights not more" Queue up the laws leading us right down the slippery slope to Gilead.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 10:46 AM on June 24


Does anyone have a link to how, if at all, todays ruling differs from the one that was leaked?
posted by Rumple at 10:47 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


The Republicans are better game players than we are.

not in the long run - remember stare decisis? it's dead, dead, dead - they just killed it off, even after lying to congress at their nominations, saying, no, they wouldn't do that

precedents mean nothing - all businesses, citizens and other people who have to deal with the usa will now have to do so knowing that the laws they used to rely on can be changed on a whim if the political will is strong enough

they have thrown away a stable judiciary to "save the babies" they don't care about once they're born

they have ensured that every decision this court makes will be seen as a political decision and not have one damn thing to do with precedent

they are too stupid to know it, but they've broken our government, not because they've removed the right to an abortion but because they removed our right to have a court system that is consistent and somewhat predictable

we will all regret this, but they will regret it too - whoever has power makes the rules now - and perhaps it's always been that way - but now, it's too damned obvious to lie about
posted by pyramid termite at 10:48 AM on June 24 [38 favorites]


.
posted by sammyo at 10:48 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


However, I've been married long enough to know where real power lies and, it's not in the hands of men.

Yeah I'm really just not feeling that at the moment.
posted by 8dot3 at 10:49 AM on June 24 [106 favorites]


They don't care that they broke the government. They got what they wanted and that's more important to them than any silly government.
posted by all about eevee at 10:50 AM on June 24 [14 favorites]


I encourage all Americans here to read, re-read, and really sit with Frowner's comment above.

This is where we live now. This is what's happening.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:50 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


We don't know what would happen if "we" actually voted, because "we" never have, not completely.

Before you blame individuals for not caring or whatever it is, please consider not just gerrymandering but the long history of republican drives to throw out registrations; that many states don't offer same-day, at the polls registration and many people work during the hours that they would otherwise be able to register; that many polling stations are not accessible to people with disabilities; that many Black people are kicked off the voter registry illegitimately and don't find out until they're at the polls, trying to vote; that election day isn't a national holiday and many people work more than one job to survive; that people especially in rural areas may not have transportation; that republicans push to close down early voting; and that SCOTUS stripped the teeth out of the Voting Rights Act. Before the last election, Alabama closed down the DMV in several of its poorest and Blackest counties citing "funding issues" and then reopened after the election, showing that this was about preventing Black Alabamans from registering to vote unless they had the leisure to drive to another county.

Put the blame where it goes.
posted by bile and syntax at 10:54 AM on June 24 [63 favorites]


I'm not blaming anyone. I'm observing a simple fact. People who are eligible have all kinds of reasons for not voting, sometimes even good ones. But if the 1 in 3 people who don't vote but could, instead did, we'd be in a very different world.
posted by biogeo at 10:55 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


They reinstate Roe and then and ONLY then will I consider donating anything at all from my time to my money to any Democrat.

I pay for results, not excuses.


Reduced funding for an underperforming organization makes it perform worse, not better.
posted by flabdablet at 11:00 AM on June 24 [22 favorites]


Spare a thought for those in the war rooms right now with their sleeves rolled up, like my friend who is comms director for Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi. They can't take a moment to pause or process. They have to go to work even harder right now figuring out what to do next, desperately trying to choose the least bad from an array of truly bad options.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:03 AM on June 24 [31 favorites]




Just two points:

1) AP breaking news: woman who suffered incomplete miscarriage in Malta had to be flown by Mallorca Spain as Malta refused to perform any sort of "abortion" even to safe the mother's life or if the fetus is no longer viable. as mentioned earlier.

2) I wrote an essay a month ago when the decision was first leaked. I pointed out that this was about controlling women's body, not saving lives. My reasoning is very simple, and extremely disturbing.

Between 2018 and 2019 (pre-pandemic), HOMICIDE was the leading cause of death for pregnant women and newborn mothers, by "more than twofold" over other leading causes of maternal mortality. (Obstetrics and Gynecology, November 2021)

(I am not going to speculate on WHO are killing these pregnant women and newborn moms, but you can probably guess who's the most likely suspect)

By denying women a chance to terminate their pregnancy, these "lawmakers" are very likely, in attempt to "save" 1 life, condemning 2 or 3 lives.

So it's NOT about saving lives, as they claimed.

It was always about control.
posted by kschang at 11:05 AM on June 24 [47 favorites]


R.I.P., America. It was nice while it lasted.
posted by chatelaine at 11:10 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


What's going to happen in the next few years is that fewer and fewer ways of politics are going to be safe and legal, and the effectiveness is going to drain out of the legal ones - picture some sad little legal protest cage protest surrounded by cops inside a chain link fence, no signs larger than an 8x11 piece of paper, protest will last for exactly thirty minutes at 5pm on a Friday on a holiday weekend, etc.

This is almost certainly true, and the only effective response will be to make protests so big, so unruly, and so costly - in $, blood, and optics - to control that it becomes impossible to continue this approach.

This isn't how I wanted to spend my declining years but, as Frowner points out, it's likely where we're at.

R.I.P., America. It was nice while it lasted.

It's worth considering that we're talking about the same Court that ruled in Dredd Scott.
posted by ryanshepard at 11:11 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


We don't have to guess at the reasons people didn't vote, incidentally. Here's survey data from the US Census of people who were eligible to vote but didn't.
  1. Not interested: 17.6%
  2. Did not like candidates or campaign issues: 14.5%
  3. Too busy, conflicting schedule: 13.1%
  4. Illness or disability: 13%
  5. Out of town: 6.1%
  6. Registration problems: 4.9%
There are a few other reasons listed in the linked table. My main concern is the top two reasons, "not interested" and "did not like the candidates or campaign issues." Together they represent about 10.6% of the voting-eligible population. Those are the people who are most likely to believe that voting doesn't matter, who if they understood what was truly at stake might have changed their minds. Those are the ones I believe Republicans are relying on to not educate themselves and show up to the polls, because in elections that are typically decided by a few percentage points, that population would swing power forever out of their grasp, and I believe protect the right to bodily autonomy that we have lost today.

So again, Republicans want you to believe that voting doesn't matter, because they know that if you vote, they lose. I just ask people here not to spread their message for them. The Democratic leadership can be criticized for many things, but they are right to emphasize that if enough people voted, we wouldn't be here today.
posted by biogeo at 11:15 AM on June 24 [39 favorites]


We don't have to guess at the reasons people didn't vote

What part of "lots of people actually tried to vote and were prevented from doing so" is not registering with you? Number six is the most salient point on that list (and would've won the election for Clinton in 2016 without wasting effort chasing after 1 and 2).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:20 AM on June 24 [11 favorites]


Just to bury the vote commentary, it's not getting out the vote: dems need to gain long term control of state governments. Will probably require slimy machiavellian machinations worse than the GOP, in addition to getting out the vote much more regularly.
posted by sammyo at 11:22 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


I repeat, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by three million votes. There were historically large turnouts for Biden and Obama. We can vote, I will vote, but the system is rigged, and we are being governed by an unelected, illegitimate SC.

I'm grateful to Garland for his statement about oral abortion medication though.
posted by bluesky43 at 11:23 AM on June 24 [37 favorites]


What part of "lots of people actually tried to vote and were prevented from doing so" is not registering with you?

What part of me including that within the list of items I reported from that chart is not registering with you? It's number 6 on the list. Way, way too many people, but not the most significant form of voter suppression. Telling people that voting doesn't matter clearly suppresses a much larger fraction of the electorate.
posted by biogeo at 11:24 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


No family chores, no outside work, no sex with men, no cooking, no cleaning, no daycare, no nothing until this ruling is reversed. A non-violent strike led by women, by and for women.

I'm thinking women need to stop having penis-in-vagina sex, for their own safety if nothing else. As protest, that would possibly be good too.

My days of badonkadonking are long over and menopause lurks for me in the future, so I guess that's...good. I'm still on BC until menopause, until it gets banned, anyway, just in case. Ugh.

The amount of gerrymandering and the like is why our voting can't win, y'all, along with all the "you can't vote if X" rules. We didn't play dirty with people who played dirty and we're all screwed forever now.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:24 AM on June 24 [12 favorites]


Just to bury the vote commentary, it's not getting out the vote: dems need to gain long term control of state governments.

Taking control of state governments still entails fielding great candidates and getting out the vote.
posted by all about eevee at 11:25 AM on June 24 [10 favorites]


Attorney General Merrick Garland said today that states cannot ban mifepristone — an FDA-approved abortion pill

Will that withstand the supreme court?
posted by plonkee at 11:25 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Pro tip: Apparently you can subvert the ban algorithm on Facebook if your posts and comments are ostensibly about videogames.

Today my friend recommended the game "Tonight We Riot" and in the comments we are discussing "burning down the entire map in Minecraft" and the "blowing up the Chantry in Dragon Age II."

I once caught a 30-day ban for suggesting that the proper response to every extrajudicial execution by police was to burn down another police station so this is an exciting discovery for me... in The Sims.
posted by Jacqueline at 11:25 AM on June 24 [32 favorites]


Attorney General Merrick Garland said today that states cannot ban mifepristone — an FDA-approved abortion pill

Will that withstand the supreme court?
posted by plonkee at 11:25 AM


According to the Axios link, it will likely play out in the courts, likely land in the SC and we can guess where that ends.
posted by bluesky43 at 11:27 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Will that withstand the supreme court?

Not sure, but it buys us some time.
posted by all about eevee at 11:27 AM on June 24 [6 favorites]


Sadly, I don't think the non-voting bloc bothered to show up here on metafilter.com today to be chastened by the finger-wagging. Typical of them, I suppose.
posted by figurant at 11:28 AM on June 24 [46 favorites]


oh dear, Manchin and Collins feel mislead and hope Republicans will reconsider. (slate)

"Sincere or not, this is why Democrats are now foundering in the face of a generational defeat for their values, and why there’s next to no chance Democrats will just do something, no matter how many grieving progressives tweet it in all caps today. The party’s 50th vote just publicly expressed hope that the opposing party will reverse itself immediately after scoring a victory it’s been pursuing singlemindedly for half a century. This is who the entire Democratic agenda is resting on."
posted by bluesky43 at 11:32 AM on June 24 [34 favorites]


If only we could get more people to vote, then we could really turn things around!

[Biden is elected with record turnout. Things continue to get worse.]

If only we could get more people to vote, then we could really turn things around!
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:32 AM on June 24 [22 favorites]


white straight men and their immediate dependents have privacy;

the immediate dependents of white straight men are the very last people who have any privacy in this matter.

if you mean that white straight men have great liberty to abuse their dependents, especially with regard to forcing them into or out of pregnancy, by legal and extralegal means alike, and as suits the convenience of those men, not the convenience of their dependents, that is very true. but that truth is the opposite of the quoted statement.

powerful people can hide from brutal laws more easily than others. dependents of powerful people are an entirely different group of people and they are fucked just like the rest of us, often more so.
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:34 AM on June 24 [15 favorites]


Well, I mean, we could if we could get control of state legislatures and had more seats in Congress and had the Presidency. We could do more. We really could.
posted by all about eevee at 11:34 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


I don't think it's been posted before, so, if you or someone you know needs abortion care, I Need An A will have the most up-to-date resources, including information about telemedicine where that's an option, parental consent laws, and abortion funds.
posted by box at 11:36 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


Rumple, here's a comparison of the leaked opinion and final: Alito’s Final Dobbs Opinion Is Even More Extreme Than His First Draft (due to adding some more horrible stuff, existing horrible stuff seems to have been largely unchanged)
posted by joeyh at 11:37 AM on June 24 [19 favorites]


I am truly sorry to hear this. American friends, you deserve better.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:38 AM on June 24 [3 favorites]


All of this - the gerrymandering, the disenfranchisement, the takeover of state legislatures, McConnell keeping Merrick from even getting a vote, so much other crap - was all part of a calculated 50-year-long plan to install a conservative Supreme Court majority and overturn Roe. It is all Republicans have cared about for years. We knew that already.
posted by all about eevee at 11:39 AM on June 24 [18 favorites]


When someone tells you to "just pass the laws you want rather than legislating from the bench", remind them that, just as who counts the votes controls who wins, also who judges what the law is and is not controls who wins.
posted by zaixfeep at 11:44 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]


There's an oft-quoted statistic that the average lifespan of an empire is 250 years.

So... a little less than halfway through the next presidential term?

Sounds about right.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:45 AM on June 24 [14 favorites]


all part of a calculated 50-year-long plan to install a conservative Supreme Court majority and overturn Roe. It is all Republicans have cared about for years. We knew that already

Too many of "us" didn't (see: Democrats fundraising off the back of it while also comparing Republicans' focus on abortion to a dog chasing a car; there was a combination of smug complacency--"it'll never happen!" and wilful blindness--"they're just doing it to rile up the base!").
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:46 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


re: non-voters and the list of reasons why they don't vote, I do feel compelled to point out that, like voters, not all non-voters are created equal. A liberal-leaning non-voter in CA, for example, has the leisure to sit things out [in a federal election] if none of the candidates particularly jive with them, since they can be reasonably confident that a liberal will be elected in the end. The data seems to bear this out, with the Western region having by far the largest % of non-voters due to candidate nonpreference.

I'd say that because the US census data is only broken down into broad regions, it's not geographically specific enough to use as a statement about whose votes might have changed the election: this sort of thing really needs to be discussed on a state or ideally even district level.
posted by the tartare yolk at 11:46 AM on June 24 [17 favorites]


Well, I mean, we could if we could get control of state legislatures and had more seats in Congress and had the Presidency. We could do more. We really could.

I'm going to fucking rant for a bit.

The reason the fucking zombified corpse of the Republican Party is racking up shitty, awful wins is because they think generationally, which the Democrats absolutely, positively, never fucking do. I can't tell if this will evaporate because this crew is out to ruin and destroy as much as possible and perhaps they will eat their seed corn, but:

Where are the liberal/progressive universities and donors at with scholarships for all the bright angry young people who want to undo this? Where is state funding of higher education and law school and grad school? The Democrats won't even create fucking undergraduate student loan forgiveness. How do you get control of state legislatures? By educating a lot of fucking young people and providing them the vehicles to get into politics. Right now it's almost impossible. I know a lot of bright progressive/leftist activists who would love to do that shit who can't afford the fees. Meanwhile, the fucking darlings of the Federalist Society have all-expenses paid scholarships and conferences to lure them further onto the dark side.

You can't just be like 'yeah we need more people' without considering where are these people going to come from? The American education system is gutted and we're somehow expecting people to rise above it?
posted by corb at 11:48 AM on June 24 [117 favorites]


The only point in voting now is so that when the molotovs get thrown it can't be used against you that you jumped to "extremes" instead of doing things the respectable way.
posted by WeekendJen at 11:50 AM on June 24 [8 favorites]


I have been seeing a whole raft of urgent "Donate now" ads turn up on Facebook, and I have been replying to each and every one with the following comment:

"NO DONATION UNTIL LEGISLATION

We HAVE been donating. We HAVE been voting. We HAVE been speaking out. It hasn't done anything. It looks like we would be better served donating to Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, or another organization that would actually DO SOMETHING with our money."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:52 AM on June 24 [13 favorites]


There's an oft-quoted statistic that the average lifespan of an empire is 250 years

The average lifespan of presidential systems is far shorter, and they inevitably fail through a crisis of democratic legitimacy (see the work of Juan Linz for more on this; he didn't take into account the uniquely American Supreme Court, and focused on legislative vs executive, but we're witnessing the sort of democratic collapse and legitimacy crisis he wrote about anyway).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 11:52 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


I’m trying to stay focused on the local battlefield as a way to stay semi-calm. Kansas voters are in a unique position in red states in that they get a direct say on whether or not to protect abortion. August 2nd will have a vote on an anti-abortion amendment to the KS constitution.

Let us pray that this doesn't lead to Bleeding Kansas part two.
posted by pwnguin at 11:53 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]


The reason the fucking zombified corpse of the Republican Party is racking up shitty, awful wins is because they think generationally,

This is exactly what I am saying, yes.

Too many of "us" didn't (see: Democrats fundraising off the back of it while also comparing Republicans' focus on abortion to a dog chasing a car; there was a combination of smug complacency--"it'll never happen!" and wilful blindness--"they're just doing it to rile up the base!").

Sorry that I said "us". I know not everyone here considers themselves a Democrat.
posted by all about eevee at 11:53 AM on June 24 [2 favorites]


"they're just doing it to rile up the base!"

Seems to have worked.

Look at all those joyous young women.

Propaganda works.
posted by flabdablet at 11:56 AM on June 24 [6 favorites]


Before I vote Dem again, I'd like to see concrete action in response to this right-wing terrorist attack. One thing that Dems can do, today, is add new justices to the court. This can be done today, right now, at Biden's prerogative.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:57 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Republicans donated their money reliably for 50 years to achieve this result. Not sure pulling your donations from Planned Parenthood et al. will work as well as you hope.

God we're fucked.
posted by biogeo at 11:58 AM on June 24 [9 favorites]


How about instead of leaving it up to the states, we can make it more narrow. Each county can decide. Maybe even each city. Perhaps... each individual.
posted by adept256 at 11:59 AM on June 24 [30 favorites]


So, if this kicks abortion back to the states, does this also include federally owned property within states? Like, could there be a loophole to provide abortions and related care on such property owned by the federal government?
posted by FJT at 11:59 AM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Sorry that I said "us". I know not everyone here considers themselves a Democrat

The point I was making is that Democrats haven't taken the threat seriously (except as something to use for fundraising), hence "smug complacency" and "wilful blindness".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:00 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


So, if this kicks abortion back to the states, does this also include federally owned property within states? Like, could there be a loophole to provide abortions and related care on such property owned by the federal government?

Or native reservations?
posted by Melismata at 12:01 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


This is not over.

It feels like it's over. It looks like it's over. But I will not LET it be over. There are too many people who need help.

Choice is the word that's ringing in my ears right now.

This cruel and dishonest ruling smothers me with despair - but the only way I know how to survive is to fight my way back to breathing hope.

The people who want to rip my rights away benefit if I give up.

I will not make it easier for them to hurt people.

I choose to actively seek out the voices of people like Stacey Abrams who are shouting their insistence on fighting back.

I choose to focus my thoughts on the utterly hopeless lost causes of the past that nevertheless succeeded, made the world a better place. (When my grandmother was born, women couldn't vote in this country. Women could not vote to change that. They had to find other ways. We will have to find the ways.)

I choose to battle my own despair to find my way back to hope, to breathing, because I can't bear giving up; because I won't help the forces of evil hurt people by giving up; because people need me. Somewhere someone had their abortion appointment cancelled today. That person needs my help.

I can't breathe if I give up. So I will have to choose, every day, to find or INVENT a glimmer of hope, so I can keep acting, doing what I can.

This is one woman's choice.

I will stop reading this thread, here, now, and I will go find a way to do something to help that person who needs that care.
posted by kristi at 12:02 PM on June 24 [28 favorites]


Republicans donated their money reliably for 50 years to achieve this result. Not sure pulling your donations from Planned Parenthood et al. will work as well as you hope.

You misunderstand - I am saying that I will be donating my money to Planned Parenthood INSTEAD OF to Schumer's re-election campaign or whatever.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:03 PM on June 24 [13 favorites]


Until safe abortions are once again legal, vasectomies should be forced on young boys soon after their first wet dream. If the boy is ever mature enough to become a father, the vasectomy will be reversed.
posted by nikoniko at 12:05 PM on June 24 [15 favorites]


Not sure pulling your donations from Planned Parenthood et al. will work as well as you hope

It's more "pulling donations from useless Democrats who are just going to stupidly bleat about bipartisanship and giving it to Planned Parenthood instead, and at least my money won't be going to support candidates like Henry Cuellar".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:07 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]


You misunderstand - I am saying that I will be donating my money to Planned Parenthood INSTEAD OF to Schumer's re-election campaign or whatever.

Planned Parenthood has enough money. Better to donate to an abortion fund, like this one.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:07 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


So, if this kicks abortion back to the states, does this also include federally owned property within states? Like, could there be a loophole to provide abortions and related care on such property owned by the federal government?

No, it doesn't, and this loophole idea makes a lot of sense - however, there is a problem in that due to the Hyde Amendment, federal funds currently can't be used to pay for abortions. If Congress wants to undo that, you could have VA hospitals and military bases providing care.
posted by corb at 12:10 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


I too would prioritize local organizations in donations. They are the ones that need it and might actually do things.
posted by Artw at 12:10 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


This brief "what you can do" guide has a good list of local abortion funds, practical support organizations, and independent clinics, for anyone who has money to give.
posted by Jeanne at 12:10 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


Thanks, kristi. I should check out of this thread too. We're not fucked, but what's going on here is not the way forward. I'm going to write my legislators and look for protests to attend.
posted by biogeo at 12:10 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


I keep seeing posts on social media telling us to vote. Well, I voted and voted and this happened. Voting is not the weapon so many people think it is.
posted by tommasz at 12:10 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Anyone that tells us to stop hyperventilating about contraceptives, gay marriage, sodomy laws, is going on my list.

Inter-racial marriage is only safe so far as traitor Thomas is useful.
posted by adept256 at 12:11 PM on June 24 [15 favorites]


Thanks for the link, joeyh. I wondered if some of the extreme / trollish language had been toned down. It doesn't appear to have been.

"Now that the final copy of the opinion is out, what has changed from that initial draft? It turns out, virtually nothing. Save for some stylistic and typographical changes, the official version appears to leave Alito’s words from the draft almost entirely unchanged. The one substantive change is the addition of sections seeking to rebut the dissenting opinion of Justices Sonia Sotomayor (Obama appointee), Elena Kagan (Obama appointee), and Stephen Breyer (Clinton appointee), as well as the concurring opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts (George W. Bush appointee).

What’s clear is that the final opinion, with the new additions, is even more radical than the extremely radical initial draft."
posted by Rumple at 12:12 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


I have typed up and deleted several comments now. I'm too upset to make sense but I will say this: this is the end, people. This is the fucking end. Voting isn't going to save you. Nothing is going to save you. This will be looked back on - if there is a history and there may not be - as the equivalent of the first shots fired at Fort Sumter. This is war. Here it is. We are in it. I do not think we can win.

I just sent a letter to my congressional rep and my senators and my governor - I am lucky enough to live in Oregon, and that is on purpose, I left the South because I have thought this was coming along with ecological disaster for years now - asking them to consider seceding or at the very least start making plans to try to stem the fascist tide here. I doubt it will do anything except get me marked down as a kook or a target.

My daughter and granddaughter are in North Carolina and my daughter is afraid to take the baby to the protest. She is right to be afraid. That's where we are at, now. Listen to Frowner.
posted by mygothlaundry at 12:13 PM on June 24 [17 favorites]


Planned Parenthood has enough money. Better to donate to an abortion fund, like this one.

Well, yeah, but my comment was in response to Chuck Schumer's "donate to me" pitch so I was going more for speaking to the concept.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:14 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


I would suspect several multimillionaires have funding Schumer well in hand and you can safely direct money elsewhere, yes.
posted by Artw at 12:15 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


Thomas Zimmer on Twitter:
It’s terrifying to live in a country where any revelation about how the former president tried to abolish democracy can only dominate the news cycle for about 12 hours because the multi-level reactionary assault on the civil rights order is continuing with such brutal speed.
[…]
The majority of Americans opposes the reactionary vision - but the Right is fully content to install authoritarian minority rule. They don’t care about democratic legitimacy - only about what they believe is the natural / divinely ordained order, what is “real America.”
[…]
The reactionary counter-mobilization from the Right is not coming from a place of strength: Conservatives are radicalizing because they understand they are in the minority and feel their backs against the wall, leading to a veritable siege mentality.
[…]
The shift from “We are the silent majority, entitled to rule over those radical special-interest groups” to “We are the virtuous minority and there are fewer and fewer of us” corresponds directly with the shift from “No judicial activism” to “The Court needs to safe our America!”
[…]
But this is absolutely key: There is no appeasing them. They are not looking for a consolation prize, they are not interested in sacrificial lambs or partial victories, they are also not looking for an exit ramp, don’t want to just keep face. They really mean it.
posted by non canadian guy at 12:18 PM on June 24 [28 favorites]


Abortion is a men's issue too. Where are those men? Where are their voices??


One of them was at the Supreme Court.
posted by mon_petit_ordinateur at 12:18 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


It just boggles my mind, every time the evil bastards have a win, how eager so many people instantly seem to become to make it even easier for them to have more.

The US electoral system is structured in such a way as to mean that there can only be two dominant political parties. If you remove your support from the less bad one, the much worse one is more likely to win.

Hold your nose, vote Democratic, work locally to get more progressive candidates into the Democratic Party, and encourage anybody you know personally who thinks that voting makes no difference to do the same. This genuinely is the only path to achieving real change within your own lifetime or that of your children that your country is capable of offering you. Every other political option up to and including armed civil conflict is worse, and at this point in history every choice is a political choice.

Diverting donations from the Democratic Party to apparently more worthy causes is only ever going to worsen, not improve, the already blasted and blighted US political landscape. If you're going to divert donations from those of Schumer's ilk, divert them toward Democratic candidates who have a chance of primarying them from the left.
posted by flabdablet at 12:18 PM on June 24 [21 favorites]


One of them was at the Supreme Court.

It's a tremendously good sign that you live in a healthy and stable democracy when the highest court has a security fence protecting it.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:19 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


Sinema and Manchin to ashcan the filibuster

Arrest and imprison Hawley and Cruz as traitors and seditionists, as should have happened over a year ago, and you would at least get a window where they or their potential replacements could not attend a session and vote, which would then cancel the Manchin/Sinema leverage over that time period.

You want hardball? Do it.

I'd bunk 'em in Colorado Supermax, in solitary, one hour in the exercise yard a day.
posted by gimonca at 12:22 PM on June 24 [36 favorites]


flabdablet: The "only path to achieving real change within your lifetime" is one that many of us have already been pursuing, and we have just received a signal that IT ISN'T WORKING.

It's time to think outside the damn box.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:22 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


I voted and voted and this happened.

And had you not voted and voted, then not only would this have happened but Cheeto Mussolini would still be President.

However utterly shit things are right now, they would be worse with more Republicans installed.

The Right wants you to give up and hand them the keys. Don't.
posted by flabdablet at 12:23 PM on June 24 [37 favorites]


Here's some summer parties to crash.
posted by WeekendJen at 12:26 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We have voted and voted and donated our time and money while the Democratic Party has effectively offered us nothing but thoughts and prayers. The Democratic Party needs to either evolve or step aside for a new party that will actually get results.

The Republicans did this. But the Democrats let it fucking happen.
posted by Ruki at 12:28 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


The Right wants you to give up and hand them the keys. Don't.

The only people who could have put a stop to this back when the opinion was leaked are nowhere to be found today, outside of a few speeches intended to drum up votes. As much as the fascists are emboldened today, the functional silence of their elected opposition is worse.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:31 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


The Right wants you to give up and hand them the keys.

Well yeah, but the thing is, The Left just wants to stand around holding the keys until they can get everyone to compromise on a destination.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:32 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 12:33 PM on June 24


Fuck Biden for telling us to go out and vote. We already voted in overwhelming numbers. Twice.

Biden should be doing something. He's only the fucking President.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:34 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


You can blame the wind for the holy [sic] problems with your roof.

By not fixing it, you will still get wet.
posted by filtergik at 12:34 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


The Democratic Party as it's currently constituted exists primarily to funnel left-wing anger and aspirations away from action and into passivity. Look at the words and actions of our president and the biggest power brokers of the party today (and since the initial leak) through this lens and I doubt you'll find much dissonance.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 12:35 PM on June 24 [27 favorites]


I DON'T CARE HOW.

This is pure Green Lantern theory of politics. The idea that if Democrats just want something bad enough they can make it happen and, therefore, if they don't make it happen it's because they don't actually want it that badly.

Sometimes something really bad is the inevitable result of everything leading to that point and there's actually nothing that opponents can do about it. This is one of those times. This ruling was the inevitable result of Clinton's loss in 2016 and nothing, literally nothing, that Democrats could legally (ie short of violence) do could stop it and that's true no matter how badly they opposed this decision and how important they consider it.
posted by Justinian at 12:35 PM on June 24 [45 favorites]


Am I paying for a roof guy in this scenario? If I’m paying them and shit is still broken there is a problem.
posted by Artw at 12:36 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


This is pure Green Lantern theory of politics. The idea that if Democrats just wan't something bad enough they can make it happen and, therefore, if they don't make it happen it's because they don't actually want it that badly.

Why does the Green Lantern theory of politics only ever seem to apply to Democrats? Trump did tons of crap that was obviously illegal (e.g. overriding congress when it came to funding the border wall) and everyone just shrugged their sholders and he got away with it. And then he lead an insurrection against the country and so far everyone's been all "well, golly, he did a thing" and he's faced no consequences whatsoever.

DEMOCRATS NEED TO GET SOMETHING DONE. Statehood for DC. Pack the court. Whatever. They need to do something.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:37 PM on June 24 [34 favorites]


Philadelphia Mefites, there's a protest at City Hall at 6:30PM today.
posted by biogeo at 12:39 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


Here's the House Democrats singing God Bless America on the Capitol steps. You can hear the protestors outside the SC in the background.
Karaoke politics.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:39 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


This is pure Green Lantern theory of politics.

No. This is where you had a lot of time to prepare and plan, especially after the leak, and there were options, however severe. Please don't gaslight the discussion.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:40 PM on June 24 [23 favorites]


This ruling was the inevitable result of Clinton's loss in 2016

Yes, but there was a lot of time between 1973 and 2016. What’s the excuse for that?
posted by Ruki at 12:40 PM on June 24 [13 favorites]


This is pure Green Lantern theory of politics. The idea that if Democrats just want something bad enough they can make it happen and, therefore, if they don't make it happen it's because they don't actually want it that badly.

They can make it any happen any time they like. They're supposedly just keeping their powder dry. But the battle is full on raging and the Democratic Party establishment are still worried whether it's time to actually take action.

They're basically putting filibuster/norms/collegiality before country.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:41 PM on June 24 [15 favorites]


we have just received a signal that IT ISN'T WORKING

No, you've just received a signal that it didn't work in 2016 and a perfect illustration of just how much lasting damage the face-eating leopards can do even given relatively short periods in office.

This happened because a fascist was put in power for long enough to corrupt the judiciary.

The Democratic Party needs to either evolve or step aside for a new party that will actually get results.

Given that the Democratic Party is one of the two mainstream parties that the US's electoral system guarantees will always hoover up enough of the vote to crush any new party, driving the Democratic Party's evolution from within is the only way to make the US a better place to live.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

That's one definition of insanity, sure. I think another that's probably more applicable to the situation at hand is observing that the boat keeps taking on water despite all this relentless bailing, and concluding that our first priority must be to stop bailing.

DEMOCRATS NEED TO GET SOMETHING DONE.

Then elect enough of them that they can get something done without riding roughshod over democracy the way the fascists did while they had the numbers.
posted by flabdablet at 12:42 PM on June 24 [22 favorites]


DEMOCRATS NEED TO GET SOMETHING DONE. Statehood for DC. Pack the court. Whatever. They need to do something.

It's because they aren't as imaginative or as corrupt as Republicans. They're just like "pack the court? Why, that would be against the spirit of compromise. Imagine what the Founding Fathers would say about it! Instead, I will read a Mary Oliver poem on the House floor."
posted by all about eevee at 12:42 PM on June 24 [16 favorites]


I think if Trump demonstrated anything, it's that many of the limits on what a president can do are based more on tradition/custom than actual law.

While I wouldn't want to see Biden operate like 45 did, there is a broad, broad expanse of options available to him between "Humble statesman who exists to inspire and suggest things" and "Openly committing crimes."

This period of time before our final collapse into fascism would be a super duper fucking good time to try a few options out.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:43 PM on June 24 [64 favorites]


Philadelphia Mefites, there's a protest at City Hall at 6:30PM today.

NYC - there's one in Washington Square Park at 6:30, and another one in Union Square at 8 pm. My roommate told me about the Union Square one, I told him about the Washington Square one, we are hitting up both.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:43 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]



They're basically putting filibuster before party.


Because most of them are super fucking old and get misty-eyed imagining James Stewart filibustering a bad law in "Mr Smith Goes to Washington", probably. Hundred bucks says that's a big part of why Biden, Pelosi et al want to keep it.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:43 PM on June 24 [17 favorites]


It's because they aren't as imaginative or as corrupt as Republicans. They're just like "pack the court? Why, that would be against the spirit of compromise. Imagine what the Founding Fathers would say about it! Instead, I will read a Mary Oliver poem on the House floor."

This. They'll be making excuses for values-neutral governance all the way up until the fascists are putting their necks in the gallows.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 12:44 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


Yes, but there was a lot of time between 1973 and 2016. What’s the excuse for that?

Today's SCOTUS decision would have simply been to overturn any law passed between 1973 and now. The only possible prevention of what happened today would have been an amendment, and an amendment - if it even got through 2/3 of both houses of Congress would have ever been ratified.
posted by tclark at 12:44 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


I just want to say I am so tired of hearing about the Founding Fathers. I don't think we know what the Founding Fathers would want either way, and also, who actually cares?
posted by all about eevee at 12:45 PM on June 24 [25 favorites]


They'll be making excuses for values-neutral governance all the way up until the fascists are putting their necks in the gallows.

They think they're still our vaunted college of leaders, debating and compromising and guiding this country by hammering out momentous accords.

But the other guys were ready to let their own veep get killed. They don't give a fuck about their "esteemed colleagues across the aisle."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:47 PM on June 24 [21 favorites]


Pull a dime out of your pocket. See that guy? If court-packing was good enough for him, it's good enough for you.

Oh, and you know what else he did? HE BEAT HITLER. He was OG Antifa back in the day.
posted by gimonca at 12:47 PM on June 24 [29 favorites]


What would the Founding Fathers say today?

I mean, if Hell is real, it would just be unintelligible screaming in agony, right? Slave owners and all.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 12:48 PM on June 24 [28 favorites]


What do you want Biden to do? He can’t overrule the Supreme Court. He can’t remove the Justices and he has no power to add new ones without Congress. The votes are not there in congress to expand the court.
posted by interogative mood at 12:49 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


What do you want Biden to do?

General consensus appears to be "something".
posted by flabdablet at 12:50 PM on June 24 [29 favorites]


Why does the Green Lantern theory of politics only ever seem to apply to Democrats? Trump did tons of crap that was obviously illegal (e.g. overriding congress when it came to funding the border wall) and everyone just shrugged their sholders and he got away with it. And then he lead an insurrection against the country and so far everyone's been all "well, golly, he did a thing" and he's faced no consequences whatsoever.

I'm not arguing for this necessarily, or at least I'm not really interested in getting caught up rationalizing this perspective in depth, but I think that a big part of the reason you see this sort of behavior is because there is a strong belief among democratic leadership that once they start doing the same things the right does, the game is truly up and the wheels really will come off comprehensively. That they will come off eventually on this course doesn't really come up in the same way that no one will have a serious conversation about long term climate change.

The truth of this issue is that the GOP and the Democrats are two different types of animal entirely at this point. The GOP's authoritarian streak predisposes them towards being able to take action in lockstep, even if that action is obviously wrong, or doubling/tripling down on something obviously wrong. Democratic leadership sees their role as balancing all of the poles holding up the big tent, and the idea of ideological enforcement doesn't fly in that context. The same tactics aren't available to both parties at this point, they can't and won't act the same way. The only way dramatic action can be taken in the current political state is when the decision arrives premade via fait accompli.

For the sake of my young daughter, I wish things were different.
posted by feloniousmonk at 12:51 PM on June 24 [15 favorites]


No, you've just received a signal that it didn't work in 2016 and a perfect illustration of just how much lasting damage the face-eating leopards can do even given relatively short periods in office.

So the Presidency is so powerful that untold damage can be done should a face-eating leopard take power for even a moment and at the same time the office is so weak that we really shouldn't expect the current President to do anything because there's nothing for him to do.

That's some pretty sound logic there.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:52 PM on June 24 [38 favorites]


Maybe it's time to stop pretending a country that's not even 300 years old has "traditions" as a whole. It's bad when Republicans do it because it's the fascist mythbuilding revisionist history bullshit. It's bad when Democrats do it because they end up doing nothing because the country is too young and has been through too many dynamic times to even have traditions. They stall out trying to stick to something that doesn't even exist.
posted by WeekendJen at 12:52 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Why does the Green Lantern theory of politics only ever seem to apply to Democrats?

A strong leader sweeping aside all the petty rules and laws preventing him from Getting Things Done is literally the big appeal of fascist authoritarianism to people who are authoritarians.

Saying that fascists aren't constrained by laws is kind of tautological.
posted by Justinian at 12:52 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


What do you want Biden to do? He can’t overrule the Supreme Court. He can’t remove the Justices and he has no power to add new ones without Congress. The votes are not there in congress to expand the court.

Not giving the same exact speech Democrats have been giving each time the fascists do something new and exciting would be a start.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:52 PM on June 24 [13 favorites]


The Right wants you to give up and hand them the keys. Don't.

Here's the thing. The Democrats talk and talk but when push comes to shove, they take the safe route every time. Bernie and AOC are moderates, but compared to the rest of the "left wing" party they seem like extremists. I won't vote for any GOP candidate at any level, but until the Democrats realize the damage they've done all they're doing is handing over the keys themselves.
posted by tommasz at 12:54 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]


I definitely agree that it would be nice if the super old and tired leadership would emphasize the protest thing a lot more than the peaceful thing. They don't actually have to read from the same script every goddamn time with a few of the words changed.

Making this the only sort of rhetoric which is politically acceptable when coming from Democrats is a big advantage for the right.
posted by Justinian at 12:55 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


The impulse to sheet responsibility for this shitshow home to "leaders" is a huge part of what makes fascism successful. It needs to be resisted.

So the Presidency is so powerful that untold damage can be done should a face-eating leopard take power for even a moment and at the same time the office is so weak that we really shouldn't expect the current President to do anything because there's nothing for him to do.

No, fascists are so unscrupulous that untold damage can be done should one take power for a whole Presidential term, and we absolutely should expect the current President to do the most effective things that the legitimate authority granted him by the voting public allows him to do.
posted by flabdablet at 12:57 PM on June 24 [8 favorites]


Rusty Bowers testimony is still fresh in my mind. He didn't dare to mention the name of the 3%er TERRORIST organisation that came to his neighborhood armed. All the threats and harassment. The shit he went through because he stood up to Trump. You know what he said yesterday? He would vote for Trump again.

It melts my brain. After all that, acknowledging he's a criminal who would overthrow the republic. What the actual fuck? Then I remember something he said. He believes the constitution is 'divinely inspired'.

There it is. Right there. America is a Christian nation and Jesus wrote the constitution.

How about that decision that religious schools can now take government funding. You better believe they don't mean muslim schools. No no no no, not that religious school. They'll fix that, they'll make sure of that.

What these fascists don't understand is the goalposts will fucking move. Your christian school might not be the right kind of christian school.

This is how the 100 years war began. This is why many people fled Europe to America, the same reason the founders decided there wouldn't be a state religion.

This is what Jefferson wrote about in his letters to the Danbury baptists 200 years ago, reassuring there would be, in his words, a wall of separation between church and state.

BUILD THE WALL. BUILD THE WALL.
posted by adept256 at 12:58 PM on June 24 [32 favorites]


Of the six justices who voted to end the constitutional right to an abortion—five were appointed by a president who first came to office after losing the national popular vote. The Senate is equally undemocratic in its composition, the 50 Republican senators represent 41 million fewer people than the 50 Democratic and Independent senators.

The SCOTUS decisions that allowed dark money, corporate citizenship, etc. are all party of what has led to this. In other words, the system is rigged. Now people who say the solution is "vote," are correct, it can work, but it requires bucking a rigged system (not to mention the fully 1/3 of the populace not participating). If you say voting isn't the answer, then what is? Violence in the streets might work, but it also give the other side a reasonable for cracking down and more authoritarianism.

There are no answers that seem obvious to me, other than resistance in general.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 12:58 PM on June 24 [21 favorites]


My spouse works in matching egg donors and surrogates. Today is a a mess for them - urgent calls with lawyers and agencies trying to figure out plans and options especially for pregnant surrogates in certain states if a pregnancy needs to be terminated, and who can legally pay for that, and what legal risks are involved. And sometimes it's just the best people in the world who are impacted the most - like both heterosexual and same-sex couples who, because of cancer or many other issues, can't carry a child but desperately want a family, and caring surrogates prepared to carry a child to help others as well as help their own families financially. All of them suffering, oppressed by rights being taken away. Many of them wondering if even more of their freedoms will be striped. I really hope things can get better - today is dark and heavy. Thanks to everyone who is able to push back in whatever ways they can .
posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:01 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


One thing that Dems can do, today, is add new justices to the court. This can be done today, right now, at Biden's prerogative.

No, it can't. The size of the Court is set by Federal law, which means the House and Senate are in charge, not POTUS. And the Senate would have to confirm new judges regardless, so the Senate again.

It's fair to be frustrated with Biden and the Democrats but just because Trump acted like a dictator doesn't mean the President has dictatorial powers, and for good reason. So it isn't fair to be frustrated with Biden for not doing things that by law he can't do.
posted by Gelatin at 1:02 PM on June 24 [23 favorites]


An old school friend just posted the following on Facebook, and I applaud the logic of this clapback:

"For all those applauding this decision to save lives.... please make your appointment to get your vaccine. Your body my choice, right?"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:03 PM on June 24 [39 favorites]


it isn't fair to be frustrated with Biden for not doing things that by law he can't do

though it's completely fair to be absolutely terrified by the fact that "by law" now means whatever the fuck the fascist-picked fascists who now control the Supreme Court say it does and will keep on meaning that unless and until a supermajority of US citizens can be persuaded to install a Congress containing enough anti-fascists to disagree.
posted by flabdablet at 1:06 PM on June 24 [8 favorites]


If you say voting isn't the answer, then what is? Violence in the streets might work, but it also give the other side a reasonable for cracking down and more authoritarianism.

Targeted violence can work, but, you know, decorum, so lets just roll over. Do you really think the other side has need for reasons when it comes to authoritarian crack downs?
posted by WeekendJen at 1:06 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]


The Onion is sadly on point today
posted by Rumple at 1:09 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


This would be an entirely different conversation about the limits of Executive power and whether or not we should expect Biden to be taking some sort of action if Trump and various Republicans were behind bars awaiting trial for leading a fucking insurrection against the Capitol.

But they aren't (yet). So here we are.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:09 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


though it's completely fair to be absolutely terrified by the fact that "by law" now means whatever the fuck the fascist-picked fascists who now control the Supreme Court say it does.

Right. They're fascists. That's our point - that the last time fascists got control of a government, it took an actual literal war to stop them. The marines didn't show up on Normandy Beach with ballots.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:10 PM on June 24 [45 favorites]


the religious aspect is easy, these things are works of mankind. God snaps his fingers and takes away mankind's knowledge just like the tower of Babel. There are no drugs, there is no surgery, there is no medicine. Works for everything: abortions, hormone therapy, antibiotics, surgery,... Back to the garden of Eden (or whatever) we go. Think apocalypse, no science or medicine. Take away the works of mankind and send them back to the long before times...

Homosexuality would survive, abortions, diseases, synthetic hormones, surgery, it's all gone and up to *insert deity here*.

It's pretty much an anti-science reaction, it's only a thing brought about by mankind's hubris of controlling the world. Birds and bees and cats and apes and blah don't get to seek medical intervention. The way *deity* intended.

Works pretty well for the Garden of Eden monotheistic branch.
posted by zengargoyle at 1:10 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]




My heart is breaking for Americans today, and I am truly afraid for what the future will bring, particularly in States where voting rights are being eroded. The tipping point to most of the Midwest and the South becoming a white, Christian theocracy ruling like the fucking Taliban seems to have been reached, from my (privileged) vantage point in the UK.

Maybe the penny will drop when Republican voters in pro-choice States are faced with huge tax rises to pay for more hospitals, housing, schools, healthcare, etc. for the hundreds of thousands of children per year who will be born as a result of this travesty.
posted by essexjan at 1:10 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


Maybe the penny will drop when Republican voters in pro-choice States are faced with huge tax rises to pay for more hospitals, housing, schools, healthcare, etc. for the hundreds of thousands of children per year who will be born as a result of this travesty.

No it won't - those Republicans will just flood the polls and vote out the Democratic leaders in those states and turn THEM into anti-choice states too.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:12 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Maybe the penny will drop when Republican voters in pro-choice States are faced with huge tax rises to pay for more hospitals, housing, schools, healthcare, etc. for the hundreds of thousands of children per year who will be born as a result of this travesty.


LOL as if.

They will just let those children starve, sick, illiterate, in substandard housing or in cars or in streets. Like they already overwhelmingly do.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:13 PM on June 24 [59 favorites]


Oof. The onion front page
posted by lalochezia at 1:14 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


I mean I see you are from the UK so it is probably difficult to imagine the level of "no we don't actually support any citizens in any state at any time on any meaningful level" that we are dealing with here.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:15 PM on June 24 [16 favorites]


Waiting for the penny to drop is a losing proposition. There are more than enough citizens already on the anti-fascist side of US politics to overwhelm the blockades that the fascists have erected against democracy and sweep them from office, if they could only be persuaded that they (a) can (b) must.
posted by flabdablet at 1:16 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


Oof. The onion front page

Why 5-4, though?
posted by clawsoon at 1:16 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Be Ukraine. Take back the night! Take back the day! Take back your rights before they take them all. Just don't quit.
posted by chance at 1:18 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


clawsoon: Likely the onion writers expected Roberts would dissent when they wrote all the copy.
posted by Justinian at 1:18 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]




That's our point - that the last time fascists got control of a government, it took an actual literal war to stop them.

Nah, we only stopped the ones who couldn't keep their warmongering in their pants. Franco got DECADES of at-worst ambivalence from the rest of the world.
posted by tclark at 1:21 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]


Did SCOTUS issue a final decision on the Texas "snitch-abortion" law? IIRC they let it stand pending an actual ruling.
posted by Rumple at 1:23 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


Franco got DECADES of at-worst ambivalence from the rest of the world.

Yup, see also El Salvador, Panama, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Indonesia, etc. So many historical blinkers: there is a big world outside of "Normandy Beach".
posted by Rumple at 1:25 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


Franco got DECADES of at-worst ambivalence from the rest of the world.

Salazar next door, too, and for longer. Right up until they had to pull that Truman Show bit on him for the last couple of years after they replaced him and it turned out that "oops, he's not dead". It would have been hilarious if it hadn't been the government of an actual country.
posted by gimonca at 1:28 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]




It is entirely possible to continue to vote for the Weak But Not Fascist Party while complaining that they should be the Fuck Fascists Party and also seeking out other forms of action, I really want people to stop freaking out assuming no one will vote Dem again. Women are not stupid, ok? WE KNOW. But, we are allowed to be fucking unhappy that the party that keeps saying they'll help us just seems to make ineffectual mouth-flapping noises and trying to hold hands with the party that prefers us to be nonpersons or dead or both.

I don't need the Dems to be omnipotent or always win. I need them to be outraged, motivated, and willing to call the Republicans on their fascist shit. I need them to FIGHT. I need them to be ANGRY.

Some of them are like that, but they aren't the ones in charge for the most part.
posted by emjaybee at 1:29 PM on June 24 [63 favorites]


Franco got DECADES of at-worst ambivalence from the rest of the world.

Which only further proves my point that voting alone isn't enough.

Yup, see also El Salvador, Panama, Haiti, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Greece, Indonesia, etc.

I thought it might perhaps be a bit churlish to snipe about fascist leaders that my own country secretly funded....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:29 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]


I am surprised--but not really surprised--to see how much internet-energy is going into telling people who to be mad at, or more importantly, who not to be mad at, during this. I don't know how anyone's instinct at this moment could possibly be well actually. Let people be mad.
posted by mittens at 1:31 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


It's worth considering that we're talking about the same Court that ruled in Dredd Scott.

Seriously? You do know that Dred Scott has been used as an anti-choice dogwhistle for decades, right? Anti-choice folks decided that fetuses are the equivalent of enslaved people who should have access to the courts to petition for their rights. They used "Would you rule differently in Dred Scott?" as basically a secret passphrase question - the judicial equivalent of drinking milk on stage during a speech, or wearing black doc martens or army boots with white laces.
posted by bile and syntax at 1:31 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]






House Democrats sing God Bless America

That song makes them all sound so worn out and defeated -‌- bad choice.
posted by Rash at 1:36 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


Thirding the above sentiments. I’m deeply involved in my state’s Democratic Party. I think the national party needs to fix their hearts or die. These are not mutually exclusive statements.
posted by Ruki at 1:36 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


The Crisis Pregnancy Center Trap And how not to fall for it. (thecut)

Type “abortion clinic near me” into your browser, and the search engine will likely return some murky results. Websites that ask if you are pregnant and “Feeling overwhelmed?” or “Looking for an abortion?” — without actually allowing you to schedule one. You may see abortion mentioned only in the context of “risks.” Or you may just see a flurry of “free” services: pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and counseling, all at zero cost. But “if a site or a center offers only free services,” says Andrea Swartzendruber, an associate professor at the University of Georgia’s College of Public Health, it may be a sign that you’ve found your way to a crisis pregnancy center: a sham medical practice designed to lure people considering abortions and pressure them into birth. Often, Swartzendruber explains, “there aren’t telltale signs” to differentiate a real clinic from a fake one, but “there could be hints.”
posted by bluesky43 at 1:39 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]


I'm planning to go to the 8 pm Union Square protest, if anyone wants to meet up for safety in bigger numbers (MeMail me).
posted by praemunire at 1:41 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


@washingtonpost

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) said he will seek to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, moving quickly following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday overturning the constitutional right to an abortion.

/Democrats have a one seat majority in the Virginia state senate. That's the brick wall. Alabama just outlawed abortion with their trigger law.
posted by bluesky43 at 1:42 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


There is only one, ONE, reason the Republican leadership cares about abortion and it's not Bhaybeees. It's because eradicating the right to choose is the way they weaponize the stupid people.
posted by WalkerWestridge at 1:43 PM on June 24 [23 favorites]


The Supreme Court’s Liberal Justices Rip Their “Aggressive” Conservative Colleagues
In their scathing dissent, the court's minority write that their fellow justices have abandoned any claim to legitimacy.
(newrepublic)

In their 60-page joint dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan do more than just disagree with the majority’s reasoning—they cast the majority’s actions and outcome as illegitimate. It’s quite possible that this idea will be the nucleus of whatever argument eventually recovers the rights lost in Friday’s decision.

/even the SC has no confidence in the SC.
posted by bluesky43 at 1:45 PM on June 24 [41 favorites]


Lisa Desjardins
@LisaDNews
What is happening in the states right now?
Another 🧵 ...

/Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, Texas, Idaho, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Utah abortion is illegal or highly restricted.
posted by bluesky43 at 1:49 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


There is only one, ONE, reason the Republican leadership cares about abortion and it's not Bhaybeees. It's because eradicating the right to choose is the way they weaponize the stupid people.

To go a little further, it is because (1) they want more white babies to be born, and (2) they want more under-educated workers for capitalism's sake.
posted by all about eevee at 1:50 PM on June 24 [8 favorites]


In local news, I live pretty close to Clarence Thomas. There are protests planned in front of his house this evening (but there are complications that block any protests from approaching his house that I'll get to). The local listserve is evenly divided between approving nihilism- "good for them, but it won't change a thing," and violent alarmism- "ANTIFA IS COMING TO BLOCK YOUR ROADS, BURN YOUR HOUSES DOWN, AND MAKE YOUR BABIES TRANS! LOCK AND LOAD, PATRIOTS!"

The complicating factor is that the Thomases live on a private road; the street that leads into their development is private property owned by their HOA and is not state maintained, so nobody can approach within 1/2 mile of their house without trespassing. There have been county cops posted at the top of their street since that person having a mental health episode attempted to do whatever to Justice Kavanaugh, so I assume their neighborhood is well secured tonight.

I posted to the local listserve to point out that protests outside their neighborhood entrance aren't new and Ginny Thomas herself has recently endorsed first amendment activity outside of her neighborhood... when it supported her politics, obsly.
posted by peeedro at 1:55 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]




I'm planning to go to the 8 pm Union Square protest, if anyone wants to meet up for safety in bigger number

If it's the Union Square in NYC, I've just memailed you my contact info.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:56 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


No. It’s about reinforcing a hierarchy that has rich white cishet men at the top and everyone else subservient to that in a ladder of acceptability that makes it easy to despise “lesser” classes; if you’re busy kicking others off your rung of the ladder you’re not trying to crawl up yourself.

It’s nazism/fascism. That’s all it’s ever been since the founding of the country.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:56 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


Somehow, even more than in the last few years in general, at this moment I have that feeling like "Right Here, Right Now" by Jesus Jones...except the exact, complete opposite in every way. WTF, world.
posted by snofoam at 1:56 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


To go a little further, it is because (1) they want more white babies to be born, and (2) they want more under-educated workers for capitalism's sake.

They're not so dumb to think abortions won't happen. They just want them to be unsafe and criminal, shameful. Because that's how the partiarchy can preserve its power, by trying to make having a uterus a liability.
posted by nightcoast at 2:00 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


If you're looking for ways to get help or take action, or if you have resources or ideas to share, there's a MetaTalk thread for that.
posted by kristi at 2:03 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]


They want more Bible fearing people to be born, race doesn't really matter that much. Orthodoxy. As long as they follow. That's the source of missionaries, conversion. You're OK if you fit the rules. Go forth and be fruitful and multiply (only if you follow The Book).
posted by zengargoyle at 2:03 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


People turning out at the federal courthouse in downtown Baltimore. Here, at least, the weather is great. At least something is today.
posted by the primroses were over at 2:07 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


If we're lucky, our grandchildren will compare us to the Germans under Hitler. Remember learning about that and being all, "How could they do that? How could they let that happen? What was wrong with them?" That's how they'll think of us.

If we're lucky.

If we're not, they'll compare us to Rwanda.
posted by Naberius at 2:08 PM on June 24 [17 favorites]


Cui Bono?

Poor, uneducated people vote Republican. How can you keep a bunch of women from getting educated while driving them and their children into poverty? Ban Abortions. Step 3: Profit.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:09 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Why at court houses? Why not protest in front of Catholic churches and Fox News stations? Let them feel the fear.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 2:11 PM on June 24 [14 favorites]


Let's start with Biden advocating for abolition of the filibuster and expansion of the Court. Let's start with him showing the tiniest bit of urgency and inclination to shape the national dialogue and signal to Democratic politicians that their past positions on those issues are not sufficient to meet the moment.

He has the bully pulpit. He should fucking use it.

(But he won't, because he doesn't actually believe that the filibuster should be abolished or the Court expanded. I'd be surprised if he even gave much of a shit about the right to an abortion.)
posted by Gadarene at 2:12 PM on June 24 [18 favorites]


Sometimes something really bad is the inevitable result of everything leading to that point and there's actually nothing that opponents can do about it. This is one of those times. This ruling was the inevitable result of Clinton's loss in 2016 and nothing, literally nothing, that Democrats could legally (ie short of violence) do could stop it and that's true no matter how badly they opposed this decision and how important they consider it.

This feels really good, but unfortunately, it's not true. There's a number of things that could have been done to stop this, some more palatable than others. This is not the first time things have gotten really, really bad: we have a lot of history in terms of Things That Could Have Been Done.

First and foremost, 2016 was a wakeup call that some people were angry and desperate enough that they were willing to blow up the rule of law in order to feel heard. Not only some people but a lot of people. And for some fucking incomprehensible reason, our legislators didn't take that wakeup call seriously. They assumed that the election of Trump was a blip, a fluke, a black swan. It was not. And when Biden was elected, everyone started taking victory laps.

The vast and overwhelming majority of Democratic politicians, over the last six years, have not thought this situation was an emergency. Do you know how I know this? Because they're not acting like it's an emergency. Hillary Clinton, who would have obviously and completely been a far better president than Donald Trump and possibly kept us on a better course correction, did not act like it was an emergency. What did she do after her loss? Campaigned sometimes for other politicians she liked and tried to create a 501c4 PAC. Gave commencement and summit speeches, often for money. Wrote a fucking memoir. Did a book tour. Made a movie. What did Obama, who so many pinned their hopes on do? Campaigned for candidates. Made another nonprofit. Wrote a fucking memoir. Worked with Netflix. Started a podcast company.

These are not the actions of people who think the world is in crisis. These are the actions of people who are slightly annoyed with the world as it is, but haven't put their life on hold to try to stop it.
posted by corb at 2:15 PM on June 24 [91 favorites]


Why at court houses? Why not protest in front of Catholic churches and Fox News stations? Let them feel the fear

I mean, for me personally, the Sinclair headquarters is out in the suburbs and not easily accessible and I think anti-Catholic sentiment is a red herring. But I am all for all the protests people want to have. The Catholic Church might want to prevent abortions but the legal system has the power to enact restrictions.
posted by the primroses were over at 2:17 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


Remember, it's not a democracy it's a constitutional republic lol!
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 2:17 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


(In 1982, Joe Biden, as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted for a constitutional amendment to allow individual states to overturn Roe. When it came before the full Senate the next year, he voted against it.)
posted by box at 2:17 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


Hell, Biden could even publicly pressure Manchin and Sinema to accede to a narrow carve-out of the filibuster for the sole purpose of codifying Roe, given both of their expressed sentiments on the ruling.

He will not. He fundamentally doesn't care.
posted by Gadarene at 2:17 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]


There was an anti-abortion protest a couple of weeks ago in front of my daughter's high school in a very liberal area in this very liberal city. It got me thinking about the emotionally compelling imagery they've got, and how kids who are caring and a bit naive could be drawn to it.

[sigh]
posted by clawsoon at 2:18 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


What did Obama, who so many pinned their hopes on do? Campaigned for candidates. Made another nonprofit. Wrote a fucking memoir. Worked with Netflix. Started a podcast company.

/you left out vacationing with his billionaire friends and oh, could've codified Roe, which he campaigned on but then ditched after being elected.
posted by bluesky43 at 2:18 PM on June 24 [13 favorites]


From Crooked Media/Vote Save America (sorry no link, on my phone) “Democrats can say that Roe v. Wade is on the ballot, but the way to put it there in a way people will understand is by offering a specific bargain: Give us the House and two more Democratic senators, and we'll restore the right to abortion in January of next year.”
posted by Bella Donna at 2:27 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


If Thomas’s house is behind a locked gate, block the gate. Let his neighbors know what their neighbor has done. Convince them what a bad neighbor he is. Share the inconvenience.
posted by njohnson23 at 2:27 PM on June 24 [15 favorites]


Alito said that because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention the right to abortion, it needed to be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions” to be protected.

I'm not being funny at all, but the Constitution doesn't mention prosthetics or chemotherapy. Should I return my hip replacement? Will we stop treating cancer patients because it's not in the Constitution?

It's such bullshit.
posted by yes I said yes I will Yes at 2:27 PM on June 24 [28 favorites]


Being in favor of something but not being driven by an internal fire to fight for it is very, very close to not being in favor of something.

I think about that a lot with Democratic politicians.

(If anyone has seen Whip Clyburn's response to the Dobbs opinion this morning, by the way, it is a fucking doozy.)
posted by Gadarene at 2:29 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


If it’s not a left of center primary challenge he is incapable of giving one solitary shit about it.
posted by Artw at 2:32 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


If it’s not a left of center primary challenge he is incapable of giving one solitary shit about it.

The fact that he (and Pelosi and Hoyer) was out campaigning for a corrupt anti-choice Democrat against a progressive pro-choice woman the day after the Dobbs draft leaked will never not be devastating to me.

The anti-choice guy won by 249 votes, btw.
posted by Gadarene at 2:35 PM on June 24 [33 favorites]


What do you want Biden to do? He can’t overrule the Supreme Court.

In this new, precedent-less world, it would appear deference is due Marbury v. Madison no longer and on the original-intent front, the Constitution doesn't give SCOTUS any judicial review authority, does it?

Parenthetically, while we're talking Originalism, bullets weren't invented until 40 years after the 2nd Amendment, which obviously only covers muskets and musket-balls.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Calvinball."
posted by mikelieman at 2:42 PM on June 24 [20 favorites]


Given the argument that it must be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions”, then I guess Alioto would be happy to protect racism in any SC decision.
posted by njohnson23 at 2:42 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Yeah, was thinking about the Obamas earlier today…

“When they go low, we go high.”

When you’re playing against someone who’ll do anything to put the boot on your neck, that’s a losing strategy.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 2:43 PM on June 24 [17 favorites]


I'm not being funny at all, but the Constitution doesn't mention prosthetics or chemotherapy. Should I return my hip replacement? Will we stop treating cancer patients because it's not in the Constitution?

Not a lawyer, and only listen to SCOTUS podcasts as a hobby, but as I understand it, the argument put forth is that the Ninth Amendment isn't a blanket protection of all possible rights. In some way, the fact that you need a prescription for chemotherapy suggests the government already has a role in denying you access to it, and if a state government decided that chemotherapy violated the hippocratic oath or something, you'd need to argue it is "deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions" to get it. Probably you could argue that medical treatment is such a thing?
posted by pwnguin at 2:47 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


Frank Wilhoit: “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”

Trivia: that is a quote by Frank Wilhoit, but, oddly, not by the Frank Wilhoit who was a political scientist who studied conservatives. It's a quote by the composer of the same name.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:50 PM on June 24 [27 favorites]


I have the impression that protection against the government arbitrarily digging into your private medical history is pretty deeply rooted in both American and English Common Law traditions, though I could be wrong about that. Have there been times when it's been a-okay for the government to demand to know everything that's been going on between you and your doctor?
posted by clawsoon at 2:51 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


Can any law knowledgable folks comment on how much precedent has a "meh" factor?

The reaction today shows not often.

Like, when a judge or lawyer mentions precedent, it seems like a wall they do not want to go past. Yet, they know walls come down. Does the number of years one stands make it more of an iron wall, a high wall, or just always a line in the sand used for taunting (legally)?
posted by filtergik at 2:54 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


The only rights "deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions" are the rights of rich, white, cis, het, Christian, men.

Alito has just told anyone who isn't part of that category that they don't have rights.
posted by sotonohito at 3:02 PM on June 24 [24 favorites]


Companies paying for abortion-related travel include DICK'S Sporting Goods, Disney

great. corporate amerika will save us.

Nothing will save you. But this is surely what actually being an ally of feminism in a corporate space looks like, and should be supported.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:02 PM on June 24 [39 favorites]


These are not the actions of people who think the world is in crisis. These are the actions of people who are slightly annoyed with the world as it is, but haven't put their life on hold to try to stop it.

Okay, but on the other hand I also recall there were calls for them to just go away forever, especially around 2016 with Hillary Clinton. I remember the presidential election meme that the presidency was just being passed between the Bush and Clinton dynasties. Or just like how tired people were of having to rehash fights about both Clinton's scandals or Obama's birth certificate and just wanted to move the hell on.

I'm not sure if it's worse for a politician to leave too soon or to keep staying around when they should just retire. With such big egos involved, it was probably harder for them to walk away.
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Re: la glaneuse, in addition to providing housing, there's also transportation. Many medical procedures are not "take an Uber" and have somebody to take care of and watch you for possible bad things. There's usually a bit where they want somebody there to do basic keeping an eye on. There's a bit more than just providing a place to stay. Sorta like lifeguard or nurse, there's a need for a bit of turnover to responsible person just in case.
posted by zengargoyle at 3:04 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


America sucks more every day.
posted by quarter waters and a bag of chips at 3:05 PM on June 24 [13 favorites]


It seems that we each are become our own Salazar now.
posted by NoThisIsPatrick at 3:07 PM on June 24


“When they go low, we go high.”

When you’re playing against someone who’ll do anything to put the boot on your neck, that’s a losing strategy.


I mean but the thing is you don't even have to choose. I embrace a diversity of tactics! There was room for a one-hundred-per-cent high-ground full-court-press just as there is room for others to take different options.

But the thing is: playing full court press means spending political capital, which means you can't use it for your fun project. There's room for high ground offers to personally meet with wavering legislators to strengthen them up. There's room for high ground in personal appeals for people to worry less about their re-election and more about the country. There's room for high ground in holding actual rallies with the people instead of confining yourself to hallowed halls. There's so much room for high ground that doesn't require anyone to compromise any values and they still chose not to.
posted by corb at 3:08 PM on June 24 [15 favorites]


"Abortions were criminalized under Paragraph 218 of the German Criminal Code. The severest abortion prohibitions were incorporated into law on 9 March 1943. Subparagraph 5 to paragraph 218 stated that "a woman who kills her fetus or permits such a killing by another will be punished by a prison sentence and, in especially serious cases, by penitentiary. An attempt is punishable. Whoever else kills the fetus of a pregnant woman will be punished by a penitentiary sentence, in milder cases by prison."



June 24. (today)
Germany abolishes Nazi-era abortion law.
posted by clavdivs at 3:08 PM on June 24 [18 favorites]


Those here who say banning abortion is to insure a ready supply of cheap labor are basically stating the rationale of the Nazi era anti abortion law which was to insure a ready supply of labor and soldiers. I will confess that I am shocked that that law was still in effect until today.
posted by njohnson23 at 3:17 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


What are the odds, that if by some stroke of morality the democrats actually managed to make a carve out and codify roe in law the the Supreme Court wouldn’t just rule that law unconstitutional anyway?
posted by LastAtlanticWalrus at 3:20 PM on June 24


What are the odds, that if by some stroke of morality the democrats actually managed to make a carve out and codify roe in law the the Supreme Court wouldn’t just rule that law unconstitutional anyway?

With the greatest respect, who cares? We shouldn't let that stop us from codifying it for as long as we possibly can.
posted by Gadarene at 3:23 PM on June 24 [14 favorites]


In some states it's legal to kill an intruder in your home. It's an old bit of common (and racist) law called the Castle Doctrine.

If I have a "human being" inside my home, who also happens to be inside my body, can I not dispose of this intruder just as I would a stranger who has broken into my home through a window or door? In both cases: I did not invite them, they are stealing from me and causing me violence, and they could kill me.

If we can defend our homes, we should also be able to defend our bodies.
posted by swift at 3:23 PM on June 24 [24 favorites]


The only rights "deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions" are the rights of rich, white, cis, het, Christian, men.

Christ, Alito and Kavanaugh (Pat Buchanan etc) wouldn't have been considered white or Christian 60 years ago. See also all the Cuban guy leading the Proud Boys.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 3:25 PM on June 24 [14 favorites]


Given the argument that it must be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions”, then I guess Alioto would be happy to protect racism in any SC decision.

Yes, he would. Alito is a fascist. Before his appointment to SCOTUS, he okayed a strip search on a ten year old girl. Just because Thomas didn't put Loving v. Virginia on his list of decisions they're coming for doesn't mean anything, and it especially doesn't mean anything about Alito, who gets a rash if you mention that racism is maybe still a thing. He'd be delighted to institute a more formal racial hierarchy.

Perhaps you mean Thomas? He'd go along with it too, because he'd never think it might apply to him.
posted by bile and syntax at 3:25 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Oh I think race has a lot to do with it. I pretty much agree with this take.
posted by all about eevee at 3:30 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


“When they go low, we go high.”
When you’re playing against someone who’ll do anything to put the boot on your neck, that’s a losing strategy.


Absolutely agree. It sounded like a great sound bite, but us not being as vicious as them leads to this. For the 900th time...evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:30 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Yeah, I think Thomas will happily come for Loving and just say overturning it doesn’t do anything retroactively, it just prevents future interracial marriages.
posted by all about eevee at 3:31 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


Christ, Alito and Kavanaugh (Pat Buchanan etc) wouldn't have been considered white or Christian 60 years ago.

And they won't again if the extra-pure white supremacists gain unassailable power. Even in our current fucked up scenario I'd put that as very unlikely, but just like Russia trying to stoke far-right sentiments in Germany to undermine its influence, the likes of Alito, Thomas, and Barrett are playing with the very fire that just might be set to the stake they'll be lashed to after Night of the Long Knives Part 2.
posted by tclark at 3:32 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


I’m not sure it’s as much good is dumb as much as Democrat is all Hope and Should and thisiswhat’sRight. They’re playing to please and be pleasing and maintain state and avoid reproach and maintain cred, when their opponents are playing to win at ALL costs.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 3:38 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


While you absolutely, positively do not "have to hand it to Trump," he did give us the perfect phrase for where we are headed. We're becoming a shithole country.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:42 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]


I think there is a difference between "going high" and being passive, being Nice, being too committed to order and civility and bipartisanship to get anything real accomplished. You can fight in a way that's hard and fierce and ruthless without fighting dirty.

...But you can't fight in a way that's hard and fierce and ruthless without Republicans whining that you're fighting dirty, and that's something Democrats should have wised up to before Mitch McConnell said "Hmm, let's just leave that SCOTUS seat empty until Obama leaves office."
posted by Jeanne at 3:45 PM on June 24 [14 favorites]


Christ, Alito and Kavanaugh (Pat Buchanan etc) wouldn't have been considered white or Christian 60 years ago.

Really? I could have sworn that people in the 1960s who had names like Alito and Kavanaugh and Buchanan attended all-white schools, lived in all- white neighborhoods, belonged to all-white unions and clubs, and were in every other way members of American white society.

And while some individuals did consider Catholics to be "false Christians," people of this mindset still exist, but their existence does not alter the fact that Catholics are a very influential and well recognized demographic within American Christianity.
posted by cinchona at 3:51 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


Yeah, I think Thomas will happily come for Loving and just say overturning it doesn’t do anything retroactively, it just prevents future interracial marriages.

As far as I know, Alabama was the last state to repeal it's anti-miscegenation laws, and would require amending state constitutions to be amended. The closest I imagine to realizing this specific hypothetical we'll get is a court challenge on interracial wedding cakes.
posted by pwnguin at 4:01 PM on June 24


"The president has been very clear -- he is not for expanding the Court," says
@PressSec


Absolutely useless.
posted by Gadarene at 4:02 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


Arrrrgh! Texas AG gave his staff a half day today AND is making today an annual "holiday" to "celebrate life and the protection of the unborn."

Because today wasn't shitty enough.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 4:04 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


The point of anything fascists do is to accumulate and exercise power. Fascists often do things that contradict their stated aims. That’s because their only real value is to become more powerful.

In this case, the anti-abortion position enabled the Christian Right of the 1980s to integrate a vast throng of conservative Catholics into their voting block. Over the past 40 years their movement accumulated enough power to act on that position, and now they have. That’s all. It doesn’t have to make sense philosophically or pragmatically.
posted by chrchr at 4:06 PM on June 24 [27 favorites]


And while some individuals did consider Catholics to be "false Christians," people of this mindset still exist, but their existence does not alter the fact that Catholics are a very influential and well recognized demographic within American Christianity.

Said it before, will say it again.

You do not have to check every box to tag along with the in-group and enjoy some/most of its benefits. You can be a woman (Phyllis Schlafly) fighting against women's rights, a non-Caucasian (too many to pick out just one) working against racial minority rights, an LGBTQ (not going to out people here, but you all know who I'm thinking of right now) working against LGBTQ rights, etc., etc. You merely have to acknowledge the superiority and privilege of the in-group, and be useful in some way to them.

Hardcore conservative Catholics who are working to restore conservative cis het male WASP privilege are welcomed with open arms. It's a different thing than with, let's say, the Log Cabin Republicans, who keep tagging along and insisting "Yes, we're gay, but we're also Republicans in good standing" and keep being told, "no, you're not, because you keep insisting that being gay Republicans is perfectly normal."
posted by delfin at 4:09 PM on June 24 [16 favorites]


that Catholics are a very influential and well recognized demographic within American Christianity.

My grandfather walked through southern neighborhoods with "Catholics and Dogs stay off the lawn." Kennedy was elected President, but got shot in the head. "Ethnics" were not considered true whites.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 4:10 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


"The president has been very clear -- he is not for expanding the Court," says
@PressSec


Could we get a source for this, Gadarene? I’m not seeing anything from the current press sec stating that.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:12 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


rights "deeply rooted in our nation's history and traditions"

Except that's bullshit because they happily tossed out NY's 100yro gun rights law. Traditions are only useful as an excuse.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:12 PM on June 24 [18 favorites]


I was reading what corb had to say about the total lack of any urgency or sense of emergency and it made me realize we need Escrache for the Democratic leadership as well.

The House and Senate are taking a long weekend. They're doing nothing at all on Saturday and Sunday, and on Monday they're having pro-forma sessions.

On Tuesday, finally, they have something on the schedule.

The House has a markup session for a bullshit bill, and hearings on nothing of any importance.

The Senate will exhaust itself by having cloture motions for three undersecretaries of who gives a shit. Not actually confirming those people, just a bit of random rules for the sake of having rules BS.

They decided the single **MOST** important thing to following the most devastating civil rights loss in recent history was to take a three day weekend.

Then, when they finally can be bothered to go back to work, they decided their biggest most urgent priorities were some bizarre rules bullshit in the Senate and a bunch of worthless hearings about nothing in the House.

What. The. Actual. Fuck.

Like corb said, no sense of urgency. No sense of emergency. Oh well, women were just declared to be non-persons with no rights? Ho hum, better get right to work on the stuff that really matters, like mindless votes on pointless rules!

We need escrache for Schumer, Pelosi, and the other leaders.

Because this is a fucking national emergency.

They should be shutting down every single thing Congress has scheduled for daily votes on reinstating Roe and hearings from people who have suffered due to abortion being denied to them or their loved ones.

Oh, did you think we should have a vote on making November 17th on alternate leap years national powdered cheese appreciation day? No, fuck you. We're voting on reinstating Roe for the 147th time.

Or hell, hold the Senate in session without recess until all the geriatric Republicans pass out from exhaustion then hold a vote where they aren't there and the numbers are lower.

Until we start seeing some sense of urgency from Schumer and Pelosi and the others, they're as much the enemy as McConnell, and just as much valid targets for escrache. Neither of them should be able to eat at a restaurant in DC without being surrounded by screaming chanting protesters. Not until they display a little goddamn urgency.
posted by sotonohito at 4:14 PM on June 24 [65 favorites]


Just for fun: Something Positive.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:18 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


The Satanic Temple:
"TST stands alone because we are the only entity that can assert a religious liberty claim that terminating a pregnancy is a central part of a religious ritual that encourages self-empowerment and affirms bodily autonomy.

This means that the imposition of waiting periods and mandatory counseling is akin to demanding a waiting period and counseling before one can be baptized or receive communion. Clearly, that would be a violation of religious liberty.

While the SCOTUS decision is clearly a major set back, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed religious rights. The Satanic Temple is currently suing the state of Texas to protect our civil rights. Our Texas claims are untethered to the due process Clause. They are a direct interpretation of the right of conscience in the Free Exercise Clause. We have requested alternative science-based abortion counseling in Minnesota. We will also be suing the FDA for unrestricted religious access to Mifepristone and Misoprostol."
posted by soundguy99 at 4:18 PM on June 24 [77 favorites]


Could we get a source for this, Gadarene? I’m not seeing anything from the current press sec stating that.

Absolutely! Right here.
posted by Gadarene at 4:21 PM on June 24


.
posted by Coaticass at 4:23 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


I wish the Satanic Temple luck in their endeavors and if I need to become a convert to get access to abortion well then Hail Satan
posted by emjaybee at 4:25 PM on June 24 [39 favorites]


@madison_tayt: holy shit, i can fix this if i vote? awesome! when’s the next supreme court election??
posted by DirtyOldTown at 4:25 PM on June 24 [21 favorites]


My instinctual reaction, reaching deep down into my historical antecedents and how they did things, gives me a set of ideas. (They're Bavarian and Cymru, so yes, it does involve raiding and sharp things.)

"There comes a time when a [person] must simply spit on [their] hands, hoist the Black Flag, and begin slitting throats." - attributed to H. L. Mencken.

Considering that I'm a trans woman, I'm already planning a bug-out bag and working out if an adult trike will get me to Canada, which may not be that much better, but at least I might be able to get cross-country and find somewhere in Washington for refuge through there.
posted by mephron at 4:32 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


Hail Satan (sorry Eris).
posted by zengargoyle at 4:34 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


American ladies and other folx who can get pregnant, please, burn it all down. Do some property damage (in Minecraft), make the powers that be bleed (in Minecraft) for this. No justice, no peace. I'll be with you in spirit, visiting your country is tricky for me right now.
posted by signsofrain at 4:35 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


I'm glad I went to bed early and saw this when I woke up, otherwise I would have been too angry to sleep.

For years, teaching English in Japan, I've encouraged students, especially my female students, to study overseas, to see that there can be, especially for the girls, so much more opportunity and freedom from the hierarchical, patriarchal bullshit that is hard-wired into Japanese culture. For years, I encouraged students who were able to try to get into US universities, and, if possible, to live and work there so they wouldn't have to deal with traditional Japanese expectations for women: to work for a little while, find a husband, have kids, then stop being an independent person of any sort.

Just a couple days ago, a high school senior who's in a different program than I teach (high level course for near native English speakers) came to talk to me. This girl, whose mother is Japanese and whose father is Ugandan, explained that she was tired of being ostracized, of being bullied over her skin. She told me that she hadn't really felt like she could open up to anyone, but that she'd been able to take part in an international dance competition in Dallas, and it had been the first time in her life she'd ever just felt like she fit in, like being biracial wasn't even something people noticed about her, and she very much wants to be able to go to university in the States, where the color of her skin won't be the only thing in people's minds when she talks to them.


It meant a lot to me that she felt she could open up to me, but I'm struggling with how I talk to her about this. I'll do whatever it is that I can to help her get to where she wants to go, but I think this is the end of me recommending my home country as a place where my female Japanese students can go to be more free.
posted by Ghidorah at 4:41 PM on June 24 [53 favorites]


Pretty epic week for the Supreme Court. Can't wait for Monday!

This may be what William Gibson meant by the "jackpot."

Seems like civil disobedience may be coming back in style!

I have no words of wisdom or hope, but perhaps Peggy Gravel will be a bitter balm for you as it is for me... "I hate the Supreme Court!"
posted by SystematicAbuse at 4:53 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


https://www.pledge.to/access gets your money to 5 groups that provide pills, medical advice, logistical support, and direct $ help for women in the US seeking safe abortion.
posted by bearwombatdogpuppy at 5:01 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]




she very much wants to be able to go to university in the States, where the color of her skin won't be the only thing in people's minds when she talks to them.

Depends on what state you go to there. Some may be easier than others. I'm sorry to hear she got an invite to Texas.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:32 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]



It meant a lot to me that she felt she could open up to me, but I'm struggling with how I talk to her about this. I'll do whatever it is that I can to help her get to where she wants to go, but I think this is the end of me recommending my home country as a place where my female Japanese students can go to be more free.


Keep in mind the US has a wide variance of racial acceptance. Midwest and more rural states as a POC I absolutely avoid if possible, but both coasts and Hawaii are in general much more liberal and while half the states may burn, I'm fairly confident a large contingent of coastal people will go down screaming trying to protect basic human rights.
posted by kurosawa's pal at 5:38 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


Perhaps someone should send our Justices a bunch of these items in celebration of their verdict, just like Howard Beale's telegrams.
posted by zaixfeep at 5:51 PM on June 24




I would gently encourage people not to do the whole "it's the Midwest/South/rural/wherever that's the problem" thing. Especially in response to an anecdote about someone's positive experience in Dallas.

The US has racists and fascists everywhere; the fact that they have been more politically successful thus far in certain areas does not mean they're only a problem there.
posted by the primroses were over at 5:54 PM on June 24 [40 favorites]


This was the reaction of the third-highest ranking House Democrat, by the way, a man whose job is literally to whip up enthusiasm for party goals among his colleagues:

Just asked Whip Clyburn about the Dobbs decision: “It’s a little anticlimactic, I think we all expected this. And I'm hopeful, you know I have to read the decision to see exactly the extent to which we can move legislatively to respond to it.”

As someone said on Twitter, "it's a little anticlimactic" is perhaps the worst possible way to begin a response to the overturning of Roe. It's pathetic.
posted by Gadarene at 5:57 PM on June 24 [44 favorites]


Yeah, you’d think if they knew it was going to happen, they might have come up with a plan. Or at least a less milquetoast response than singing God Bless America…
posted by Windopaene at 6:01 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


From Twitter:
@jaycatt: My roommate described Republicans as the mass shooter and Democrats as Uvalde cops, and I can’t get it out of my head
posted by mhum at 6:02 PM on June 24 [93 favorites]


To be fair, the God Bless America thing was a planned event in response to passing the thoroughly inadequate, does-nothing-to-control-guns gun control bill.

But yes, going through with it, especially within earshot of the Supreme Court, following the ruling was an easily avoidable misstep for anyone with a broader understanding of optics and the importance of showing some anger and urgency at a point when constitutional rights are literally being stripped from millions of people.
posted by Gadarene at 6:06 PM on June 24 [14 favorites]


I lifted this from someone named CB Beal on Facebook, but it was exactly what I needed to hear today. Maybe some of you will find it helpful too.

"A Benediction For Today.

My usual benediction at the end of an event:

As you go now, out into
the rest of your lives,
Wear your mask,
Wash your hands,
Love your people and
Let them love you.
***
A benediction for the day Roe v. Wade was officially
overturned; a day that invites more clarity and possibility about
how to accomplish these things for people who have not,
until now, felt called into the service of organizing:

Vote. Rest. Fight. Breathe.
These are all part of the work.
Raise your children to love deeply.
Raise your children to value consent
and recognize the sacredness of bodily
autonomy and right to make complicated
decisions without government interference.

Organize, but don't make it up as you go along.

Join people who have been organizing for years.
Follow their lead.
Lean into your strengths.
Don't like talking on the phone?
Your body can't tolerate protests anymore?
Cool. No problem.

Babysit for young organizers.
Staple flyers to telephone poles.
Pick up activists who don't drive.
Take notes of organizing meetings
without interfering with the meeting.
Make the food and drink they ask for.
Remind yourself that it isn't "in my day"
anymore, and they will do things differently.

Ask how you can help them in their work.
Then do what they ask for, the way they want.
Maybe clean out the refridgerator, do laundry
for the activists and organizers who are parenting.
Offer to drive the kids to school every single morning
next school year to give them an hour more to their day.
Organize your church to offer space for free to groups
that are organizing for justice, with child care for kids.
Create a team that can provide food for dozens at
the drop of a hat; support people to do the work
by supporting their bodies in community care.

Leave behind a belief that you should be in
charge based on your decades of experience
in an adjacent field, or experience as a person who
holds many opinions and is used to sharing them freely.
Organizing, like medicine, education, or engineering,
is a field of endeavor with it's own skilled leaders.
Set aside a belief that you aren't good enough
or that you are the best; or worse, the
feeling that both are true. Simply
show up to serve. Follow the
lead of the people who
know how to do this
work, and know you
will get it wrong
and return--
and again,
and again,
returning
to serve
until the
moral arc
of the universe
is bent all the way
towards love and justice.

And also, it's still a pandemic.
Wear your mask,
Wash your hands,
Love your people and
Let them love you.

love, me"
posted by peppermind at 6:17 PM on June 24 [30 favorites]


Windopaene: Yeah, you’d think if they knew it was going to happen, they might have come up with a plan. Or at least a less milquetoast response than singing God Bless America…

Gadarene: To be fair, the God Bless America thing was a planned event in response to passing the thoroughly inadequate, does-nothing-to-control-guns gun control bill.

Even with Gadarene's context, it seems remarkably tone deaf.

1. "We sang a song because we got.... 'something' done that could arguably be called gun reform." (I haven't read much into it yet, but I am of the impression that money is set aside for "red flag" laws [good!], but if the state doesn't want to have those laws they can use the money for other things [wtf?])

2. "We sang this song because it was planned. Sucks that it happened on the day Roe v. Wade was overturned." (Um... when your house is burning because the christmas tree caught fire, maybe stop singing songs AND PUT OUT THE FIRE????)


My hugs to all of you.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:21 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


.
posted by mcbeth at 6:26 PM on June 24


Speaking of Nancy, has she been doing anything at all to bring some fresh Leadership into the party? Is there a succession plan?

It's just a piece of paper that says "we're taking it with us"
posted by mightygodking at 6:27 PM on June 24 [17 favorites]


Speaking of Nancy, has she been doing anything at all to bring some fresh Leadership into the party? Is there a succession plan?

Hakeem Jeffries is the heir apparent, and to all appearances he's just as beholden to the Democratic donor class, just as committed to bipartisanship and maintaining institutional norms for their own sake, and just as out of touch with what it's like to be someone just trying to get by in today's America as Pelosi is.
posted by Gadarene at 6:33 PM on June 24 [8 favorites]


(Or else he wouldn't be the heir apparent, obviously.)
posted by Gadarene at 6:34 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


As much as I've tried to get excited about Jeffries, he's followed Pelosi in shitting on the progressive wing. He is, and will only be more of the same.
posted by Ghidorah at 6:37 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Usual disclaimer about opinion polls but man.... the number of people who think abortion should be illegal "under any circumstances" is tiny. Like less than 15%.
posted by subdee at 6:40 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


(Sadly the circumstances under which the majority of poll respondents said that abortion should be legal is like... first trimester, endangers the life or health of the mother, result of rape/incest, child will have severe/life-threatening illness.... but not "family can't afford to have the child" which is the most common reason why people choose to get an abortion in the first place).
posted by subdee at 6:42 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


I do not have any words. I have realized that I am not good at face-to-face confrontation and arguing, but I am better with behind-the-scenes and emotional support and PBJs.

I will just pass along two quotes that I hold onto when times get dark. One is cliched and you know it already, the other is from a frontier woman.
“I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do I, and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

"[Y]ou're just given so much to work with in a life and you have to do the best you can with what you got. That's what piecing is. The materials is passed on to you, or is all you can afford. But the way you put them together is your business. You can put them in any order you like. Piecing is orderly."
posted by MollyRealized at 6:57 PM on June 24 [11 favorites]


[Massachusetts] Governor Baker Signs Executive Order to Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care Services
The order prohibits any Executive Department agencies from assisting another state’s investigation into a person or entity for receiving or delivering reproductive health services that are legal in Massachusetts.

The order also protects Massachusetts providers who deliver reproductive health care services from losing their professional licenses or receiving other professional discipline based on potential out of state charges.

Under the executive order, the Commonwealth will not cooperate with extradition requests from other states pursuing criminal charges against individuals who received, assisted with, or performed reproductive health services that are legal in Massachusetts.
Has President Biden done anything similar WRT federal agencies? Because it's a sad day when the Republican Governor of Massachusetts is doing more than the Democratic President of the United States.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:57 PM on June 24 [22 favorites]


^filtergik, not sure that i understand your question but i take it to be about the power of precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. i tracked down citations and took some notes when the draft opinion leaked, but appear to have lost track of those notes.

in the present opinion, stare decisis discussion begins at p.39 and goes on for some time. as authority, alito cites himself in janus (not saying much of note, offering some precedential cases; he identifies from that cloud of precedent five factors he feels relevant in that case) and kavanaugh concurrence in 2020 ramos decision there; thought there'd been a prominent citation to something by roberts in the leaked opinion; don't see it here, but begin to doubt my own lying impression of what i remember.

in ramos, boof says
The stare decisis factors identified by the Court in its past cases include:

the quality of the precedent’s reasoning;
the precedent’s consistency and coherence with previous or subsequent decisions;
changed law since the prior decision;
changed facts since the prior decision;
the workability of the precedent;
the reliance interests of those who have relied on the precedent; and
the age of the precedent.

But the Court has articulated and applied those various individual factors without establishing any consistent methodology or roadmap for how to analyze all of the factors taken together. And in my view, that muddle poses a problem for the rule of law and for this Court, as the Court attempts to apply stare decisis principles in a neutral and consistent manner.
for what it's worth.

it would certainly be edifying to compile and read the stare decisis sections of each of those cases cited in the obnoxiously-long footnote or in the stare decisis section.

i have not read this new (set of) opinion(s) (just scanned for the stare decisis section because i'd thought about it back in may). don't have the heart for reading it right now. i'll just sit here shouting "but the quality of the reasoning!" into the void for now. yes, and voting harder. and keeping my own counsel about minecraft.
posted by 20 year lurk at 6:58 PM on June 24 [6 favorites]


My state has now joined the confederacy of states that have effectively outlawed abortion.
posted by SystematicAbuse at 7:04 PM on June 24 [2 favorites]


The only thing as scary as how effective Republicans can be is how ready Democrats are to give up. Don't give up.
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:34 PM on June 24 [14 favorites]


I see the slippery slope to giving animals rights is that women might get some as well
posted by I will not be Heiled at 7:40 PM on June 24 [5 favorites]


Liberals should, en masse, pick two purple states and start moving there. It would help if some liberal companies moved or expanded and provided jobs.
posted by gt2 at 7:44 PM on June 24


There are concrete things the executive branch could be doing, btw, including setting up abortion clinics on federal land in red states, loosening restrictions on the availability of abortion medication, increasing oversight over tech companies' data tracking abilities on women who travel to get an abortion, any number of other things as outlined here and by Senator Warren today.

None of those things or anything similar appear to be in the works. The administration had two months--hell, two years--to prepare for this and acts like it's been caught totally flatfooted.

This is not Green Lantern stuff.
posted by Gadarene at 7:48 PM on June 24 [32 favorites]


The order prohibits any Executive Department agencies from assisting another state’s investigation into a person or entity for receiving or delivering reproductive health services that are legal in Massachusetts.

This is gonna sound grim as fuck, but one of the big conflicts in the decades before the Civil War was over free states refusing to allow slave state law enforcement officers (or freelance bounty hunters) to chase and arrest escaped slaves (and free Black citizens) in the free states.

By throwing the "decision" about abortion back on to each state to decide, the SC has absolutely set up conditions where state governments are going to be in serious legal conflict with each other.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:57 PM on June 24 [37 favorites]


including setting up abortion clinics on federal land in red states
This sounds great, but who is going to staff those clinics, and what happens when they cross the boundaries back into the red state? Because in Texas, they're likely going to face felony murder charges, right?
posted by carsondial at 7:57 PM on June 24 [4 favorites]


This sounds great, but who is going to staff those clinics, and what happens when they cross the boundaries back into the red state? Because in Texas, they're likely going to face felony murder charges, right?

I mean, if Texas is willing to start a civil war over it, then I guess there's nothing we can do.

(Warren has floated the idea of tribal lands hosting clinics, btw, where the tribes are amenable.)
posted by Gadarene at 8:02 PM on June 24 [9 favorites]


Welcome to Romania under the Ceaucescus.

Wait until the private prison contractors get their hands on orphanages!
posted by emilypdx at 8:03 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]


Military bases are also federal land, some already have medical staff present, and there are quite a few bases in the South.
posted by FJT at 8:06 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]


There's a solid case for requiring all Catholics to register as foreign agents of the Vatican or force the Catholic church to make the US theologically independent of Rome.

Look I know the Republican party is trying to roll us back to 150 years ago but maybe we could try not bringing along the old-timey bigotry along with it?
posted by corb at 8:08 PM on June 24 [41 favorites]


More info (Sorry, edit time passed).
posted by emilypdx at 8:11 PM on June 24


Welcome to Romania under the Ceaucescus.

If it makes anybody feel any better, Ceaușescu's stringent ban on abortion indirectly led to a massive youth wave who overthrew the government, resulting in him being shot to death in the street.

Kind of a while to wait for a payoff like that, though.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:13 PM on June 24 [15 favorites]


Remember how the line “This is the most important election of our lifetimes” was repeatedly invoked and roundly dismissed one election cycle after another?

Well, it was never more true than in 2016.

But there are two upcoming elections where it also genuinely applies:

The 2022 mid-term elections …

And the Presidential election of 2024.
posted by New Frontier at 8:21 PM on June 24 [8 favorites]


My copy of The Complete Hothead Paisan arrived a couple days ago. I'll probably read the whole thing this weekend.
posted by bendy at 8:26 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


> I'll do whatever it is that I can to help her get to where she wants to go, but I think this is the end of me recommending my home country as a place where my female Japanese students can go to be more free.

Oh I stopped years ago and now actively dissuade them. Being WOC in the USA of course comes with a whole bunch of issues that perpetrators or well-meaning allies are blind to and conveniently leave out of the American Dream marketing. I know multiple women who decided to return to Japan in the past few years, who all experienced gender-related (and race-related?) violence and aggression here...and that was before the current escalation of anti-Asian hate crimes and Everything Else.

Sure, the home country has its issues, but they'll still get a better chance at safety and respect there, won't get shot when grocery-shopping, go bankrupt from medical costs, have to line up for hours just to vote, lose rights with no notice just because one particular party is in charge...
posted by Sockin'inthefreeworld at 8:33 PM on June 24 [10 favorites]


I went to the protest downtown earlier this evening. Decent turnout given how last-minute it was, and that the location got switched due to logistics. Chants of "Do something, Democrats" and "Democrats, we call your bluff" were pretty full-throated. Beto O'Rourke showed up and got cheered, but those aforementioned chants came around the same time; I don't know if they were aimed at him. Beto didn't speak, which I thought was a smart move. I'm not super into the dude, but this is the second thing I've seen him at in a month, and the other event was a lot less high-profile (an SEIU strike vote).

Before the protest I got a text from Nancy Pelosi and the DCCC urging me to send money to "maintain the pro-choice House." Seriously? You just made a big deal of backing that anti-choice, anti-labor shitheel Henry Cuellar. Fuck off.
posted by heteronym at 8:34 PM on June 24 [31 favorites]


Here, elsewhere in cyberspace, and in meatspace I hear people with exotic plans involving blue states and tribal/federal lands or church of satan etc ..

This fall republicans are likely to take control of congress, and if they pass a federal ban on abortion? or if a thinktank cherry picks a blue state father-to-be lawsuit and the supremes over-rule blue-statr laws?

There is no substitute for power. You can conduct opinion polls and consciousness raising until you are blue in the face, we don't live in a democracy.

You can make whatever legal logical arguments you want about states, religious institutions, equal treatment, precident, until you are blue in the face, we aren't governed by laws.

We are policed by organized, trained armed comparitively small groups that have social recognition, extensive tax and private resources and a predatory mindset .

Don't bring a picket sign and petition to a civil war; they are already bringing guns and body armor.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 8:49 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


There is no substitute for power.

Correct. There is also no power on this Earth as great as that of huge numbers of committed people organizing themselves to assert it.

You can conduct opinion polls and consciousness raising until you are blue in the face, we don't live in a democracy.

This is a Fascist talking point, not something any serious student of politics should be believing or megaphoning.

you need to start to learn to hate Democrats, because they are your enemy, as much as Republicans are your enemy.

This is a Fascist talking point, not something any serious student of politics should be believing or megaphoning.

Anybody who thinks that hating Democrats, in and of itself, is going to achieve anything positive would be well advised to re-examine their political conceptual categories.

You need to start to learn to out-organize plutocrats, because they are your enemy, as much as Republicans are your enemy. You are not a plutocrat. You are a Democratic voter, maybe even a small donor, but you are not a plutocrat. You aren't a senator or state house rep. You aren't a fellow at the Burbank Institute For Free And Nice Markets or a McKinsey consultant collecting a paycheck to write legislation for them. You won't be invited to the WH correspondents dinner, or any other dinner. The plutocrats who have convinced so many that they are the real Democrats do not care about you. They have designed a system of political and party apparati which ensure they aren't even accountable to you. They will retain rights that you and those less fortunate than yourself lose or never even had. You are livestock to them, and not even livestock that they regard as their property, so good luck trying to sleep in their barn.

The things we must do are not suitable to describe on a public web site.

Perhaps not in detail, but let me have a crack at sketching an outline.

In order to seize power from plutocrats, the citizenry must become and remain better organized than the plutocrats are. This requires acting in a disciplined, coordinated though distributed and non-hierarchical fashion, maintaining tight operational security, and paying close attention to the methods by which those who have already demonstrated genuine progress toward that goal, like AOC and Stacey Abrams and the organizers of the Amazon union, have achieved what they have.

There is no point whatsoever in encouraging more people to hate plutocrats than already do, despite the fact that their activities are and always have been an existential threat to democracy. Instead it is better to study them, study their methods, and continue to generate creative ways to render those methods ineffective in the face of a coordinated, organized, potent, engaged, activist citizenry.

Simply attempting to repurpose the plutocrats' own methods of violence and suppressive control against them is useless, because those are the methods the plutocrats understand the best and therefore those against which they will always have the best defences.

Propaganda, though, can be made to work for the citizenry every bit as well as it has always worked for those whose wealth and power have given them traditional control over the dominant megaphones. No megaphone in the world is as loud as the raw shouts of a well organized mass.
posted by flabdablet at 9:52 PM on June 24 [36 favorites]


Liberal: you need to start to learn to hate Democrats, because they are your enemy, as much as Republicans are your enemy. You are not a Democrat. You are a Democratic voter, maybe even a small donor, but you are not a Democrat. You aren't a senator or state house rep.

This liberal is a Democrat currently running for state rep. This liberal’s mom spent her whole life working at an abortion clinic, working through firebombings, chemical attacks, and aggressive protestors. And now I’m going to do what I can to make sure that wasn’t all in vain. So maybe GYOFB and post this overwrought crap over there.
posted by schoolgirl report at 9:54 PM on June 24 [71 favorites]


holy shit, i can fix this if i vote? awesome! when’s the next supreme court election??

Yeah. It was 2016. The president who won the 2016 election appointed three supreme court justices. So it was 2016. Our side lost. This is the inevitable consequence of that election. Glad I could clear that up.

When our side won a couple of presidential elections in a row and appointed some justices, they found a constitutional right for gay marriage. You can get gay married in any state in the U.S. and every state has to honor it. Even Alabama! It was awesome. We celebrated like crazy on this very website.
posted by chrchr at 9:57 PM on June 24 [49 favorites]


Has any Democrat done more than expressed mild disappointment for this latest massive overturning of Liberty?

Biden could have announced where the protests are. Created a fund for the defense of people arrested at protests, lost their jobs for protesting. Declared the January 6th insurrection treason and screamed from the rooftops about it being treason every single day. There could have been discussions of consequences, things we will not put up with if abortion got banned.

Something. Anything for the love of God. This isn't a neighborhood HOA fee increase that went against us. This was another step of fascism on the March over our fucking faces
posted by Jacen at 10:08 PM on June 24 [12 favorites]


Oh, and in case anybody wonders why more babies born doesn't necessarily equate to more government expense for funding said infrastructure base structure to and support them, no. The Republican ideal care for people who can't afford it is to provide a small set amount for Medicare and Medicaid and once that money is gone it's gone forever. You have a health issue and there's no money available? Better hope you belong to a generous Church or you can take a loan or you can die on the street.
posted by Jacen at 10:11 PM on June 24 [1 favorite]


Happier times: Metafilter thread about Obergfell
posted by chrchr at 10:14 PM on June 24 [3 favorites]


Has any Democrat done more than expressed mild disappointment for this latest massive overturning of Liberty?

Yes, many. Just not the ones with the most power.

Elizabeth Warren should be President; she is meeting this moment to a far greater degree than those in charge.
posted by Gadarene at 10:17 PM on June 24 [50 favorites]


I have voted and I will continue to vote democrat (not least because the Republicans want me fucking dead) but my presidential vote hasn't meant a damn single thing in Texas for 40 years. I've very slightly increased the ratio by which the popular vote failed to represent the will of millions of the voting public.

I'm also betting that I won't be able to get medications in under 5 years. That I won't be able to choose the gender-coded outfits I want. I'm already afraid to get my gender markers changed, or to file for my preferred name. I don't feel safe in my state and that's only going to get worse. I don't particularly feel safe in blue States anymore either for that fucking matter. So that's what I look at every time I hear vote harder, and see what it's actually gotten me.
posted by Jacen at 10:20 PM on June 24 [18 favorites]


.
posted by quazichimp at 10:26 PM on June 24


I know the cruelty is the point but the tension between “you can’t force me to wear no mask” and “this medical procedure is now illegal” is real fun
posted by aspersioncast at 11:03 PM on June 24 [16 favorites]


Haven’t read the comments, I’m sorry to everyone who has said smarter things but I’m here to scream.

Fuck this. Burn it all down. Protest their houses. Refuse to work. General strike!
posted by Jeff_Larson at 11:31 PM on June 24 [7 favorites]




The Democratic Party seems to have as much of a grip on optics as Pakleds.
posted by MollyRealized at 12:27 AM on June 25


My copy of The Texas-Israeli War: 1999 (1974) arrived today.
posted by MollyRealized at 12:29 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


I'm going to mention one thing today. I don't know as it helps in the slightest bit. But maybe it does.

What caused the Republican Party to take the hard right into absolute batshit bonkers was gerrymandering in the 2010 Census.

In 2008-2009 the GOP made a plan for the 2010 Census. It was called Project REDMAP. That sounds like a Bond villain name or a conspiracy theory, but it's right there in Wikipedia. Read the article.

The idea was to gerrymander all the districts so that Republicans were safe in each district. And — success. They're safe. What's next? Well, you're Joe Republican. How do you become a Representative now that the general election's safe? Well, you win the primary.

How do you win the primary? Well, you have to be more Republican than the other guy. So no more compromises you can be attacked on. And you better be a lot more extreme than the other guy. Extremism wins primaries.

(I live in Chicago. There's barely any Republicans in primaries. Guess how/at what stage in the process Democrats win in Chicago.)

And then, because this is a vicious cycle, James Republican wants to dethrone Joe Republican. And so he has to be even more extreme than the extremist position Joe Republican took.

And that cycle keeps looping endlessly until your party has self-filtered itself to be the most insane, radicalized version of itself.

One thought goes through my head as I read what I wrote above — I imagine ranked-choice voting might end up being the savior of our country. If we could forcefully wedge other alternatives into the process, suddenly candidates would have to appeal to those bases, too — and just being the most extreme of the extreme would suddenly not be a winning strategy.
posted by MollyRealized at 12:46 AM on June 25 [41 favorites]


A few thoughts:

First, when Josh Hawley cheers on the idea of states becoming inhospitable for liberals because of the inherent biases of the Senate and electoral college, pay attention, because he is a shitty fascist. It is especially ironic because he spent the day before Jan 5 whining his pathetic ass off because some people sang songs outside his primary residence in northern Virginia.

Secondly, I'm reminded of the reporting on Orban's anti-democratic movement in Hungary -- that he and Fidesz changed the constitution to crush dissent. Changing the constitution to make things worse for people is obviously bad, that makes sense, but in the US you do not have to change the constitution to make things worse for people. All of the capacity to impose reactionary minoritarianism is already inherent, especially at the state level.

Thirdly, the core principle of modern American conservatism is the right to snitch on people while not being personally snitched on. The people who most relish this are the people who most deserve to be snitched on as loudly as possible.
posted by holgate at 1:16 AM on June 25 [6 favorites]


I would like to amend my statement: America is not a democracy, we must do hard work and take risks to make it one.

Its too simple but: Republicans escalate and cheat until they win and Democrats compromise and nuance until they lose.

Republicans are playing Jenga with our government/economy/lives. It will take more than singing "God bless America" and correcting their grammer to defeat them.

Nonviolent civil instituions and dispute resolution are valuable and necessary esactly because what constitutes the various participants in society are rarely independent atomized people but groups whose potential for violence and discord are the very thing thst makes politics necessary.

We don't negotiate or compromise with a paperclip, ghosts or goldfish because they have no power. We can only have politics and mutual respect of rights and nonviolent institutions because we offer the potential of the alternative.

The republicans hold the country hostage and transcend previous political rules, norms and laws because they are so overt at showing their ability and willingness to resort to the alternative.

It is not fascist to insist that those who support freedom, equality, sustainability and justice will need to remind the opponents of those values that obeying the rules/laws/norms win or lose is the lesser of two evils. That stealing an election isn't winning, its a net loss because the peace and cooperation is lost.

Peace and cooperation are our offer, the constitution is just a peace of paper without the possibility that peace and cooperation are conditional.

Maybe this is a dereail. Maybe my thinking is incorrect or dangerous.
posted by anecdotal_grand_theory at 1:17 AM on June 25 [7 favorites]


I know the cruelty is the point but the tension between “you can’t force me to wear no mask” and “this medical procedure is now illegal” is real fun

No tension at all. And cruelty is more a hallmark than a point.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." -- Genesis 1:28

Some prosperous, powerful people see their wealth and power as indisputable proof that they are anointed by God, with 'subdue/dominion over every living thing' extending to the rest of us unanointed not-fully-humans.

And that dominion manifests as:
* "I get to tell you what to do, and you have to obey me without question."
* "You do NOT get to tell me what to do, and I can ignore you without consequence."
After all, they're doing the Lord's work and we're there for them to use as they see fit. (Hence all the grifting, for example)

Cruelty implies that they perceive us as equals. They do not.
posted by zaixfeep at 1:21 AM on June 25 [14 favorites]


Probably everyone knows the background story, I have read about it before, but it felt useful somehow to read it again:
How the Christian right took over the judiciary and changed America
New Right leaders formed common cause with a handful of conservative Catholics, including George Weigel and Richard John Neuhaus, who shared their concerns, and drew in powerful conservative preachers such as Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones Sr. They were determined to ignite a hyper-conservative counter-revolution. All they needed now was an issue that could be used to unify its disparate elements and draw in the rank and file.

Among their core concerns was the fear that the supreme court might end tax exemptions for segregated Christian schools. Jerry Falwell and many of his fellow southern, white, conservative pastors were closely involved with segregated schools and universities – Jones went so far as to call segregation “God’s established order” and referred to desegregationists as “Satanic propagandists” who were “leading colored Christians astray”. As far as these pastors were concerned, they had the right not just to separate people on the basis of race but to also receive federal money for the purpose.

They knew, however, that “Stop the tax on segregation!” wasn’t going to be an effective rallying cry for their new movement. As the historian and author Randall Balmer wrote, “It wasn’t until 1979 – a full six years after Roe – that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools.”
posted by mumimor at 3:22 AM on June 25 [16 favorites]


Has any Democrat done more than expressed mild disappointment for this latest massive overturning of Liberty?

Watch this. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): "Every single one of us has woken up today with less rights than we had yesterday."
posted by mikelieman at 3:35 AM on June 25 [14 favorites]


Watch this. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY): "Every single one of us has woken up today with less rights than we had yesterday."

Nice...but it's still just a speech and that's it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:59 AM on June 25 [6 favorites]




20 year lurk, yes I sought the factors of precedent or stare decisis and did not know terminology. Extremely helpful, Thank you!

When we read their reasoning for ourselves (or articles addressing them), it helps to compare these factors to determine how much or how little authors measured against practice when they draft one anew, attempting to establish new precedent. (repeating them here):
the quality of the precedent’s reasoning;
the precedent’s consistency and coherence with previous or subsequent decisions;
changed law since the prior decision;
changed facts since the prior decision;
the workability of the precedent;
the reliance interests of those who have relied on the precedent; and
the age of the precedent.
Whether they had any "quality of the reasoning" as you shout or even measured at all.

The first two factors look like the ones current sitting justices can affect most while drafting their reasons (some workability, too). The others depend on time and external actions.
posted by filtergik at 4:38 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


I think there were actually TWO separate protests last night in NYC. AOC was at the one that stayed put in Union Square....I was at the other one, that started at Washington Square Park.

My roommate reached out to me mid-day saying he was thinking of going to the Union Square one, and did I want to come. I said FUCK YEAH, and told him about the earlier one at Washington Square Park. He said FUCK YEAH as well. He was going to go in "photojournalist" drag and I was just gonna stick by him (having a protest buddy when you've got a bum knee is probably wise).

After we got home from our respective jobs and changed (I suggested he NOT wear all black so he wouldn't get pegged as a Black-bloc member by cops just in case), we hit Washington Square Park. It was already so packed full when we got there, we could only stand on the periphery. We could vaguely tell someone was speaking, but couldn't hear them. At about 7:30 the crowd started to move north towards Union Square; we knew that there was a vigil at 8 pm, and we thought that the crowd would be joining that. We hit Union Square...but the crowd kept moving, north up Park Avenue. (I only learned this morning that the Union Square vigil was in a different part of Union Square; some from our group dropped out to do that, but I was in the crowd that kept moving.)

So our group was not necessarily expected to do that. But...I have to hand it to the organizers, they kept the crowd safe. Teams of volunteers on bikes would keep ahead of the crowd, blocking the crossbound traffic at each intersection as we went. A couple cops also showed up to help things - but no arrests yet. We kept marching up Park, got to 23rd Street and paused for a while - but it was only so the organizers could work out some crowd control. And within a few minutes, we were moving again.

We hit 34th Street, and kept going.

We hit that weird overpass on Park, that ramp that leads you around the upper level of Grand Central - and kept going. My roommate and I paused in the crowd when we started to walk around Grand Central, to catch photos of the crowd filling the road 3 blocks ahead of us and then back a full 10 blocks behind us.

We passed a church at one point; there was a woman dressed as a Handmaid who dropped out of the crowd for a few minutes to just stand in front of the door to the church, head bowed, as a kind of silent protest/photo op. My roommate got pictures, but after a second I got a bad feeling that this was going to be the precursor to some kind of other action and spurred us on.

We got all the way up Park as far as 51st Street - and hung a left and kept going, on past St. Patrick's Cathedral. Then turned again to march through Rockefeller Center. The whole way the volunteers were still shepherding us all along and directing traffic.

We marched past the FOX News headquarters, where as we passed the chants turned into a solid and unceasing "FUCK TUCKER CARLSON". Some guy had even rigged up an autotune thing on his loudspeaker and turned it into a song of sorts.

We got to Times Square and marched past all the tourists - all of whom were filming us with cameraphones. And - I have to also add that throughout this entire march I've just described, Times Square was the ONE AND ONLY instance I saw of anyone daring to counterprotest. Everyone else we passed the whole way up to that point was supportive - either just standing back and watching with a faint smile, or clapping for us. (I'd picked up a couple of discarded signs, and when I saw one guy applauding us as we walked, I offered him one and he took it, holding it up as the crowd passed.) The one and only person I saw who objected to our march was one dude somewhere in Times Square who hollered "Stop killing babies!" a couple times as I passed - and that's it.

It was about 10:30 at night at that point and my roommate and I dropped out - my knee was completely spent at that point so we went home. I've learned that the crowd later went on to Bryant Park and took it over, where a number of people gave speeches for the next hour and change as people gradually started drifting away. The crowd in Bryant Park then started trying to block traffic around the park as a form of continued protest, and that's when the police finally started to pick up a few people; but the crowd started just hanging around the sidewalk until they got a green crosswalk light, and then s-l-o-w-l-y amble into the crosswalk - all innocently going to cross the street like a good citizen and whoopsie, the light changed and I'm stuck here!

I've seen a few people on Twitter refer to the protests as "insurrection". I've started telling them that "you know what, you're right. It IS an insurrection. It just uses brains and peace instead of guns. And it's coming for you, you fascists." We were 20,000 strong in that march and we cowed the police into letting us take to the streets. And only ONE PERSON I saw that whole way objected to us.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:05 AM on June 25 [49 favorites]


Best Twitter take I've seen:

Republicans are mass shooters while the Democratic Party is Ulvade cops.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 5:14 AM on June 25 [10 favorites]


Has any Democrat done more than expressed mild disappointment for this latest massive overturning of Liberty?

Everyone seems to overlook the states, which is unfortunate because that’s where this battle will be waged. Democratic governors are taking steps to cement protections for clinics, and to be a safe haven for people from others states seeking abortions. Here in NH, the Democrats in the legislature - who are in the minority - are calling on our so-called pro-choice governor to force a special session to enshrine protections in law (he will not do that). So yeah, Democrats are doing things, just not the Democrats you’re paying attention to.
posted by schoolgirl report at 5:17 AM on June 25 [15 favorites]


The Church of Satan notwithstanding, i don't see why this can't be challenged (under a different court, obvs.) as imposing religion. Most Jews don't view life beginning at conception and the State of Israel pays for abortions under national health care. The same view holds in other non-evangelical Christian denominations.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:22 AM on June 25 [16 favorites]


Here in Arkansas, we had a trigger law that wouldn't take effect until signed by the Attorney General, Leslie Rutledge. She did that yesterday afternoon, and now abortion is only legal when the pregnant person's life is threatened (no rape or incest exceptions). She's running for lieutenant governor. Standing next to her while she did it was Governor Asa Hutchinson, who might be running for president.
posted by box at 5:38 AM on June 25


(Also, let's suppose someone thinks this decision was timed to distract from the January 6 hearings. Is this person a paranoid conspiracist, a realistic observer of politics, or something in between?)
posted by box at 5:42 AM on June 25 [6 favorites]


The Church of Satan notwithstanding, i don't see why this can't be challenged (under a different court, obvs.) as imposing religion. Most Jews don't view life beginning at conception and the State of Israel pays for abortions under national health care.

I absolutely think that should be the pro-choice movement's next step.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:44 AM on June 25 [3 favorites]


Oh, and in the short term:

A journalist on Twitter is asking women who've hooked up with pro-life politicians, and had them make her get an abortion or a morning-after pill, to reach out to her. I think in the short term, that's EXACTLY the way to go - if there's a pro-life politician in a state with a restrictive abortion law, and he made one of his mistresses get an abortion ever, she could be calling one of these tip lines and turning his ass in.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:46 AM on June 25 [18 favorites]


A Florida synagogue has in fact recently filed a lawsuit against Florida's abortion law on the grounds that "the law that takes effect July 1 violates Jewish teachings, which state abortion “is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman” and for other reasons."
posted by Jeanne at 5:48 AM on June 25 [43 favorites]


DEMOCRATS NEED TO GET SOMETHING DONE. Statehood for DC. Pack the court. Whatever. They need to do something.

Additional statehoods seems like one of the most achievable paths since it constitutionally requires only a majority of both houses.

First chance we get to kill the filibuster, push through statehood for DC, for Puerto Rico, for Guam, USVI, AS, NMI. 12 new senators.

Of course, with Manchin and Sinema and Biden, it doesn't seem like killing the filibuster is on the horizon.
posted by pjenks at 6:08 AM on June 25 [7 favorites]


Has any Democrat done more than expressed mild disappointment for this latest massive overturning of Liberty?

Yes.
posted by juiceCake at 6:18 AM on June 25 [8 favorites]


someone on this very long thread said that we are listening to the wrong politicians, that is, the national politicians like Pelosi, not the state politicians. I think this is true but the Democratic party seems to have brought that on themselves by stressing that the power that's important is the presidency and the congress. Yes, these are important but what the anti-establishment GOP/evangelical/anti-choice group has been doing is focusing on states. This was the conclusion of a recent guest on Fresh Air, law professor Mary Ziegler. (link goes to the episode). Not only did this group focus on states and getting judges that agree with them. And they got the power away from the the Establishment GOP. I wish I knew how to do this because I feel the establishment Dems have lost touch with who they represent in many ways.

I live in very red southwest Virginia. I work for local candidates, I canvas (except during covid), I write postcards, I make phone calls. But what the group mentioned above did was something different and I wish I knew how to replicate it. We are in a decades long setback, but that's where that anti-choice group was in 1992 - six GOP SC justices and still Roe.
posted by bluesky43 at 6:19 AM on June 25 [6 favorites]


Mumimor - the Guardian article you linked to is on point here. thank you. I ask, where are those leaders for a progressive society? We need them.
posted by bluesky43 at 6:38 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


schoolgirl report I get what you're saying, and while I agree that we should fight on every front to say that the real battle is in the states now seems defeatist.

The goal is for abortion to be MORE AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE than it was under Roe.

Fighting on the state level is necessary, but ultimately a tactic of desperation and loss.

We must move the fight out of the states as rapidly as possible.
posted by sotonohito at 7:03 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Money. Anti-choice candidates can get it, already have it, don't need to worry about sharing responsibilities in their home or work while pursuing office or campaigning because there is a massive self-dealing money network that keeps mediocre but useful idiots in stock for all these state roles and eventually national ones.

I'm not about to propose some solve-all as so many above have, because all of those are our own guilt and remorse and anger talking. Each of us has limits, talents, and priorities - these will change with time.

Today, some of us can help people who are pregnant and on the clock to get where they can get the medical care they need but are denied where they live. Does a general strike or voting or working to lead others to vote or dismantling the tightly-coupled anti-choice and white-nationalist terror network affect those people today? No. That means leave space for those who can take direct action today and if you want to be one there is always room - but it may mean asking and looking before assuming nobody else has gone before you and duplicating effort or worse, distracting from others who are already providing this crucial service.

And does getting individual pregnant folks the care they need today solve the issue of voter suppression and violence and poverty and carefully strategized long term planning to disenfranchise and deny agency to the majority? No. So let folks examine the way one might form a long term plan where the voting becomes so overwhelming that it does counteract the carefully constructed but not invincible tactics of suppression.

Being mad at the party and people who didn't vote when it mattered and cynical fundraising without action is fine. Don't vote for those fools in the primaries and solicit or sacrifice to become better candidates, but not at the cost of a pro-abortion vote where it counts.

With enough of a majority - very hard to achieve but this threat changes the math - it does not have to be the work of generations to admit new states, achieve a simple majority with filibuster carve-outs, and change several basic facts on the ground. The argument about "wouldn't they just overturn it" can be flooded the same as any other limited bandwidth service - force them to react to and overturn and wind cases through for every challenge because everything from public opinion to who is funding what can change pretty quickly as well.

The right really does want you to assume they've already won. It's their most powerful weapon.

But nothing we're writing here to work through justified anger and sorrow should be seen as the one thing you must do. There's a buffet. Understand and be honest about your capacity and means and contribute what you can of time, connection, money.

But the greatest contribution we can all make is to understanding and empathy. This war has been underway and fought by others most of us never see or acknowledge - contributing your empathy that your brand new scintillating outrage is often about yourself and it's important to keep it in context when planning how to help.

Immediate options aren't necessarily satisfying for the big picture. Big picture options aren't exactly cathartic in the present moment. But both of those are better than righteous anger that doesn't really change anything without action (long term, short term, including asking how others are already fighting and humbling yourself to join something you didn't invent).

Please. Channeling anger is good. Discovering and cultivating empathy and humility and hope dismantles cynicism and despair and is just better. Both have their time.
posted by abulafa at 7:11 AM on June 25 [9 favorites]


Yes, Democrats need to get something done. For that to happen, we need better democrats, to do that, more people need to participate in the primaries. Then those democrats need to win more seats which means they need votes and money.

That's not mutually exclusive either.

These people aren't like employees with a mutually beneficial relationship. They're tools, mostly shitty tools I'll grant you but they're the tools we have. I used to have a shitty lawn mower but I still needed to mow the lawn and couldn't afford anything better. So I did the best I could to keep it running and make it work better even though I hated it. And I sure as hell didn't starve of gas or oil. I was very happy to replace that lawn mower with a much more efficient and all around better mower last year and it made all the work putting up with the crappy one worth while. Even the crappy mower was better than whatever you to have stand in for the GOP here, of course.

Back to politics. I don't really think "just vote" is the end of it. It's more upping your personal engagement in whatever form you're able. Maybe it means you start voting in primaries, maybe you start donating, run for office, get involved with the local party, etc.

The root cause is still voting but it's really just that more people need to vote so that we can hopefully get voting rights expanded, get more people voting, and so on until we can finally get away from first-past-the-post voting. Democratic power builds and the quality of candidates should improve along the way and some of this heinous shit can get undone as we go too.

So, for me, voting (and more people being more engaged generally) is always the target even if it's not really the primary goal.
posted by VTX at 7:23 AM on June 25 [8 favorites]


There's a common theme between the January 6th hearings and yesterday's announcement--both are signals of the ongoing weakening of the United States since at least the 2016 election.

The reaction to January 6th--hearings a year late, and no effective punishment of the guilty--show that the United States government lacks the will and cohesion to defend itself.

The cancelling of stare decisis yesterday shows that you cannot trust the legal system of the United States to defend its own decisions. It's not just civil rights at risk--the value and stability of contracts, property titles, and so on depends on a legal system that won't change its support on a whim.

You could extend that out to the general erosion of the reputation of the United States during the Trump administration: pulling out of treaties, damaging long-standing alliances, Trump himself and members of the Republican party working with the enemies of the United States, and allying with the enemies of the Unites States against the interests of the United States.

And again--all of that will no effective countermeasures, no punishment for the guilty, no effective defense of the country or the system.

So, if I were a political or business leader outside the United States--would I want to invest in the United States, or in businesses based in the United States? Would I want to sign a treaty with the United States? Would I want to purchase assets in the United States? The risk in all those things has just gone up.

This isn't to minimize the effect on civil rights that the attack on substantive due process represents--that's the immediate danger, and it's having an immediate effect on individuals, right now. But there are other storm clouds on the horizon, too, and who knows where they could lead.
posted by gimonca at 7:24 AM on June 25 [25 favorites]


Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) said he will seek to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy

Amazon is building their "HQ2" headquarters in Virginia. Now would really be the time for Bezos to step up on this issue in Virginia (heh, not that I expect him to).

Switching gears slightly - info that may be helpful: The National Lawyer's Guild updated Know Your Rights booklet, a guide for protesters.
posted by gudrun at 7:42 AM on June 25 [8 favorites]


Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) said he will seek to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy

Amazon is building their "HQ2" headquarters in Virginia. Now would really be the time for Bezos to step up on this issue in Virginia (heh, not that I expect him to).


Youngkin is dangerous. As others have said, he's Trump who seems harmless. As for Bezos, I wish they had just left him in space.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:59 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]


This twitter thread outlines what to do when SCOTUS is off the rails.

It seems like most of us can agree we do not see any of those actions happening with our current political leaders.

Another thread I saw that I cannot find again laid out how on Monday SCOTUS will likely strike down all Federal Environmental protections leaving it up to the states.

When (if there are any) Historians look back it will have only taken about a week for a rogue court to Balkanize and dissolve the Union.

But man those gas prices amiright?
posted by M Edward at 8:06 AM on June 25 [15 favorites]


So - I work in a call center, and we don't seem particularly understaffed looking at the numbers, but... our service levels are like 4% should be near 100%.

Even with system issues it's NEVER this bad.

So... I am wondering and hoping that it may be a form of strike about this.
posted by symbioid at 8:18 AM on June 25


Can you clarify, symbioid? What does "service levels" mean in this context?
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:34 AM on June 25 [5 favorites]


:(
posted by Lynsey at 9:00 AM on June 25


holy shit, i can fix this if i vote? awesome! when’s the next supreme court election??

Yeah. It was 2016. The president who won the 2016 election appointed three supreme court justices. So it was 2016. Our side lost. This is the inevitable consequence of that election. Glad I could clear that up.


And before that, it was 2012, when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell blocked him from ever having a confirmation hearing. This is when the Supreme Court ceased to be a legitimate body.

I'm a single-issue voter and the issue is “which one of these asshole millionaires will make better appointments to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary?” but it doesn't fucking matter if Republicans are going to cheat this hard and Democrats are just going to let them get away with it in the name of bipartisanship and collegiality. I volunteered for Biden but it's really hard to have the Democrats repeatedly make promises to us for things that we need, like another $2,000 in the pandemic, like student loan relief, like ensuring the right to bodily autonomy, like single payer healthcare, like having Social Security keep pace with the cost of living, and having them just shrug and go back to courting the kind of comfortable white suburbanites who don't give half a dead rat about politics rather than acknowledging that marginalized people are their base, are the people who consistently turn out for them, are the people who volunteer for them, and maybe, just maybe, they need to prioritize our humanity over having a good bipartisan relationship with the people who want us dead.

Compromising with conservatives isn't a merit. It's complicity. There's no compromise position for “we want you all dead.”
posted by bile and syntax at 9:01 AM on June 25 [38 favorites]


“GOP lawmaker says she trusts Utah women to control their ‘intake of semen’ as abortion trigger law goes into effect.”

I had no idea there were flow valves and gaskets involved in the sperm intake piping.

I love Utah - we wandered around 9th and 9th in Salt Lake last night past pro-choice signs on the Whale (we must honor her choice!), past rainbow flag adorned houses and streets covered with RBG signs. It was warm and lovely and happy and accepting. Young people out on dates and living their best life, many having come from the Capitol rally. But I know Salt Lake and Park City are mere blue dots in a fucking sea of red. And evidently painfully stupid red.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 9:08 AM on June 25 [10 favorites]


Has any Democrat done more than expressed mild disappointment for this latest massive overturning of Liberty?

I've watched over ten thousand Democrats lose to "pro-life" pro-gun candidates over the years, and they all seemed pretty disappointed. I've also seen the meaning of "progressive" move rightward to mean mostly family support, away from environment and abortion. The cultural landscape has shifted and a candidate must be careful which issue to forcefully put in front of their electors, because so many would rather not know a candidates position on abortion, or they might go to hell if they vote for them. Point is that if we aren't blaming the cultural and religious influences, then we aren't even helping. Sinead O'Connor was the first person I've ever seen cancelled, after ripping up a a photo of the pope on SNL in 1992 (the same pope who rose from obscurity in the Polish countryside by campaigning to ban the pill for Catholics, a minority position among cardinals at that time). Demanding radical vocal candidates is a dream for the other side so they can isolate the independents for themselves. Evangelicals didn't become a political force by preaching their religion, merely their chocolate-covered values. We can't even identify how religious the average Republican really is. Democrats need to focus on limiting family size as a quality of life and social environment issue, because the next battleground is contraception and a woman's role in society, or whatever it is pro-life religious leaders preach.
posted by Brian B. at 9:13 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]


Oh - we have calls coming in and we have to answer them and resolve them in x amount of time. If staff is short or we get hit with a lot of calls that number goes down, not hitting our 100% service level (e.g. calls answered in x amount of time).

When we have system outages for hours at a time it maaaaaaaaay drop to like 50%. I have never seen it hit single digits. usually calls are answered withing minutes, today was like 15 minutes for calls to be answered and many calls holding - some of that is volume and staffing, but... this seems improbable to me to be the only contributing factor.

It's probably not an action, but I like to think it is.
posted by symbioid at 9:16 AM on June 25 [2 favorites]


Anyways I'm seething and we need to do to the dems what the far right has done to the repubs. we need to be merciless and Pelosi and all the dinosaurs? They need to go. We need fresh blood - yeah we have "the squad" but we need more, and angrier.

I wish I trusted we could do a general strike. But it's the "first mover" problem - who is going to initiate it, who will sustain it, who can afford to, and how do you shut this motherfucking country down without it just being random acts.
posted by symbioid at 9:19 AM on June 25 [7 favorites]


And before that, it was 2012, when Obama nominated Merrick Garland and Mitch McConnell blocked him from ever having a confirmation hearing.

Just point of order that this was in 2016, not 2012.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:21 AM on June 25 [4 favorites]


I think the 2012 there refers to the year of the election that Obama won that allowed him to appoint Garland, not the year McConnell chose to disregard that presidential power with zero consequences.
posted by the primroses were over at 9:31 AM on June 25 [3 favorites]


True - but now that I think of it, it was the 2016 election that emboldened McConnell to say "golly gosh, we have a new president starting in a couple months and he should be the one to pick the new justice".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:34 AM on June 25 [3 favorites]


I'd like to actually see some concrete actions suggested, but at least the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus is telling it like it is : This is some bullshit (Twitter link to press release).
posted by Preserver at 9:36 AM on June 25 [15 favorites]


Every single time someone yells GENERAL STRIKE I keep thinking, what happens to people who would get canned if they go on strike? I sure would be. Not worth it to me to destroy my life just to make a point, with those stakes.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:39 AM on June 25 [15 favorites]


I'm a 48 year old black cishet male, and it has finally dawned on me that the biggest load of horseshit I have been fed throughout my life -- even on sites many of us know and love -- is this: Political differences aside, remember that at the end of the day Republicans want the same things as you.

This has almost always been said to women and minorities loftily, and frequently condescendingly, by people who are in no way at risk of having their personhood and bodily autonomy threatened by Republicans, people who are shielded to varying degrees by one or more of the following attributes: their socioeconomic status, their race/ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their geographical location and so on.

It's an utterly bullshit sentiment. I should have realized this years ago when I was reading a book on the civil rights movement, and one of the white moderates Dr King famously railed against pushed a similar line at one of the leaders of the movement -- it may have been Stokely Carmichael, but I may be misremembering. The leader replied that to the degree that this sentiment was true, it was essentially meaningless. He spoke in particular of the notorious white supremacist Birmingham's Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor, saying something along the lines of "I'm sure he enjoys spending time with his family and having a glass of wine with dinner like me, but that has no bearing whatsoever on his actions toward blacks or my response to his actions."

Same thing now. I'm sure Senator McConnell, Justice Alito, Justice Barrett, Rep Greene and many others who brought us to this point have laughed at some of the same jokes I've laughed at and have been moved by some of the same works of art that have moved me. Doesn't change a damn thing about how I feel about them. Doesn't change a damn thing about what they have planned for women and minorities. They most certainly fucking do not want the same things I want at the end of the day.

And at this point, I don't even know which "rank-and-file" Republicans/conservatives I loathe more: the ones who are giddily and ecstatically working us towards Gilead or the ones who go on and on about how they personally aren't misogynist or against people with uteruses having control of their bodies, but are simply deeply concerned about tax cuts (despite not being ultra-wealthy), law and order and national security.

At least the former are honest with themselves about who they are and how much they hate women and minorities.

And the Democrats. Man, if the left had been as spineless as our current crop of Democrat leaders during the 60s, I'd still be drinking from different water fountains than many of you. I think it also helps that the conservatives of the past had a sense of shame. We could possibly still have a better world if only one of the two were true: if the leaders of the Dem party had backbones or if the conservatives were shameable. But this current situation where neither is true anymore? Fucking hell.

(McConnell, Rove, Miller, Bannon et al better thank their lucky stars that the gods gave them No Drama Obama and No Buck Chuck as the two people best positioned to stop them when it was still possible to stop them. LBJ would have -- figuratively, of course -- smacked the taste out of their mouths if they'd tried some of the bullshit they pulled against Obama and Schumer.)

I'll keep doing what I can while I can -- voting, donating to mutual aid networks and the like -- because I believe giving up when human rights are at stake is morally and ethically wrong, but it's looking fucking grim out there right now -- even grimmer than it was when I was growing up in the ghetto during the reign of St Reagan.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:45 AM on June 25 [104 favorites]


I'd like to actually see some concrete actions suggested, but at least the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus is telling it like it is : This is some bullshit (Twitter link to press release).
Governor Whitmer's already filed a motion to block the 1931 trigger law putting abortion into effect in the state. There's also a grassroots effort to get a right to abortion enshrined in the state constitution, and I think that's a highly productive use of folks' time and money if you're looking for something concrete to support.

Ohio Dems are also looking to advance an amendment to add a right to abortion in the state constitution, but they'll need to break a Republican supermajority in the state government to get this through. The priority in Ohio, therefore, is to break the supermajority and get more Dems in the legislature.

ACLU is also working with Planned Parenthood to fight HB-5, the Florida house bill that will ban abortion.

You may not be able to vote in any of these states, but you can certainly donate and volunteer, and any victories will help so many people.

State politics matter.
posted by bl1nk at 9:54 AM on June 25 [22 favorites]


True - but now that I think of it, it was the 2016 election that emboldened McConnell to say "golly gosh, we have a new president starting in a couple months and he should be the one to pick the new justice".

IIRC, McConnell hid under the veil of some BS about not appointing SC justices while there was an active campaign.

Trump started his re-election campaign THE DAY he was inaugurated. Yet, he was allowed to appoint 3. His reasoning excuse changed to "When both houses of congress are ruled by the majority and aligned with the exec branch, clearly the public says we should appoint."

All three need to go. Amy Coney Barrett is ... well, shit, I was going to say the most egregious example because of McConnell, but that's a tough fight with Kavanaugh.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 10:36 AM on June 25 [1 favorite]


I've been reading through various comment sections and I'm very sad to see how many people on the left have internalized right wing concepts. For example:

Voting doesn't matter This is untrue. The Republicans got here by voting. They voted in local, state and federal officials who in turn nominated conservative judges willing to do the dirty work. It makes my head spin to see one side successfully execute a strategy and then the other side to claim that very strategy doesn't work. They only people this concept supports is the right.

Democrats are weak This is untrue. The Democrats in government can only do what the process allows them to do. As a minority party they could do very little. As a party with a slim majority, they can still do very little. The answer here is to elect more Democrats at the local, state and federal levels. This is why the right loves to hear the left say "voting doesn't matter."

Democrats don't care This is untrue. Democratic politicians have spent careers fighting for the rights of all Americans. This is just more right wing messaging that gets picked up by members of the left.

The facts are that the GOP is not interested in our rights, or democracy or America. they only want the power to oppress others. They might have some reasons for all that, but I'd argue none of that matters. What matters is pushing back. The best way to do that is to organize and vote.
posted by elwoodwiles at 11:54 AM on June 25 [31 favorites]


Democrats don’t care This is untrue

I’m game for listening, but in my opinion, extraordinary claims require at the very least some evidence. What evidence do you have that Democratic politicians care more about the people than their own careers?
posted by corb at 12:02 PM on June 25 [20 favorites]


But man those gas prices amiright?

To people struggling on part-time wages, paying to commute to work is very expensive right now. Abortion rights are very important, the Supreme Court is out of control, and Dems just don't get it, but I strongly warn Metafilter to please do not underestimate just how expensive subsistence living is at the moment, and to what extent the extremist right will go to take advantage of that.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:12 PM on June 25 [21 favorites]


extraordinary claims require at the very least some evidence

Is the idea that a person that spent a career in public service is anything but a cynical sociopath really that extraordinary? Also, what would count as evidence here?

Besides all that, what I'm claiming is the talking point the 'democrats don't care' is generated on the right to undermine the left.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:24 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]




Is the idea that a person that spent a career in public service is anything but a cynical sociopath really that extraordinary?

Uh… yes? Mitch McConnell’s career in “public service” seems to be a pretty obvious counterpoint.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:29 PM on June 25 [4 favorites]


Put up or shut up. That’s my message to Democratic politicians.
posted by Don.Kinsayder at 12:29 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


Mitch McConnell’s career in “public service” seems to be a pretty obvious counterpoint.

Isn't he a Republican? Again, what I'm claiming is the talking point the 'democrats don't care' is generated on the right to undermine the left.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:31 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


Besides all that, what I'm claiming is the talking point the 'democrats don't care' is generated on the right to undermine the left

Or it's leftists seeing the absolute fucking uselessness of Democrats throwing up their hands in disgust. Why should I assume Democrats care when the Democratic leadership have been working on behalf of an anti-choice incumbent facing a primary challenge from a progressive candidate? "We say we care about this issue but we'll act like it's irrelevant if you're already in our club" sounds a lot like "fuck you".
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:36 PM on June 25 [19 favorites]


the talking point the 'democrats don't care' is generated on the right to undermine the left.

That may be true to a point, but it's pretty condescending to say that everyone here who, often from personal experience, finds the Democratic response to any number of issues sorely lacking, is just parroting right-wing bullshit.
posted by heteronym at 12:37 PM on June 25 [24 favorites]


the talking point the 'democrats don't care' is generated on the right to undermine the left

Personally I achieved this revelation by close observation and having a memory.
My most recent supporting data point is the shock and surprise congressional Dems reacted with yesterday, despite the advance notice they received - with the notable exception of having a bunch of fundraising email templates ready to fire off within a couple of hours.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:38 PM on June 25 [23 favorites]


Pelosi's husband making millions off of stock trading where he almost certainly has inside information and then being against banning stock trading for members of Congress? That's another "we don't care, and fuck you". Why should I think these people aren't sociopaths whose most pressing concern is their own power and comfort, really? I mean, Jesus.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:38 PM on June 25 [17 favorites]


Isn't he a Republican?

Last I checked, yes. All I was saying is that a career in “public service” doesn’t indicate anything at all about a person, aside from their profession.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 12:39 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


I've been thinking about it nonstop since yesterday. And I refuse to accept any more "you should have voted in 2016" takes as good-faith responses to the current state of things. It's more passing of responsibility for failure onto innocent people.

I voted in 2016, as I have in every election i could since I turned 18. And I donated, and I volunteered, and i helped other people vote. But who cares, besides all that: if everything besides voting is out of bounds for public response to political action -- if protesting and striking and demonstrating and boycotting and everything else is either beyond the pale or useless -- if all I am permitted to do is vote, fine. But if my candidates of choice don't get enough votes, that's not my fault. It's theirs. If they can't convince enough people in enough places to vote for them, that's their fucking fault. Earn it. Deserve it. If you continue to refuse to accept that your job is to DO FUCKING SOMETHING when we are all out here desperate and begging for help, for hope, for some kind of vision of a better world ... if you, politician, think your only job is getting enough votes, then go fucking do it. I did my fucking job. My job is to tell you, my representative, what problems I have. Because it's important to me, I also voted and did what I could to help others. I went beyond my personal responsibility, as many here did. But even if I hadn't, I still deserve a representative who will address my problems.

Stop haranguing people to vote -- earning votes is still your job. And you'll get them by doing anything to help people.
posted by penduluum at 1:16 PM on June 25 [22 favorites]


Has any Democrat done more than expressed mild disappointment for this latest massive overturning of Liberty?
As others have noted, yes, there are many – and you should have a moment of serious contemplation about who you trust to get your information from. There are some high-profile voices who are ostensibly left-leaning but whose advice is consistently exactly what GOP strategists need to keep winning. Find Democratic candidates who are more to your taste, sure, push them to act, definitely, but never trust anyone who isn’t very clear and open about the fact that if there were a couple more Democratic senators they’d have signed abortion rights into law by now.
posted by adamsc at 1:21 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]


What evidence do you have that Democratic politicians care more about the people than their own careers?

Most obviously and recently, all the covid aid.

If they were more concerned about their careers than about the people, Pelosi and the House Democrats would have proposed a set of aid that was truly outlandishly huge and was larded with a thousand liberal poison pills so that the Senate could not possibly accept it.

Then the US would have fallen into Great Depression 2.0 and voters would almost certainly take this out against the President's party, so they could have expected to sweep in at minimum dozens of new representatives and a bunch of new senators, which would have been better for their careers. Even if you want to be maximally cynical, your capacity to get bribes is much better if you're in the majority party, and even more better if people expect that your party will be in the majority for a good while yet.

Or, going back a little further, many Democrats voted for the ACA knowing full well that it was bad for their careers.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 1:35 PM on June 25 [9 favorites]


Some predictions/thoughts:
1) I went to a lovely liberal arts college in Ohio. As of today, I would not allow a daughter to attend college in any but the bluest of blue states. Sorry, Kenyon. (The problem being with Ohio voters of course not KC).
2) At the very least we can dispense with the bullshit kabuki dance of pretending SCOTUS judges aren't either lifelong Dems or Republicans? This was Roberts' nightmare but hey, fuck him straight to hell.
3) Bio-hacking? Legality be damned, surely in 2022 there are safe and/or safe-ish ways to provide women with the information and materials needed for early-stage abortions. Make it happen.
4) How do businesses even begin to recruit qualified young women in states like Texas or Florida now? (A certain company that rhymes with Zesla comes to mind. And granted, Elon probably just doesn't give a shit. He's got his, you don't and never will.)
5) Pregnant women who miscarry are going to be arrested for murder. Do they get thrown in regular jail or, more likely, put into specialized penal forced-pregnancy centers? "The Clarence Thomas Involuntary Compound For The Promotion Of Life" has a certain ring to it.
6) Calvinball can work both ways, sometimes. Again, Roberts has presided over basically the dismantling of every judicial principle from stare decisis to judicial review. My fellow Dems need to use this to their advantage, not pine away for some bullshit era of "working together" that hasn't existed since the 1970s.

Grasping for anything positive here, this is the best I could do. God have mercy on all of us.
posted by cidrab at 1:38 PM on June 25 [10 favorites]


Find Democratic candidates who are more to your taste, sure, push them to act, definitely, but never trust anyone who isn’t very clear and open about the fact that if there were a couple more Democratic senators they’d have signed abortion rights into law by now.

[citation needed]

Part of the answer to getting new abortion protections through the Senate is, indeed, "elect more Democrats there." It is absolutely required to either (a) pass the 60-vote cloture requirement or (b) reduce the 60-vote cloture requirement to a lower threshold, since two of our current Democratic-caucusing Senators are openly being bird's turds about the latter.

But there are far more than two Democratic Senators who will push back against the filibuster's removal, or even against authorizing specific carve-outs for single issues like abortion. And I have a hard time believing that if the Dems somehow gain two Senate seats in November, all fifty Democratic Senators not named Manchin or Sinema will line up proudly behind a firm, no-room-for-doubt bill protecting abortion access and legality in all fifty states. Will most? I think so. But there will be lots of room in their squishy middle for defections, for compromises, and for waffling about Going Too Far and alienating the middle-class right-leaning suburban couple that lives rent-free in the skull of Chuck Schumer.

Look at gun control. Look at what kinds of remedies might be needed in reality (rather than in Reduce All Schools To One-Door Buildings With Rambo Guarding That Door fantasyland) to try to help prevent schoolchildren from being massacred. Now look at what limped over the Senate's finish line recently in bipartisan fashion, and how watered-down it was just to achieve being able to say that they'd passed something.

The number is always a fluctuating X. The number required to get anything meaningful done is always X + Y. We Need More Democrats and We Need Better Democrats are both true, and are not at all contradictory.
posted by delfin at 1:40 PM on June 25 [30 favorites]


Flagged as fantastic, delfin.

Also:

Q: Will the president dedicate travel to the abortion issue to reach out to young ppl and women who are angry?

@PressSec: "I don't have anything to read out to you specifically on a strategy -- a strategic strategy -- around the decision that was made by the Court yesterday"


Yep, sure seems like the administration cares. I mean, who could have seen yesterday's opinion coming, say, seven and a half weeks ago? Or indeed, as soon as Barrett was confirmed.

If you don't care enough to have a plan ahead of time for something like this, then you don't fucking care. The Biden administration should be ashamed...but they won't be.
posted by Gadarene at 1:45 PM on June 25 [17 favorites]


Joe Biden:

Washingtonian, 1974: "I don't like [Roe v. Wade]. I think it went too far. I don't think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body."

Texas Monthly, 2006: "I do not view abortion as a choice and a right."

What a defender! What a Democrat!
posted by MollyRealized at 1:56 PM on June 25 [32 favorites]


the talking point the 'democrats don't care' is generated on the right to undermine the left

What an astonishing claim. I don't know how to form a coherent response to this level of "fake news" gaslighting. I've written a dozen drafts and I'm just going to stop for the sake of my blood pressure, but I couldn't let it go by without marveling at it.
posted by rustybullrake at 2:02 PM on June 25 [20 favorites]


AOC, on going beyond "vote"
Here’s how Dems can + must do more than wait for an election.

Let’s start w/ why:

- 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by a party that hasn’t won a popular vote more than once in 30 years

- 1 of those seats was stolen

- Several lied to Congress to secure their appointment…

- 1 justice’s family (Thomas) was paid by right wing groups for years and he never disclosed it, violating Federal law

- Same justice’s spouse participated in 1/6 and he used his SCOTUS seat to vote to keep potential info related to his wife from investigators in Congress…

- 2 justices stand very credibly accused of sexual assault

And that’s the tip of the iceberg.

Election or not, the Supreme Court has a legitimacy crisis and the public reaffirms it: 75% of the US public reports lacking confidence in SCOTUS, & those numbers were *pre-Roe ruling*

In a legitimacy crisis, the solution Biden + Dem leaders must offer can’t just be one of voting, but of statute & authority.

Compared to Exec + Leg branch, checks on Court overreach and misconduct are little to none. Leaders must share their plans for Roe AND a rogue court.

Past Presidents, from Lincoln to FDR, understood the dangerous stakes of allowing an unchecked Court overreach its authority and threaten our democracy.

Lincoln ignored the court to issue the emancipation proclamation.

FDR, in the plunges of the Great Depression, also sought…to confront the Court’s structure (and core gerontocracy problem of lifetime appointments) via public appeal. While he did not succeed, that check came from the ppl & Congress, NOT scotus.

The ruling is Roe, but the crisis is democracy. Leaders must share specific plans for both

The President & Dem leaders can no longer get away with familiar tactics of “committees” and “studies” to avoid tackling our crises head-on anymore:

- Restrain judicial review
- Open clinics on federal lands
- Court expansion
- Expand Fed access/awareness of pill abortions
- etc

For the moments when we DO insist on elections, we must be PRECISE with what we need and we will do with that power:

How many seats does the party need to Codify Roe?

Dems must SAY THAT.
Not just “go vote” or “give us $6 to win.” That is demoralizing, losing, unfocused nonsense

Dem leaders must tell voters the plan:

What’s the *actual* need? Which specific seats are we focused on? WHAT votes do we need & WHERE (what states + races?)

And, what’s the return? What is Biden/Congress ACTUALLY willing+able to do at 52/60 seats?

Be honest. Details motivate

So let’s wake up everybody! What’s good Democrats! If you don’t like what I’ve laid out here, then please present YOUR plan instead of little “why we can’t” lists!!

Let’s cut the handwringing and get moving! Chop chop! No more showtunes till November unless it’s for GOTV!!
posted by Dashy at 2:03 PM on June 25 [118 favorites]


AOC is extraordinary.
posted by Gadarene at 2:06 PM on June 25 [20 favorites]


District attorneys could be a last defense against abortion bans
“Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion. But we stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions,” their statement says. “As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions.”
Prosecutorial discretion is one of those tools that are more often used by the forces of evil than good, but it does have the benefit of being a lot more decentralized. This fight will have to be fought on multiple fronts, and I am glad there are DAs out there willing to stake their professional status and possibly put themselves in legal jeopardy to do the right thing here.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:13 PM on June 25 [10 favorites]


AOC IS extraordinary. She's the only Dem I've seen who hasn't just offered platitudes to voters to vote. The section on OPEN CLINICS ON FEDERAL LANDS is something I can get behind and work toward. That is an amazing and creative set of proposals. Where are the establishment democratic leaders on any of this?
posted by bluesky43 at 2:13 PM on June 25 [18 favorites]


I saw that thread. I also saw someone scolding her in the replies and linking to a Matthew Yglesias thread as a response:

I myself and am a bit between [Corey Robin and David Shor] in terms of my assessment of the threat, but I agree with their shared sense of the logic of the arguments.

If the risk of loss is small, then it makes sense to demand Democrats take big swings with high upside.

But to the extend the downside risks of losing are large, that should push you toward political caution and limited ideological ambitions.

What doesn't make sense is "we're on the brink of disaster, so we need to push for dramatic across-the-board change."


So, aye, there's the rub. The moderates will argue that Democrats and America are always on the brink of disaster, always one election away from everything crumbling everywhere, and that therefore it is critically important to triangulate to the least risky positions possible in order to cater to the center. That numbers are more important than policy successes, and that is not without some truth when it comes to things like simple control of committees and nominations.

But one can argue that that has been their standard response to both electoral wins and losses, to Democratic trifectas and to Republican trifectas and to gridlock scenarios, to favorable and unfavorable candidate cycles, and so on. That the Republicans' actions and threat level have escalated dramatically over the last few decades, and that the Democratic response has often been to continue to seek bipartisanship that is no longer possible. That the response to an unprecedented, dangerous threat from an out-of-control opposition party just might have to be dramatic across-the-board change to have any effect on the situation, due to the gravity of that situation.

One would think that:
10 REPUBLICANS ESCALATE
20 DEMOCRATS TRIANGULATE TO CENTER
30 GOTO 10

would eventually result in a large Democratic majority because the Republicans would lose all the rational voters. However, that requires evidence that those Republican voters are either rational or persuadable under any circumstances.
posted by delfin at 2:24 PM on June 25 [6 favorites]


I’m not sure what it takes to open clinics on federal lands - what does “federal lands” mean here? Military bases? Or like, a clinic on federally owned farmland somewhere? And how long would it take to stand that up?
posted by schoolgirl report at 2:28 PM on June 25


She's the only Dem I've seen who hasn't just offered platitudes to voters to vote.

Then you should pay more attention to Elizabeth Warren. :)
posted by Gadarene at 2:30 PM on June 25 [38 favorites]


I’m not sure what it takes to open clinics on federal lands - what does “federal lands” mean here? Military bases? Or like, a clinic on federally owned farmland somewhere? And how long would it take to stand that up?

With respect, who cares? There are always reasons not to do something.

Smart and creative people can figure things out if it's important enough. (Also, Warren has answers for your questions; the people proposing these things do actually think through them, sometimes.)
posted by Gadarene at 2:31 PM on June 25 [11 favorites]




Look at gun control. Look at what kinds of remedies might be needed in reality (rather than in Reduce All Schools To One-Door Buildings With Rambo Guarding That Door fantasyland) to try to help prevent schoolchildren from being massacred. Now look at what limped over the Senate's finish line recently in bipartisan fashion, and how watered-down it was just to achieve being able to say that they'd passed something.

In 1994 the assault weapons ban was signed, effective for ten years, and in the following election more than 60 representative lost their jobs as a result, according to the NRA who targeted them. Here is a recollection of one kid whose father voted for it, and suffered a career loss and death threats as a result. The US is so conservative that only the right can afford maverick lawmakers that promise the moon. By the game theory of elections, any liberal move could backfire if it is not calculated at the right time with a cushion of votes to shield liberals in districts that surge vote for guns or against abortion. I don't look forward to congress going back to a massive republican majority. I find the logic that "if democrats would just be radical they would then sweep elections" to be historically absurd and evidence of a political detachment that argues for shouting instead of voting for a wallflower, when both are fine. Electing a relative radical in a relatively radical district is automatic, no risk there, and no proof of any national mood. It isn't easy getting people elected in marginal districts. They aren't politically expendable as scapegoats, and their replacements are often the most extreme conservatives.
posted by Brian B. at 2:47 PM on June 25 [11 favorites]


Yes, AOC is a voice I support. As is Elizabeth Warren. Who else on the national stage is saying anything remotely close to the appropriate level of Having A Plan, here?

You know, there's plenty of people at the state level continuing to fight.... Is a idea that from a military strategy sense means that the enemy has smashed the front lines, scattered the core of resistance, and is dividing and conquering the homeland. Vote Harder is the Thoughts And Prayers of politics.

Fascinating to me that these posts, these endless Surely This posts about goddamn Republican atrocities express so much rage against the myraid failures of the leaders to do anything at all, and the answer is to vote harder and pray more and sometimes, Be Less Obviously A Problem. Protest quietly! Fight with your local small groups more!

I don't know. I'm autistic. Maybe there's some kind of Normal People reason that the Democratic big party leadership seems paralyzed. That they seem continuously genially baffled by republicans evil. That they aren't screaming continuously about the whole mess.

I know there's massive efforts on the ground, people have put more blood sweat and tears into this all that I can imagine. What does it take to get politicians Worthy of the people who have been fighting for rights for hundreds of years. I just.... We deserve better. As for me and my transgender ass, this country is well past the point where I feel safe to stay. Wish me luck surviving.
posted by Jacen at 2:48 PM on June 25 [18 favorites]


Cruelty implies that they perceive us as equals.

I sort of get the rest of the point but this statement makes zero sense to me. Nothing about cruelty implies equality.
posted by aspersioncast at 2:51 PM on June 25 [5 favorites]


AIR FORCE ONE
@CNN — Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden **does not** agree with calls to expand SCOTUS, or eliminate the filibuster, throwing cold water on steps some liberal Democrats have called for in the wake of Dobbs.


link

So in Biden's world, we would need ten more senators, not just two or three, to accomplish literally anything.

That is certainly voting hard.

Jesus Christ. What a useless old man.
posted by Gadarene at 2:53 PM on June 25 [25 favorites]


They are too old and this does not affect them.

They probably genuinely care, but at the end of the day they get to go home and their lives remain the same.

Their kids are fully grown. Considering their grandkids forces them to think of children of their children as fully realized adults. It requires a level of mental flexibility, empathy and potential sacrifice that they just aren't up to.

I recognize this is a broad brush. Elizabeth Warren is a good example of an exception. She's not satisfied with the status quo, and even knowing there will be a personal sacrifice, she does the right thing. She remains angry.

AOC is the standout for me. She is angry but has solutions.

How do we get movement? How do we make Pelosi, Clyburn, Schumer, blah blah, get angry enough to do something?

I don't know.

It brings me some modicum of hope that people with empathy and kindness are fucking pissed. That's a good start.
posted by Lord_Pall at 3:12 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]


I’m not sure what it takes to open clinics on federal lands - what does “federal lands” mean here? Military bases? Or like, a clinic on federally owned farmland somewhere? And how long would it take to stand that up?

Well, there's federal buildings in a lot of downtowns, there's VA hospitals, but if the US really wants to commit to this, open up reproductive health care clinics in post offices.
posted by mikelieman at 3:17 PM on June 25 [10 favorites]


As noted upthread, the Hyde Amendment is a problem with doing this.
posted by Windopaene at 3:25 PM on June 25 [5 favorites]


Can we donate money to private groups to set up clinics on native American land? Would the different relationship with state laws that reservations have present a possible workaround?

(Sidebar: Yes, we have done all kinds of immeasurable harm to our indigenous people. Yes, it would be a tall ask. Yes, any such request needs to be paired with all of the shit we have not been doing to help with crisis conditions for the tribes. Yes, we need to do more even than that.)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:30 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


I couldn't give a flying fuck about the Hyde Amendment. Neither should the Democrats or the purportedly pro-choice Republican senators (there are still two!).

Dobbs will literally kill women and ruin lives.
posted by Gadarene at 3:30 PM on June 25 [9 favorites]


holy shit, i can fix this if i vote? awesome! when’s the next supreme court election??
Yeah. It was 2016. The president who won the 2016 election appointed three supreme court justices. So it was 2016. Our side lost. This is the inevitable consequence of that election. Glad I could clear that up.

chrchr, do you think maybe the person who made the tweet you're replying to has a basic understanding of civics and was maybe just pointing out that our traditional tools for impacting the Supreme Court don't provide much in the way of short term relief?

I mean, "Don't worry, we can fix it over the next twenty years if enough for them die and we vote right" maybe isn't a great solution if you're a teenager and you're talking about most of the years you would hope to use the right to choose.

Our traditional tools for changing the court are indirect and very slow. We need help sooner.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:35 PM on June 25 [17 favorites]


Who else on the national stage is saying anything remotely close to the appropriate level of Having A Plan, here?

Check out the just-introduced My Body, My Data Act. Important legislation, even if it’s not a complete solution.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 3:35 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]


The Indian Country Safe Harbor Fallacy from the Law and Political Economy Project

Does anyone know about protests planned for the 4th yet? On abortion rights, voting rights, queer rights, all of this? Fuck a bbq and some fireworks, surely there are events in the works.
posted by the primroses were over at 3:36 PM on June 25 [2 favorites]


I couldn't give a flying fuck about the Hyde Amendment. Neither should the Democrats or the purportedly pro-choice Republican senators (there are still two!).

Dobbs will literally kill women and ruin lives.


And... you think the Hyde Amendment doesn't?
posted by bile and syntax at 3:36 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


The Indian Country Safe Harbor Fallacy from the Law and Political Economy Project

Ugh. So that notion gets us nowhere.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:38 PM on June 25


Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo in the NYT a few weeks back with an Op-Ed: “Democrats Can Win This Fall if They Make One Key Promise” (free link):
If my math is right and there are 48 Senate Democrats ready to make that pledge [to vote for a Roe Bill and to overturn the fillibuster], they need two additional Democratic senators in the next Congress. And that is the party’s message that makes the 2022 midterms a referendum on Roe: “Give us the House and two more senators, and we will make Roe law in January 2023.”
“If my math is right” is naturally a big “if” (e.g. Feinstein is slightly shady on this), but it seems like a good, direct plan of action.
posted by Going To Maine at 3:42 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]


Oh to answer my own question, Shout Your Abortion is doing something at noon on the 4th at SCOTUS. Presumably other things are in the works as well.
posted by the primroses were over at 3:42 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


I didn’t mean to suggest there was a solution. We missed our window for the relatively easy preventative of winning a presidential election and now the only remedies are much more difficult to mobilize national support for. I wish it were not so.
posted by chrchr at 3:45 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


I realize it's a little too early to mourn the death of the administrative state (that'll come next week), but these rapid-fire crises have illustrated just how little the federal government has to offer, and how it ties its own hands with thoroughly unrealistic ideas. Biden is a deranged fantasist, if he believes good old-fashioned bipartisanship will see us through (I mean, we knew that, but the statement Gadarene links to slaps you in the face with it). Every basic common-sense idea is denied to you. Covid showed us that, aside from writing checks, the government is absolutely incapable of the kind of big dumb solutions modern problems require. Between the death of Roe and Thomas gunning for birth control, we're going to be back to some twisted Victorian approaches to sexuality and reproduction out of sheer panic over unwanted babies. There aren't enough close elections in the country, there aren't enough primary candidates who are willing to put everything on the line to change things for the better, and there isn't enough time. How do you solve guns and babies and climate and covid and the economy, all at the same time? And how do you do it when all the oxygen in the room is about to be sucked out once government regulations are invalidated? Next week will we even be able to talk about abortion, or will it be all talk about Elon Musk marching victoriously over a nation where the SEC has been neutered?

I mean, that's all a derail I guess from Roe, but my point is, there are no rails. There is no end to these ever-blossoming crises now. What does one do, in the face of this? There is no amount of protest, no amount of organization, no amount of voting, that can deal with everything that is happening, all at once.
posted by mittens at 3:47 PM on June 25 [20 favorites]


Is the idea that a person that spent a career in public service is anything but a cynical sociopath really that extraordinary? Also, what would count as evidence here?

I think that it's easy to paint that as the target, but it's flawed. The standard for "what shows people care about the people more than themselves" is not "who is a sociopath". That's a mighty low bar. I think you will find that actually most people tend to care about themselves and their own lives and their own friends and associates to some extent more than others; legislators often fall along that spectrum. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to be more/do better: to ask that people engaging in public service be true public servants, willing to leave if it benefits the people. To ask that people be willing to have hard conversations with their personal friends, and say "Yes, Bob, I appreciate you and the years we've spent, but you are not serving the interests of the people anymore and so I am going to back your challengers."

Another mefite said:

They probably genuinely care, but at the end of the day they get to go home and their lives remain the same.


And I think to a certain amount that is true, and that's precisely what I'm saying is not okay in a public servant. It's okay in a friend, I have many friends who go home and their lives remain the same despite sweeping problems, but it's not okay for someone who's supposed to be on the front lines of this war to be like "meh, you win some, you lose some."
posted by corb at 4:04 PM on June 25 [6 favorites]


> Yes, AOC is a voice I support. As is Elizabeth Warren. Who else on the national stage is saying anything remotely close to the appropriate level of Having A Plan, here?

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee says WA State Patrol won’t cooperate with other states’ abortion investigations
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:51 PM on June 25 [27 favorites]


> I'm a man. However, I've been married long enough to know where real power lies and, it's not in the hands of men. The way forward through all of this is a women's general strike. No family chores, no outside work, no sex with men, no cooking, no cleaning, no daycare, no nothing until this ruling is reversed. A non-violent strike led by women, by and for women. You've got the numbers. Go do it.

This is an afterschool TV special, not a political plan. Tell me how this plays out: I stop doing household chores, I refuse to go to work, etc. And then... what? What happens? My car needs an oil change, I possibly lose my job and definitely inconvenience my coworkers, I miss having sex, I'm eating takeout I guess, my kids' lives are more chaotic, and then: what?

It's cutesy, it ignores the real lives of women, and it fixes nothing.
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:59 PM on June 25 [74 favorites]


@AlanaFeral: So weird that trans women have been very loud about Roe vs. Wade and terfs have been strangely silent today. It's almost like one of these groups is feminist and the other only has it in their name.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:00 PM on June 25 [35 favorites]


Washington Gov. Jay Inslee says WA State Patrol won’t cooperate with other states’ abortion investigations

A news program on KUOW (local Seattle NPR) had a journalist on who brought up a good point about data security.

Will Google cooperate with subpoenas for browsing records, when women use the company's search product for out-of-state healthcare providers?

The general strike doesn't be necessarily have to be limited to human beings. If corps are people too, they can legally protest enforcement of laws that illegally interfere with interstate commerce.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 5:32 PM on June 25 [3 favorites]


Find Democratic candidates who are more to your taste, sure, push them to act, definitely, but never trust anyone who isn’t very clear and open about the fact that if there were a couple more Democratic senators they’d have signed abortion rights into law by now.
[citation needed]
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4132/text

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00170.htm

That last one has the 49 yea votes and the 51 nays conveniently grouped, with a familiar D-WV as the notable standout. Now, it’s certainly possible that someone would have wavered but it’s also true that ~80% of the U.S. population supports legal abortion and most of the die-hard opponents were never voting for a Democrat.
posted by adamsc at 5:35 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]


It doesn't matter if they Actually Care. Do you think Trump Actually Cared about Republican priorities? But he delivered them.

For decades, Democrats have made their brand being the big brain technocrats who know how to get things done and know what's best. They went to A Good School, then maybe a stint in the military to get troop credentials, then consulting somewhere like McKinsey, then a local office (ideally in a red state, Democrats love red state Dems, or even Red State Republicans they can paint as One Of The Good Ones like Cheney), and then they are ready for the national stage. You even see it here, where there's constant fulminating about the dang ol' yokels in red states who won't vote for Democrats even though it's obviously in their best interests because the Democrats are the ones who know what's best for them.

So, we are left with:

The Democrats are stymied by the system. Then they are not the all-knowing technocrats they claim to be. Further, they are disinclined to use the tools the system provides that they have (e.g. abolishing the filibuster, packing the court, wiping out student debt, whatever). But if we just elect more of them, they will...somehow know how to use the system better? Yet we saw when Obama had a working majority in both houses and had promised to enshrine Roe vs. Wade, suddenly it wasn't a legislative priority because he had more important things to do. So they are either incompetent (can't) or malicious (won't) or don't care. Repealing Roe vs. Wade has been the conservative project for 40+ years and literally everyone knew the repeal has been coming for a month and yet, so far, the only reaction is Pelosi reading a poem and Biden asking everyone to please not be too disruptive to a basic right being stripped away and loads of fundraising emails. Are they so bad at their jobs they somehow didn't know this was coming (can't) or do they just not care (won't)? Pelosi just spent a ton of time campaigning for a pro-life Democrat in a close race against someone more progressive. Was she too uninformed to know his position (incompetent) or did she just not care (malicious)? Does it matter?

The other guy would be much worse. Well, the camps are still there. Roe vs. Wade just got repealed. COVID is still going and we're all being herded back to the office. The economy is tanking. Gas prices are high. Frankly, this has been a pretty successful Republican term! They've accomplished some of their major policy goals! Is it because Biden isn't showing his ass on Twitter? Because he doesn't use tanner and look like a boob?

Democrats somehow can't find any leverage on literally a West Virginia coal baron that lives on a yacht and drives a Maserati with a daughter that's a pharma lobbyist? I'm sure if the executive sent the FBI and IRS and even OSHA to start digging for dirt, something would come up or Manchin would be a lot more reasonable, maybe? Or would that be too rude? I envy the Republicans in this. I do. Madison Cawthorne mentions the coke orgies once, refuses to back down, and they smoothly roll out the oppo file and crush him like a bug. Manchin, well, gosh, we just can't be mean to Joe's best pal. Are they incompetent (Don't actually have an oppo file on him because it would be rude?) or malicious? Does it matter when he's allegedly holding up the president and party's agenda that they are totally serious and care about lots?

The real question is this: if Democrats are indeed the big brain all knowing technocrats, why is it up to message board posters and Twitter posters to come up with a realistic political plan? Why do I have to have a 1000 page annotated Ph.D. thesis on the implementation of universal healthcare to enter the conversation when a Republican can say "I am scared of A Trans person in the wrong bathroom" and legislation rolls out from the city to the national level and, presumably, drafting up the Senate Bill isn't required for Joe MAGA to slap the bumper sticker on his truck. Maybe it is, I dunno, I'm not a Republican.

On the other hand, they mean so well, gosh, if we could just give them a chance. (Please ignore noted election winner Hillary Clinton saying we need to quit talking about trans people to win elections).
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 5:37 PM on June 25 [69 favorites]


gadarene: it looks like there’s question about whether that tweet is accurate. Here’s Judd Legum:
1. I deleted a couple of tweets cabout this summary of
@PressSec’s comments on the filibuster because I now have the transcript and I believe that @ValerioCNN’s viral tweet mischaracterized
@PressSec’s remarks.

2. Here is the question @PressSec was asked:

"Let's say he got two more Democrats in the Senate who would be okay with killing the filibuster on this issue so he had 50. Would he then support that stance?"

3.
@PressSec
responds by saying, if enough Democrats are elected, "I don't think the filibuster would play a role." Which is a truism.

She doesn't comment on whether Biden would support eliminating the filibuster.

She dodges the question. There was no cold water thrown.

4. Personally, I think
@ValerioCNN
should delete the tweet. It has thousands of retweets, and it claims
@PressSec
said something that she did not say.

posted by adamsc at 5:43 PM on June 25 [10 favorites]


Cruelty implies that they perceive us as equals.
I sort of get the rest of the point but this statement makes zero sense to me. Nothing about cruelty implies equality.


Compare the conscious cruelty of denying health care to a human with the emotions surrounding deciding to forego health care for an animal. In the animal's case it is practicality rather than cruelty and the animal doesn't understand the bigger picture anyway.

Cruelty isn't the point, dominance is. Cruelty is just how we sheep perceive it.
posted by zaixfeep at 5:45 PM on June 25 [6 favorites]


The thing about the "just keep voting" dead-enders is that they're out-to-lunch fantasists who believe they're hard-nosed realists. That there are many people who could be voting for Democrats but aren't is a fact, not a ploy. So what are you going to do to face that reality? Just keep whining and scolding for the rest of eternity? What if the place where something is going to need to give is in your understanding of what's reasonable, not other people's?
posted by dusty potato at 5:47 PM on June 25 [20 favorites]


adamsc: Fair enough. In that case, it's not too much to ask for Biden to show affirmative support for lifting the filibuster in order to codify Roe, surely? If that is, in fact, what he supports?

Also, "if enough Democrats are elected" then the filibuster wouldn't play a role? Sure. So now we're back to needing TEN* additional Democratic senators, which is frankly ridiculous and insulting to our intelligence, if that's what they really mean by "vote."

I have the same chance of being elected senator this January as the Democrats do of ending up with SIXTY of them.

*Actually twelve, assuming that Manchin/Sinema either lose or maintain their opposition to any elimination of the filibuster.

It's absurd.
posted by Gadarene at 5:49 PM on June 25 [5 favorites]


A I understand it it a simple majority of the senators can override the chair and remove the use of the filibuster on a particular topic
posted by mbo at 5:57 PM on June 25


gadarene: I’m definitely not impressed - they had two months to prepare! - but wouldn’t be surprised if he does say something soon. They’re always over-cautious and I’d bet anything that they’ve got a dozen consultants urging them to look at polls first.
posted by adamsc at 5:59 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Reminder: the edit window has a button labelled “Link” just below it (the rightmost html insert button in the line of them under the edit window). When you click on it or press it on your smartphone screen, a pop up pops up where you can paste the url that you have copied. You can then either post the same url as text, or write something more descriptive, in between the stuff in angled brackets (the html tags) that will appear in the edit window (the cursor will conveniently already be in the right place for this!). Then your urls are actual links that other readers can click on to follow, without having to copy and paste your url!

Please, please do this with urls. It’s the commonly accepted site etiquette here. (And also my phone is thinking that everything is an image instead of text most of the time, for unknown reason? So I can’t copy and paste your url if you don’t format it as a link.)
posted by eviemath at 6:10 PM on June 25 [13 favorites]


Coming in with a photo that will either give you hope or break your heart, I'm not sure which.

My roommate just posted his collection of photos from last night's march in NYC on his blog (in a collection he has fittingly titled "Fuck This Shit"). At one point, he and I were behind a family who were also marching - mother, teenage son, and a daughter who looked like she was about eight or nine. The girl was clutching an American Girl doll, and a couple other passing protesters noticed that and cheered her on. She looked a little embarrassed, but her brother told her "no, it's okay! In fact, hold her up - she's a girl and she has rights too!"

Then this happened.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:10 PM on June 25 [22 favorites]


Joe Biden:

Washingtonian, 1974: "I don't like [Roe v. Wade]. I think it went too far. I don't think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body."

Texas Monthly, 2006: "I do not view abortion as a choice and a right."

What a defender! What a Democrat!
posted by MollyRealized at 3:56 PM on June 25 [11 favorites −] [!]


Emphasis mine on the first. Adding cites for MollyRealized's great catch of quotes.

Not looking to relitigate the primary, but... we could have done better (and still won).
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 6:11 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]


AOC manages to raise over 65K on Instagram live. I fear for her safety in the modern America.
posted by juiceCake at 6:11 PM on June 25 [17 favorites]


She's the only Dem I've seen who hasn't just offered platitudes to voters to vote.

Then you should pay more attention to Elizabeth Warren. :)
posted by Gadarene at 2:30 PM on June 2


I stand corrected - I am a huge Warren fan and she was my favorite candidate in the primary. Her righteous anger inspires me.
posted by bluesky43 at 6:20 PM on June 25 [13 favorites]


Look, I think I speak for everyone here when I say
AAAAAAAAAAAAAH AHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAH HOLLLLLLLYYY SHIIIIIIIT AHHHHHHHH WHAAAAAAAT THEEEEEEEE FUUUUUCK AHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAAAAH AAAAAAAAAH AAAAAAAAAH AHHHHHHHH AAAAAAAAHHHH OOOOOOOHHHHH MMMMMMMYYYYYY GOOOOODDDDD MAAAAAKKKKKEEEE IIIIIITTTTT SSSSSSSTTTTTOOOOOOOPPPPPP AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH FFFFFUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKK WHAAAAAAAT SHIIIIIIT
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:27 PM on June 25 [52 favorites]


We Need More Democrats and We Need Better Democrats are both true, and are not at all contradictory.
posted by delfin


Especially in the Senate, which is where the whole show is going to shit, short and long term.
posted by Pouteria at 7:12 PM on June 25 [7 favorites]


I was at a 5K this morning and after they played the national anthem, people cheered. I couldn't bring myself to do that. All I could do is stand there seething and waiting for the race to start so I could run out some of the anger that's filled me to the brim. Good thing I have a therapy appointment on Wednesday.
posted by kathrynm at 7:14 PM on June 25 [12 favorites]


I used to work with @ValerioCNN, at NBC12 in Richmond before he left for WUSA9 in DC and now his current gig at CNN. That tweet of his is a mess.
posted by emelenjr at 7:21 PM on June 25 [1 favorite]


Especially in the Senate, which is where the whole show is going to shit, short and long term.

An underappreciated little benefit of this ruling for Republicans is that it greatly incentivizes liberals who can leave the states criminalizing abortions to do so, deters some companies from expanding to those states and potentially bringing a more liberal work force and will deter some from choosing colleges in those states, all of which potentially helps maintain or grow the conservative dominance and control of the Senate, even if at the cost of wealth and growth for the same. But of course that won't bother them if it means keeping power.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:48 PM on June 25 [10 favorites]


At a Trump rally in Illinois today, Congresswoman Mary Miller* thanked the former POSOTUS “for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday”. Just for anyone who still hadn’t yet picked up what’s really behind the “pro-life” bullshit.

*Yes, the ”Hitler was right on one thing” Mary Miller.
posted by non canadian guy at 7:54 PM on June 25 [33 favorites]


Just to note for the ageists in the thread: Elizabeth Warren is 73.
posted by Rumple at 8:34 PM on June 25 [10 favorites]


And she is a miracle.
posted by Gadarene at 8:46 PM on June 25 [9 favorites]


Pro-lifers don't like complexity. A Twitter thread about the worst time of a person's life and how it was made infinitely worse by the American attitude toward abortion.
posted by Etrigan at 9:28 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]


I'm expecting to hear reports of US doctors gatekeeping women's sterilization, already a real problem, to skyrocket. And insurance companies often don't cover the procedures. I think I had to pay out of pocket for Essure in 2015, but I was making good tech money at the time.

Consider medical tourism for your sterilization procedure. For those who'd like to come to Spain, I can be your local navigator. Other countries to consider are Mexico (specifically Mexico City), Thailand (of course), and Turkey.
posted by Sheydem-tants at 10:10 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]


And we don't need more Democrats. Please stop believing the lies. This is why I don't live in the States anymore - folks really need to stop believing that The Majesty Of The Law will save them.

We need the working class to come together and sustain repeated, lengthy general strikes. I'll pay into the strike fund.
posted by Sheydem-tants at 10:11 PM on June 25 [8 favorites]


I will kind of partially agree with Sheydem-tants because one thing occurred to me, and please forgive me if I'm repeating a thought I already wrote here.

I wrote above in an earlier comment about how Republicans now have to be the extremist of the extremist in order to win their primary and win the position in a district gerrymandered enough to exclude Democrats.

But here's the thing. Ranked-choice voting. If you can designate other parties as your first choice, then if Republicans want to appeal to those people who would rather vote Libertarian or Bull Moose or what-have-you, they no longer can just follow the simple be-more-Republican-than-the-guy-in-power strategy. They have to diversify their appeal. That could break the vicious extremify-ing circle that the GOP currently is in.

Not to mention it would also frankly introduce more parties into the mix, which we need to do: the whole reason our country is in full shithouse mode right now is because we have one party which is tremendously ineffectual and not changing at all, and one party which is turning itself into a party of radical fascist extremists. In the meantime, nothing's getting done while the world quite literally both burns and erupts in plague.

So, yeah, I agree: we don't need more Democrats. We need to make things very safe and very easy for other parties to get votes. Because while I am not arguing equivalence, I'm also very much not impressed with the defense.

In 2008, I wrote a comment in which I said I hoped the Republicans would change course and put a Barack Obama-like man of ideas up against Obama in the next election.

So ... I hope now that somehow ranked-choice voting is part of what protests latch on to. I have no idea how to get this idea – breaking the stranglehold – across a country. Can we get some sports players and celebrities to start plugging it on TV ... ? *sigh*
posted by MollyRealized at 11:25 PM on June 25 [12 favorites]


I live in NZ (used to live in the US), and also watch Ozzie politics - ranked choice (ie what Oz does) is better than FPP (what the US does) but honestly it still favours a 2-party duopoly - MMP (NZ/Germany/etc) is far more proportional and is far more likely to elect 3rd parties ... but requires an actual desire to compromise on the part of politicians in order to get things done, which might not be doable in the US.

Here the leader of the more conservative of our large parties, who had previously declared himself anti-choice, has been put on the spot by the US decision, he's come out saying that he would not undo our current law - frankly I don't believe him - if 4 conservative Justices can perjure themselves in the US I don't see why the same thing can't happen here from conservatives
posted by mbo at 12:03 AM on June 26 [7 favorites]


Where's the "abortion czar", Biden? Is this not enough of an emergency to at least make it someone's main job?
posted by FJT at 12:15 AM on June 26 [8 favorites]


At a Trump rally in Illinois today, Congresswoman Mary Miller* thanked the former POSOTUS “for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court yesterday”.

I see this as a clear indication that they are now even more emboldened. Fascism is merely a presidential election away. And next time they will have their ground game in order. So it is necessary to GOTV.

That said, I really, really understand those who are angry with the Democrats, and specially with Biden. He has always waffled on abortion and he is the least qualified person to handle this crisis. So why didn't they send out Kamala Harris? Well it turns out she didn't want to be typecast (sorry, I lost the link). They are not taking this seriously.
posted by mumimor at 12:56 AM on June 26 [12 favorites]


You know what, I had a long detailed comment on my own experiences over the past few years, organizing alongside both normie liberals and various flavors of leftists, and the value of diverse/complementary forms of action, and the huge disconnect between the endless internecine rancor on Mefi/the wider Internet vs what I see my comrades doing out here in meatspace. But as a woman who's spent 90% of her life living through the Christofascist takeover of America, I'm too fucking exhausted today.

You don't wanna vote because you're disgusted? You think voting is essential? You never wanna give money to a Democrat again? You wanna start a pro-Biden superPAC? I don't give a fuck anymore. But you had goddamn well better be DOING SOMEFUCKINGTHING IN ADDITION TO FIGHTING ON THE GODDAMN ELECTRIC INTERNET, because my friends and i are out here pulling with all our strength, on your behalf and ours, at significant cost to our health and livelihoods, and we are feeling MIGHTY alone out here. Thanks.
posted by TinyChicken at 3:07 AM on June 26 [45 favorites]


DC, where abortion is protected, also is not a state and congress has successfully curtailed some of DC’s voters’ will in the past. One thing people can do to secure the right of people in DC to access full reproductive healthcare is to push their senators to support DC statehood.
posted by donut_princess at 3:36 AM on June 26 [23 favorites]


I wrote above in an earlier comment about how Republicans now have to be the extremist of the extremist in order to win their primary and win the position in a district gerrymandered enough to exclude Democrats.

While it's a reasonable thought, one of the few things we actually know about partisan polarization in Congress is that gerrymandering is almost entirely unrelated.

First, you're mixing up how gerrymandering works in a way that most people do. Creating Republican safe seats is a Democratic gerrymander and vice versa. The 2010 gerrymanders worked because they created a bunch of seats that were ~60% Republican, winnable by a good Democrat in a good year, and we saw a fair chunk of that in 2018.

Second, the way we usually look at this is to throw up a scatterplot with district presidential vote on the horizontal axis and dw-nominate score or some other voting-based measure of ideology on the vertical, so you see a bunch of more liberal Democrats and a bunch of more conservative Republicans. The big change since the 80s has *not* been that there have been a whole bunch more districts that vote overwhelmingly Republican or overwhelmingly Democratic. Instead, the bulk of the difference has been in how representatives from more moderate districts that send, say, 45-55% of their vote to Democratic presidential candidates, behave. There especially, what we've seen is that Republicans representing those districts vote much more conservatively than they used to, and Democrats representing those districts vote a little bit more liberally than they used to.

If you think about it in terms of that picture -- this vox article has one of the usual examples from the standard McCarty/Poole/Rosenthal paper -- then "It was gerrymandering!" would say that over time we've seen the districts in the middle disappear, replaced by more extreme districts. But we haven't, or at least not very much. What we've mostly seen is the Democratic and Republican constellations of ideal points moving apart vertically -- Democrats and Republicans who represent similar districts behave very differently, and increasingly more differently.

It's a very reasonable mechanism, but it turns out to be empirically false.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 3:58 AM on June 26 [7 favorites]


we don't need more Democrats.

Considering that more Democrats means less Republicans then yes, we kind of do. Because although today's crop of Democrats might be ineffective while in power, today's crop of Republicans are detached enough from reality that if they get back in then they will burn anything resembling a country that anybody with a shred of compassion could conceivably want to live in straight to the ground and then salt the ashes.

Jimmy Kimmel can laugh at Klan Mom for her mind being the grotesque carnival sideshow that it so clearly is, but does anybody here really want to see her and her ilk in charge of everything important?

Fuck's sake, I'm literally on the other side of the globe from this shitshow and even all the way over here I am badly frightened about the prospect of the US becoming the actual Evil Empire. Of the world's most potent and consequential economies China is a terrible human rights abuser and India is led by a religious wingnut, but neither of them can come even close to the levels of wilfully ignorant self-righteousness that's the hallmark of Tea Party Republicans. The US thinks of itself as The World's Policeman and given everything I've seen of US police methods I am terrified by the prospect of a world where The World's Policeman has gone full batshit rogue State.

The Turnip years were only a preview. If the Repubs regain full control of Congress this year, everything is going to get so much worse than it was for the four soul-destroying years from 2017 to 2021.

Yes, you keep on voting and voting and voting and every time you do, Lucy jerks the ball away again and of course it feels insane to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. Something does need to be done different. Something that could feasibly be done different is for the huge number of people who have not been voting and voting and voting to become persuaded that it's their moral duty to start.

Bemoaning the uselessness of voting is an active impediment to that work. Better to try connecting with as many people as possible who haven't already been voting and beg them to help.

As noted upthread, we need better Democrats and more Democrats.
posted by flabdablet at 5:40 AM on June 26 [31 favorites]


Possible short- term plan:
1) Start an "Aboveground Railroad", free transport to a friendly State for any woman who needs an abortion
2) Make it defiantly public
3) Work with a prosecutor in a zero-abortion state, and with her permission (a la Rosa Parks*), charge under the law a woman whose had a abortion due to rape, with a crime, make the state's lawyers squirm for the indecency of charging her in a very public trial.
4) Hope public opinion turns the tide.

*It would have to be someone very tough and very brave to have to go through that, but I'm also sure they exist.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:54 AM on June 26 [2 favorites]


1) Start an "Aboveground Railroad", free transport to a friendly State for any woman who needs an abortion
2) Make it defiantly public


You know this already exists? You can help fund it. We don't need to reinvent the wheel, but support the groups already with the boots on the ground.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:55 AM on June 26 [23 favorites]


So why didn't they send out Kamala Harris?

They did.

Harris emerges as the voice of abortion rights in the Biden administration (NYT, May 12)
Harris describes ruling as 'health care crisis' (Chicago Tribune, June 25)
Harris leans into abortion fight (Politico, June 24)
Harris warns other rights could be in jeopardy (Yahoo, June 24)
A moment Kamala Harris was primed for (19th, June 25)
'This is not over' Fox News and broadcast nets don't cover remarks from first female VP (Deadline, June 24)

Whether all this priming and leaning will be effective remains to be seen, but a mainstream media that wants to push a Harris-in-disarray narrative won't make it easier.
posted by box at 6:08 AM on June 26 [28 favorites]


The Midwest Access Coalition helps people traveling to, from, and within the Midwest access a safe, legal abortion with support in the following areas: travel coordination and costs, lodging, food, medicine, and emotional support.

Access Reproductive Care Southeast provides financial support and practical support (including rides, lodging, escorting)

Look up your local abortion funds to find an organization to support.
posted by Jeanne at 6:10 AM on June 26 [12 favorites]


OPEN CLINICS ON FEDERAL LANDS

Stand up a Federal supplemental reproductive health plan; put its facilities on Federal properties; make the premium Federally deductible.

Maybe involve tribal health systems as a way of funneling them resources, if they're interested.
(I won't presume to know how various tribes might feel about it, politically or spiritually.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:45 AM on June 26 [2 favorites]


I don't know if I have anything overly useful to say but I did see a call that everyone opposed to this take a knee for the US national anthem until it is changed and I think that would be a powerful symbolic act if it caught on.

I'm heading for a graduation in the US this year and plan to do this alongside my American niece, who is 13.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:46 AM on June 26 [7 favorites]


Tiny Frying Pan: I was asking that YOU post a link since I didn't know about such a fund.

Google is your friend. We're all busy. Not everyone commenting can post whatever you demand on demand.

"Organizations helping women travel for abortions" turns up lots of links. There's a MetaTalk about this too.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:50 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]


I don't know if I have anything overly useful to say but I did see a call that everyone opposed to this take a knee for the US national anthem until it is changed and I think that would be a powerful symbolic act if it caught on.

I also had the idea to wear all black on July 4th. Do whatever you're planning to do anyway, go to the cookouts and the parades or what have you, just....wear all black instead of the red/white/blue shit other people will be wearing.

Some people have said "no, we should wear Handmaid dresses or something", but that's too obvious - you'll be written off right away. You want to lull people into a false sense of security and make them think you're just sort of there, and then wait until someone cracks the joke that "so, your flag t-shirt's in the laundry or something?" and then tell them.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:55 AM on June 26 [6 favorites]


I really admire the people sharing their abortion stories. It helps people understand.

Men have these stories, too. And I have some relatives on FB who could stand to hear and learn mine.

But I only had one real girlfriend in high school and telling my story would be telling hers. And we're still friends with many of the same connections.

It doesn't feel like a day for another man making another decision for a woman on this.

So anyway, yeah, I'll say it here: abortion was the difference between us having been teen dropouts struggling to raise one miserable kid and us having two successful, happy lives that resulted in a combined three beautiful, happy, healthy kids.

This helped us give the world more children, not less.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:07 AM on June 26 [36 favorites]


I normally would only mention Meet the Press in the context of hatewatching it, but AOC was just on, and very clearly, calmly, and professionally said that yes, of course justices who lied during confirmation should be impeached, and also put out the documented reasons why Thomas should be impeached, and mentioned that his wife is a seditionist on top of that. And more. She was quite good.
posted by gimonca at 7:39 AM on June 26 [47 favorites]


The thing about the "just keep voting" dead-enders is that they're out-to-lunch fantasists who believe they're hard-nosed realists. That there are many people who could be voting for Democrats but aren't is a fact, not a ploy. So what are you going to do to face that reality? Just keep whining and scolding for the rest of eternity? What if the place where something is going to need to give is in your understanding of what's reasonable, not other people's?

Yep. I mean, look at this tweet.

My state, Pennsylvania, voted to send Democrats to the state legislature by a five hundred thousand majority. And yet the only thing standing between the 13 million citizens of Pennsylvania and insanity is the governor’s race this year.

This is not working.
posted by rhymedirective at 7:48 AM on June 26 [17 favorites]


AOC on Meet the Press: "What I believe that the president and the Democratic Party needs to come to terms with is that this is not just a crisis of Roe, this is a crisis of our democracy ... this is a crisis of legitimacy and President Biden must address that"

/she talks about Warren and others proposal to open abortion clinics on federal lands in red states but no details about implementation .
posted by bluesky43 at 7:55 AM on June 26 [28 favorites]


“Just keep voting” as in, whatever else you do, turn in a ballot — yes.

“Just keep voting” as in, that’s sufficient— oh hell no.

Adieu, fool zone; the cool zone est arrive.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:08 AM on June 26 [13 favorites]


She was quite good.

Definitely, but it would have been helpful to hear the same from Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden — they are in a position to act, to do things that AOC cannot.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:10 AM on June 26 [15 favorites]


The Last Abortion Doctor (Esquire, 2009), about Dr. Warren Hern (published after George Tiller was assassinated). Here's Dr. Hern talking about threats and violence against abortion providers in 2015. Dr. Hern is 83 years old, and his Boulder Abortion Clinic is preparing for an influx of new patients.
posted by box at 8:10 AM on June 26 [4 favorites]


FWIW I just contacted Elizabeth Warren's office to offer support for her recent proposals (with others but she is the most prominent in my mind), and to thank her for her courage.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:17 AM on June 26 [10 favorites]


The thing about the "just keep voting" dead-enders is that they're out-to-lunch fantasists who believe they're hard-nosed realists.

Where does this gd "just" come from. That's bullshit. Don't "just" keep voting. If you already vote in every election you can you can't vote more. That message isn't for you exactly. It's for people that don't vote, only vote in presidential years, don't vote in primaries. If you already do all that you need to do more than just vote to step up your game. One good way would be to help get others that don't vote as much as they could be voting more.

A general strike just isn't practical. Until you've got hundreds of thousands of people committed to it, it's a non-starter. A general strike would be amazing but it takes organizing. I'm sure as hell not up to the task so if you want a general strike to happen, get to work organizing it.

We need more democrats because we need more power and it's the option we have and because individual action can make a difference without a ton of central organization. If can vote more, vote more. If you can't vote more than you already are, DO more.

Go ahead and call it out if that's literally what someone is saying but please stop filling in that "just" BS when it isn't there. Definitely vote but don't just vote.
posted by VTX at 8:24 AM on June 26 [18 favorites]


The Supreme Court has "burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had" with their ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tells
@MarthaRaddatz


"They just took the last of it and set a torch to it.”

/she also swats down Manchin and Collins's claims of being mislead.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:33 AM on June 26 [35 favorites]


For those of you 'discussing' the merits/demerits of voting, here's a twitter thread on what happened in Virginia during the two years that there was a trifecta - Democratic Governor, Democratic senate and Democratic legislature. It's really inspiring. At the moment, the only democratically held body is the senate. by one legislator. This reminds me that voting matters.

Highlights of particular relevance to the abortion decision:
In terms of abortion
Eliminated:
- 24 hour waiting period
- Ultra sound and counseling requirement
- Need to be hospital to perform more than 5 abortions a month
Allowed:
- Nurse practitioners to provide services in first trimester

There's more on voting rights, workers rights, criminal justice.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:42 AM on June 26 [22 favorites]


The "just" part is that it appears to be the only option that Democratic leadership ever seems to endorse.

We are in a national crisis, one that has not simply teleported into place but has been a steady and visible decline over the last forty years. "Vote for us," we have been told repeatedly, and we did. In the most recent election, we gave the Democrats the Presidency and both houses of Congress, however narrowly, with a big GOTV effort in Georgia responsible for the latter. And we have just endured a week in which, despite all of that, SCOTUS announced that the involuntary rollback of the national calendar to 1951 has now officially kicked off.

And we are asking, okay, national Democratic leadership, you Leaders of the Free World for the moment, how are you going to act with urgency? How will you call for others to act with urgency? We understand that an Executive Order or an unused 8th level spell slot are not options to fix this in thirty seconds, but we have been screaming DO SOMETHING for quite some time now. People are suffering now. Action needs to be taken on a national level now. What is the game plan for today, for tomorrow, for this week?

And the response appears to be "well, we need you all to come out in November and then in 2024 and then..."

Why, yes. Yes, they do need that, if they are to retain their offices and remain placeholders against outright fascism. But is anything productive going to come from above during that period? Or is it all on our shoulders, down in the trenches, street by street, state by state, clinic by clinic, underground movement by underground movement?
posted by delfin at 8:52 AM on June 26 [22 favorites]


I'm glad the MeFites, as always, are savvy enough to identify the real enemy: people who desire the same outcomes as them, but who employ slightly different different tactics.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 8:55 AM on June 26 [35 favorites]


Where does this gd "just" come from.

It comes from everyone who is mocking the notion that the Democrats could be doing more right now as unrealistic "Green Lantern" thinking.

It comes from the Press Secretary saying that if we elect enough Democrats, then we won't need to disturb the precious filibuster.

It comes from everyone shitting on the idea of the Democrats taking assertive steps to address this now by making court expansion, judicial impeachment, and DC statehood a part of the mainstream narrative, pointing to Manchin and Sinema and saying that there's no point in talking about these things because they're not popular enough.

It comes from Joe fucking Biden and Kamala Harris promising that they've got our back but not saying how, and telling us again and again that the answer is to fucking vote in November.

It comes from a Democratic institutional strategy to fundraise for future elections on the back of Dobbs and nothing more, despite having a matter of months or years to prepare solutions for this certain eventuality.

That's where it goddamn comes from.
posted by Gadarene at 8:59 AM on June 26 [40 favorites]


As is often the case, AOC is 100% correct, and the Democrats will ignore her.

We won't be getting any specific promises, any specific numbers. We'll just keep getting the same bland "vote harder and give us lots more money" BS the Democrats always trot out. Because they don't really want to think too hard about specifics or about policy in general.

The Democratic leadership believes that uncertainty benefits them. They think uncertain voters will vote harder out of fear, will give more money out of fear. And, of course, they also think that if they don't make any concrete promises or firm commitments to supporting abortion rights they can get "pro-life Democrats" to vote too.

It's more variation on the thinking that leads Democratic leadership to conclude that since, say, 80% of America is slightly to the left of Trump then the ideal candidate is someone who is almost, but not **QUITE** as far right wing as Trump and then they'll win in a landslide! The false idea that if they can pander hard enough to the right they'll get Republicans to start voting for Democrats.

So we won't get promises. We won't get specifics.

Worse Biden is already sabotaging any efforts to really push hard on Roe. And he's not alone. We had the fucking Majority Whip saying that things were vague and he needed to read the tea leaves and take baby steps. The guy who is supposed to, by his title, be trying to stir up as much enthusiasm as he can.

I really want to find a bright side here, I really want to think that somehow the Democrats won't just wimp out and do nothing effective.

But they're already wimping out and doing nothing effective. Biden took his first speech after the Fall of Roe to... scold the left and tell us not to be violent. He spent precious time, precious energy, and precious enthusiasm, promoting the vile right wing lie that left wing protesters are horrible violent people who must be shamed and scolded.

We all knew this was coming even before the leak, and after the leak no one had any excuse. They should have had bills lined up, speeches full of fire and brimstone prepared, people ready to harness our rage and despair and channel it into productive action.

And they didn't.

All they did was sing God fucking Bless America and then tell us to vote harder and give them more money.

We need better Democrats.
posted by sotonohito at 10:07 AM on June 26 [49 favorites]


I walked out of mass today when the priest began his homily with something like it's a glorious day for those of us trying to preserve life. fuck that shit. got a lot of looks too when i left because i didn't tip toe out like i was going to the bathroom.
posted by kathrynm at 10:19 AM on June 26 [95 favorites]


I have been responding to all the spam emails from dscc, et al, with, as posted upthread

NO LEGISLATION NO DONATIONS

I know it won’t do anything, but makes me feel a bit better. Maybe someone will notice.
posted by Windopaene at 10:21 AM on June 26 [3 favorites]


It's almost like the Democratic leadership and their donor class whisperers don't act like political outcomes such as the Dobbs decision have real-world consequences, because they're insulated from those consequences themselves.

This is not abstract or theoretical. People will die because of Dobbs. People's lives will be made immeasurably worse. It is already happening. Same thing with loss of voting rights. Same thing with child poverty and the expiration of the tax credit. I genuinely don't feel like people like Clyburn, Pelosi, Biden, or Harris connect with that in a visceral, tangible way.

We need leaders who do. We deserve to be led by people who understand the urgency we face.
posted by Gadarene at 10:22 AM on June 26 [14 favorites]


Like, Jesus, the thing Biden has trumpeted the most over the last few months has been deficit reduction. DEFICIT REDUCTION.
posted by Gadarene at 10:23 AM on June 26 [9 favorites]


Pelosi this morning:

"The only way to bring hope to reality is to win elections."

Yep, can't imagine where we'd be getting that "just" from.
posted by Gadarene at 10:32 AM on June 26 [18 favorites]


I walked out of mass today

Sorry, but what were you expecting from the people who brought you the Magdalen Laundries and hospitals that would rather let women die than perform a life-saving termination?
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:46 AM on June 26 [5 favorites]


Kathrynm, that took guts. And it let some other people in the congregation know that they aren't alone.
posted by sumdim at 10:55 AM on June 26 [53 favorites]


kathrynm, thank you thank you thank you.
posted by mochapickle at 11:04 AM on June 26 [25 favorites]


On Biden, Democrats, and the "Green Lantern" thing.

Look, I know Murderbot is right when it says "Sometimes people do things to you that you can’t do anything about. You just have to survive it and go on."

But.

There are things that the elected Democrats could be doing right now. No, they can't just wave a wand, or Green Lantern willpower everything better. But the Democrats are acting as if absent 60 votes in the Senate there is literally nothing at all they can do, and that's simply not true.

Beginning with the tone argument.

Because corb is still correct, the Democrats are acting as if this is not a big deal.

Let me direct you again to look at Biden's speech following the most devastating political loss in the last 50 years, a speech given when we were reeling from that loss, feeling broken, feeling hopeless, and wanting direction.

Biden gave a bland, pro-forma, speech and then went off the rails by spreading the vile, evil, Republicans lie that leftists are violent.

He gave no plan of action, no sense of urgency, no sense of outrage.

Imagine a different world where he had denounced the viciously partisan Supreme Court, where he had stated that we need just two more Democratic Senators and specifically called out the two weakest Republicans up for reelection in 2022 urging Democrats to donate and work to defeat those two so that the very instant there are 52 Democrats Roe could be written into Federal law.

Imagine a world where Biden didn't end his speech by spreading Republican lies and telling the evil left not to be violent, but one where Biden ended his speech with a call to protest nationwide, an invocation of the long American history of protest from the Boston Tea Party to the Kent State Massacre.

Or hell, a speech where he said that acting in his capacity as a private citizen he was founding (or supporting an extant) group to fund travel and other expenses for women trapped in slave states and a call for the Democratic voters to donate to that organization this month rather than to Democratic candidates for office.

And, not to be a horrible evil childish stupid backwards illiterate leftist twit who believes in magic and the Green Lantern, there **ARE** things that the Democrats could actually be doing, both effective and symbolic.

Symbolically they could have scheduled an immediate vote on reinstating Roe and pledged to do so weekly until Roe was the law of the land.

Less symbolically Biden could invoke the spirit of the governors who refused to cooperate with the Fugitive Slave Act following the Dredd Scott decision and stated that he would be instructing all Federal employees that under no circumstances at all were they permitted to cooperate in any way with any state's efforts to prosecute people for abortion.

Instead we got a speech practically engineered to dispirit us, to dampen our rage, to crush our will to fight, and to quench the fires of action. A speech where the Democratic President took time to spread Republican lies and to embolden police nationwide to use maximum force in suppressing protest.

We got a President who explicitly stated that he would not support the only effective action that could save Roe, carving out an exception to the filibuster.

Can you see, maybe, how those of us who aren't legalistic robots who think purely in terms of nothing but the very specific things Congress can vote on by the backassward rules they impose on themselves, might see the Democratic response as lacking and **NOT** be stupid believers in magic?

Two things

Tone, an action.

The Democrats failed on both.
posted by sotonohito at 11:09 AM on June 26 [63 favorites]


Dear Senate Majority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, and Congressional Democrats,

I cannot recall ever having been angrier in my entire life than I became on Friday, June 24, 2022. I woke up that day a person who possessed the right to bodily autonomy, privacy, and self-determination—rights I’ve had literally my entire life—and fell asleep, exhausted from trying to tamp down obliterating rage, as a second-class citizen with none of those rights. I looked to you to act on my behalf.

You could nuke the filibuster. You could pack the Court. You could reform the Electoral Count Act. You could advance the Equal Rights Amendment. You could impeach Supreme Court Justices who perjured themselves before Congress. You could prioritize finding and supporting Democratic candidates for local and state government. You could unleash progressives such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and let them run with the ball for once; at least they have ideas, whereas you seem fresh out. You could do any of these things, and more; you could enact a plan!

After all, it’s not as if the decision by the Republican reactionaries on the Supreme Court to abolish my rights came as any real surprise. They’ve said for years that this is what they would do at the very first opportunity. We’ve known for weeks exactly how they would do it, after the draft decision was leaked to the press. No, what surprised me was you.

“Surely,” I thought to myself, “now the kid gloves will come off and the Democrats will find the spine to hit back. They must have something dramatic in store for this contingency.”

And what did I get? A chorus of “God Bless America,” a mealymouthed plea to “Please Vote,” and a bunch of fundraising texts. A stunning development, indeed.

I’ve punched a straight ticket for Democrats in every single election since I became eligible to vote. I’ve donated to campaigns, I’ve marched! And look what it got me: years of watching Democrats bring a bake sale to a gun fight. Years of watching you lot take the high road while Republicans dynamite the freeway supports. Lately, I’ve even had to watch you stomp on progressives in your own party as if they’re somehow a bigger threat than Republicans who’ve gotten in bed with literal Nazis. I should’ve known to expect nothing more from you than a bunch of fundraising texts.

The Supreme Court is illegitimate, the President is checked out, and Democrats in Congress let themselves get outmaneuvered by Republicans at every opportunity. Hilariously, even now you are acting as if voting and donating and speechifying are going to save us from our slide into authoritarian dystopia. With voting districts gerrymandered to within an inch of their lives, MAGA fanatics taking over vote counting in the next election, and a former reality TV star who tried to mount a coup still running around free? With Republican Congresspeople and candidates waving their guns around and making not-even-veiled threats to shoot their opponents, or anyone they suspect of being a “pussy liberal”? With extremists using their cars to mow down protestors in the streets? Gimme a break!

Fight back or leave me alone.

With sincerest regards,
A formerly autonomous person
posted by disentir at 11:14 AM on June 26 [106 favorites]


Packing the court sounds a little off to me, like it's a sinister plan. We could also call it expanding the court.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:17 AM on June 26 [6 favorites]


Incredibly said, sotonohito and disentir.
posted by Gadarene at 11:18 AM on June 26 [1 favorite]


Brian Tyler Cohen on Twitter:
Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Um.
posted by non canadian guy at 11:38 AM on June 26 [49 favorites]


We could call it judicial procedures reform. 'Court-packing' is a phrase invented by someone who opposed it.
posted by box at 11:38 AM on June 26 [5 favorites]


I prefer "unpacking the court," given the illegitimate origins of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett and the fact that Clarence Thomas has no business still being a sitting justice.
posted by Gadarene at 11:42 AM on June 26 [15 favorites]


Packing the court sounds a little off to me, like it's a sinister plan. We could also call it expanding the court.
Yep, Too-Ticky, that might be a better word, but it’s too late as I’ve already mailed this to all my reps and the leaders. I had to snail-mail Pelosi since her webpage won’t accept emails from anyone not in her district. Schumer let me email him but idk if it’ll get through to him (for similar reasons). Maybe I should snailmail him too.

I’d like to just mention, I checked out of this thread about 30 posts in so as to control my blood pressure a bit better. The sentiments in the letter about fundraising texts and Democratic leadership were independently developed. But after mailing it off, I came back to read the thread. I was not intending to share my letter, but then I saw that so many of you had landed on similar thoughts. Certainly there’s no coincidence there; though I haven’t commented here very much, Metafilter’s community has certainly helped shape my thinking. Thanks and respect to you all in these oh-so-trying times.
posted by disentir at 11:46 AM on June 26 [19 favorites]


I appreciate all the conversation and resources people are posting here.

WaPo published a guide to securing digital privacy while seeking an abortion here. This may be less notable for the specific information (which tracks what has already been posted here) than for treating abortion as a normal thing to be seeking. That feels like a shift to me.
posted by mersen at 11:49 AM on June 26 [8 favorites]


I was reading 5 big truths about the Supreme Court’s gutting of Roe, which has some interesting observations, when I realized that packing the court or impeaching the liars on it isn't really a solution. No democratic nation can live with a politicized Supreme Court. Without an independent judiciary, you can't have democracy. You need a truly independent court, perhaps like the one the US built in Germany post WWII.
I know, changing the constitution is not really an option. But it demonstrates how serious this constitutional crisis is and how fascist the Republicans are.
It doesn't seem like there are any potential heroic allied forces out there to take down the American fascists and reinstate democracy. So you guys have to figure out how to deal with it. Sorry. So sorry.
posted by mumimor at 12:05 PM on June 26 [21 favorites]


There is absolutely no reason why thirteen justices would be any less democratic or independent a judiciary than nine justices.
posted by Gadarene at 12:11 PM on June 26 [13 favorites]


packing the court or impeaching the liars on it isn't really a solution

Expanding the court is absolutely a solution (the original court had six justices; it's not some immutably fixed number that was dictated through divine revelation, regardless of what right-wingers may tell you).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:25 PM on June 26 [8 favorites]


Packing the court sounds a little off to me, like it's a sinister plan. We could also call it expanding the court.

Packing the court is what Mitch McConnell already did. Expand the court the court, now.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 12:26 PM on June 26 [13 favorites]


impeaching the liars on it isn't really a solution

Solution or no, it is absolutely necessary. Their appointments were made by a known criminal who as president failed to his constitutional duties in almost every way from beginning of his term to the end and beyond. Saying we have to accept the results of that period and let them play out for the next 30+ years would be a travesty of anything remotely like justice. Norms should not and do not cover this situation and treating it otherwise is to destroy the meaning of those alleged norms by upholding gains from their abuse more surely than denying their validity in this instance would do.

We are at a point where the process the US has relied on has lost most of its hold for being so rampantly abused. The Republicans are still claiming fraud, the Democrats have no faith in the Supreme Court, few respect congress, the entire system lacks necessary trust by the majority of the people it is meant to serve. What little faith there is left must be put to re-establishing the will of the majority and in rebuilding institutional controls and, eventually, some trust again or it becomes a battle beyond norms anyway, just a bloodier one without knowable outcome.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:28 PM on June 26 [15 favorites]


Also,

No democratic nation can live with a politicized Supreme Court.

Which is precisely why expanding the politicised Supreme Court is essential to preserve democracy in the US. Saying "we can't do it" is effectively giving up.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:35 PM on June 26 [13 favorites]


Sorry again, I agree with all of you. But the point is that doing the right thing now, and these are the right things, will only serve the hard right a "Dolchstoßlegende". Framing the necessary reforms is a huge endeavor, and while I don't feel sorry for them (what were you doing the last 40 years?) I can see why old-style democrats are hesitating.
And also, that might be a big part of why the Democratic Party isn't good at recruiting new talent.
posted by mumimor at 12:38 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]


will only serve the hard right a "Dolchstoßlegende"

They have one of those already (have you not noticed their fanatical insistence that Trump only lost because of widespread fraud?). If you're going to let your actions be dictated by what fascists might do, then, again, you're effectively giving up.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:44 PM on June 26 [14 favorites]


Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Well, she's not wrong. Because the point at which a fetus becomes anything resembling a "kid", we're talking a late-term abortion, and that would only be if there's a health risk to mother or child - or if the mother is so desperate she tries to kill herself. So...yeah, kids in classrooms and kids in wombs are still in danger.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:47 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]


And also, that might be a big part of why the Democratic Party isn't good at recruiting new talent.

Young people actually vote more frequently and more Democratically than at any time in recent history.

There's a huge groundswell of passionate, committed, and talented people who want to see the Democratic Party and this nation succeed, if leadership would get the fuck out of the way and stop obstructing them.

There is genuinely a significant contingent of Democrats among the pundit and advisor classes and in the halls of Congress and the White House who will think less of an idea, consciously or not, simply because a progressive is championing it, and who will decide that an issue isn't worthy of energy solely because it is a progressive policy priority. It's extremely obvious and extremely destructive and it needs to be called out for what it is.

The thinking behind it, I presume, is the pursuit of the mythical median voter, but it ends up acting like a reverse Overton window: progressives celebrating the impact of the child tax credit on child poverty, for example, makes it easier for "moderate" Democrats to let it expire, because in doing so they insulate themselves from charges of acting in step with the parties' left wing -- which will SURELY not play in Poughkeepsie, they think, despite the alleviation of child poverty being 1) electorally popular and 2) the right fucking thing to do.
posted by Gadarene at 12:49 PM on June 26 [26 favorites]


Exactly, Gadarene!
posted by mumimor at 12:52 PM on June 26


And for those who blame the expiration of the child tax credit on Manchin: first, it's one example among many. Second, if Democratic leadership--including Biden--really felt driven to find a way to get the tax credit extended, they would have gotten it done. You really think Manchin would really switch parties in lieu of helping combat child poverty if some pressure were applied? If so, then the Democratic Party is literally incapable of messaging anything at all, because that would be the easiest optics thing to generate national outrage and attention about ever.

Like when the Republicans voted to deny funding for infant formula, and the Democrats... Okay, maybe they're literally incapable of messaging anything at all.
posted by Gadarene at 12:54 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]


Non-lawyer here: would a mass encouragement of jury nullification in blue dots of red states work? If everyone in Houston, Austin, etc, knows their rights, and knows the strategy (play dumb, don’t give them any reason to strike you until the trial has started), it seems like it would be very very difficult to get any criminal prosecutions off of the ground.
posted by rishabguha at 1:05 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]


I've lately come to the conclusion that a single judge in any courtroom is at least two or four judges too few. We've seen the abuses of power that result from a single corrupt judge pushing an agenda.

The Supreme Court should be at least 51 people. Maybe more. Letting the most important decisions about our laws be decided by a mere nine people, most of whom are doddering and should have retired decades ago, is foolhardy in the extreme.

We need a massive expansion of the judiciary at all levels. No trial should ever be presided over by fewer than three judges, no appeal at lower levels should be considered by fewer than fifteen, and I think 51 sounds like a reasonable number for the most important decisions.
posted by sotonohito at 1:06 PM on June 26 [7 favorites]


Lots of stuff in this thread and other discussions; some good, some less so. But one thing I have seen floated before that seems more achievable than some other measures is a constitutional amendment specifically enshrining a right to privacy. Lots of powerful interests against it, but maybe Clarence “there is no right to privacy but Loving v. Virginia is different” might come on board.
posted by TedW at 1:06 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]


impeaching the liars on it isn't really a solution

Solution or no, it is absolutely necessary.



They should have to go before Congress and explain themselves to the people. Or, if he had the stones, Roberts could order an investigation into their judicial ethics and then call for it himself.

He won't. Not in a million years. For all of his vaunted institutionalism. Or we would have seen some sign of it in the handling of the leak and the Ginni Thomas affair. (She is an attorney subject to oversight herself.)

I shall now link this for the umpteenth time (someone should interview Judge Dannenberg about this now):

Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar (2020):
Without trying to write a law review article, I believe that the Court majority, under your leadership, has become little more than a result-oriented extension of the right wing of the Republican Party, as vetted by the Federalist Society. Yes, politics has always been a factor in the Court’s history, but not to today’s extent. Even routine rules of statutory construction get subverted or ignored to achieve transparently political goals. The rationales of “textualism” and “originalism” are mere fig leaves masking right wing political goals; sheer casuistry.

Your public pronouncements suggest that you seem concerned about the legitimacy of the Court in today’s polarized environment. We all should be. Yet your actions, despite a few bromides about objectivity, say otherwise.

It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America.

I predict that your legacy will ultimately be as diminished as that of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who presided over both Plessy and Lochner.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:07 PM on June 26 [32 favorites]


would a mass encouragement of jury nullification in blue dots of red states work?

I fear if jury nullification happens in a red state, it will be nullifying charges against someone who claims their crime was to prevent abortion, rather than leaving it up to the courts to punish it.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:15 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]


I know, changing the constitution is not really an option. But it demonstrates how serious this constitutional crisis is and how fascist the Republicans are.

Judicial review is not in the Constitution. It was invented in 1803 by, you guessed, it the Supreme Court.

Congress can tell them to fuck off anytime it wishes.
posted by rhymedirective at 1:41 PM on June 26 [9 favorites]


there is a mechanism by which things could be passed - we attach bills reinstating abortion rights AND true voting rights to the next continuance of the budget or the next debt ceiling bills and dare the republicans to bankrupt the country for their values and make sure those affected by this shutdown know that the republicans are blocking the solution

it will never happen, of course - it would take ruthlessness and a willingness to see it all go to hell and the democratic leadership has neither, unlike the republicans
posted by pyramid termite at 2:19 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]


and let's face reality - this is the only thing we have left - other than voting "harder"
posted by pyramid termite at 2:21 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]


One option that I'm surprised not even people like AOC are pushing for is a Constitutional Amendment explicitly granting a right to privacy. And while we're at it, let's try for the ERA again.

We've amended the Constitution 27 times, it's not like doing so is impossible.

And think of the attack ads "Senator Cruz doesn't think you have any right to privacy, Senator Cruz believes that Big Government should be part of every part of your life. Vote yes for privacy and restraining government overreach!"
posted by sotonohito at 2:24 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]


Amending the Constitution would be far, far, FAR harder than eliminating the filibuster. One could be done tomorrow. The other is virtually impossible in the current ecosystem, especially for something that Republicans will believe rightly to be coded to an affirmation of gay marriage and abortion.
posted by Gadarene at 2:30 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]


Olivia Rodrigo and Lily Allen at Glastonbury yesterday made a special dedication to all the supreme court members (contains some language).
posted by Lanark at 2:46 PM on June 26 [9 favorites]


Ultimately, an amendment may be where this ends. And reviving the ERA would be easier than starting from scratch. (It got to 38 ratifications in 2020, but after the ratification period, and some states have rescinded theirs along the way. There is a debate about whether Congress can just amend the period, and whether Congress can just ignore the recissions -- they should try; it might be an out for someone like Roberts.)

But if so, after how many years of suffering and strife?

(Or, after how many years of cough generational shift?)
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:02 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]


Right, amending the constitution is hard, really hard. Maybe impossible in today's political system and climate. But you know what? That's what everyone told Alice Paul and Lucy Burns when they insisted on an amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote rather than the fruitless state-by-state strategy that the suffrage organizations had been pursuing to that point. And it was HARD and it barely passed but it passed because the Silent Sentinels sat themselves down in front of the White House for YEARS and went to jail and were force fed and brought national attention to their fight and because one woman in Tennessee shamed her son into voting for ratification at a crucial moment.

Propose a Second Bill of Rights. Include voting rights, privacy, marriage equality, gender equality. Make it SIMPLE and pressure every damn Democrat, Independent, liberal, leftist, whatever from the president on down to dog catcher to get on board and talk about it every time they get in front of a camera or a microphone. Give us something to hold our representatives' feet to the fire about. And maybe it will never pass but maybe it will give people enough inspiration that we can slowly drag this country away from the fascism highway it is hurtling down.

Give us something to FIGHT FOR.
posted by Preserver at 3:28 PM on June 26 [31 favorites]


I'm just saying we should be doing everything and fighting on all fronts.

Courts, Congress, Executive Orders, Amendments, everything.

Back when the US was trying to develop an atomic bomb, over at the Manhattan project, there was no settled on way to separate the uranium into the isotopes you needed. There are several different ways that people proposed, some had been in use but never worked great, some were newly thought of.

The question for the Manhattan Project was which way to separate uranium should they use?

The answer was "all of them". They built the equipment for every method of separating uranium and ran it all simultaneously. The ones that performed better they expanded on and improved, but they started by doing everything everywhere all at once.

This is a situation at least as dire as the US faced during WWII, and those of us on the side of good and freedom need to take the Manhattan Project approach of doing everything. It isn't a if we lack the resources, or as if proposing an Amendment somehow means we can't push it in the courts, and also in Congress, and also through Executive action.

What way to regain freedom should we try?

All of them.
posted by sotonohito at 3:31 PM on June 26 [18 favorites]


Conservatives used to bitch about unelected activist judges making laws from the bench.

Spoiler: they're full of shit about states rights, too.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:39 PM on June 26 [12 favorites]


I am so tired of Democrats saying that what we can do is vote. Historic turnout for Biden, historic turnout for Obama and this is where we are.

How are you calculating historic turnout? Because if it's the number of people voting, that's always going to get bigger because of population growth. We'd need something like percentage of eligible voters.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:43 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]


We'd need something like percentage of eligible voters.

Not particularly hard to find, although Wikipedia's numbers for total eligible voters only go back to 1980. 2008 and 2020 are the two highest turnouts by percentage in a presidential election in the last 40 years.
posted by figurant at 3:59 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]


How are you calculating historic turnout?

Highest percentage of eligible voters since we started keeping statistics on it (in 1980), highest percentage of voting-age voters since 1960.

On preview, uh, what they said.
posted by box at 4:03 PM on June 26 [6 favorites]


While we are on the subject, a horrible person said something about the intersection of the factors. Is there any truth to it?
posted by Selena777 at 4:06 PM on June 26


Also, now that the dog has caught the car, the Dems should immediately start doing everything possible to pull the libertarian/populist rug out from under the monied interests that still actually run the GOP (even if different monied interests than they were fifty years ago).

Consumer rights would be a good place to start. Even if it seems penny ante comparatively. Pretty much everyone hates how they're treated by our corporate overlords at this point, but one party is much more deeply in hock to them. Make it show. Start passing laws about defrauding seniors over the internet or phone, limiting abusive dark patterns in apps and etc, limiting the ability to disclaim that your product even works at all in its terms of service. There's a large part of the conservative base that will want that kind of thing, but their pols will have to oppose it.

It's time to engineer a second "Death of Contract" as a part of this reversal. (The resurrection of contract and the death of tort since 1974 is much less remarked upon.)

This Court isn't just figuratively Lochnerian -- it's literally so. Look at how it just got rid of PAGA in California on the basis that employees must actually want binding arbitration of all their claims and to waive class actions, or they wouldn't have taken that job that they needed to get by and had zero chance to actually negotiate. It's exactly the Bakeshop Cases all over again.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:06 PM on June 26 [14 favorites]


While we are on the subject, a horrible person said something about the intersection of the factors. Is there any truth to it?

It assumes people will move to other states just because of this issue. As bad as this is, I find that very hard to believe.
posted by schoolgirl report at 4:21 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]


@selena777: IMHO, he's predicting an exodus of Dems from red states and purple states to blue states, which means fewer votes toward the blue and more to the red, at least until next time the number of reps in Congress is adjusted to population. But then, he's being optimistic, in that people will leave purple states. That's suspect logic. Politics is not like deciding which business to patronize, and we don't always vote with our feet or wallet when it comes to business. We leave reviews, we tell friends and family, and so on. This is their hubris talking: "if you don't like the way things are here, why don't you just leave?" They can't contemplate the alternative: being voted out of office.
posted by kschang at 4:42 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]


I was just on my local subreddit, and there's a post from someone asking about my area, because their family wants to flee the South. Anecdata, of course – but there have to be a lot of families having similar conversations.

The podcast Straight White American Jesus, which covers white Christian nationalism, has been talking a lot about conservatives moving from more urban and progressive areas to deep-red enclaves in the heartland. (Their recent episode about the foiled Patriot Front attack at Pride in Idaho talks a lot about this.) It definitely sounds like a large enough phenomenon to affect the culture of the small towns where they settle, but it seems unlikely that enough fascists are migrating away from purple states to turn them measurably bluer.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 4:51 PM on June 26 [6 favorites]


No democratic nation can live with a politicized Supreme Court.

That's absolutely right, and it fucking sucks that Democrats are always the ones who graciously pretend the court isn't politicized and accept whatever crazy, political things it's done in order to prop up the court's legitimacy for the good of the nation.

I remember when I was bullied in school how many times some kid would punch me and then I'd get in trouble for hitting/pushing them back because the teacher didn't see what happened first. I'd get some lecture about "regardless of who started it, we can't have kids attacking each other"


Republicans get a free pass to overthrow the fucking government while Democrats won't act against them because it would be too political we can't have a major political party being criminally prosecuted for insurrection, even if that's what they're actually doing.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:33 PM on June 26 [20 favorites]


I don't see why it wouldn't be at least possible. Hope you're lucky enough to live in one of those states, of course.

Roe's trimester system was a bit hamfisted, but it was a reasonable enough compromise for most purposes. Early-term, obviously-pre-viability abortions on demand, late-term ones requiring a damned good reason to happen. But Republicans love to accuse Democrats of demanding and desiring complete abortion-on-demand to the moment of birth, and in some cases beyond the moment of birth in the Trumpiest fever dream accusations. It'd take a gutsy state legislature to pass a law stating that Roe did not, in fact, go far enough. "We just want what we had back" will be viewed by many as going too far, sadly, and lord knows that we can't have remedies that poll poorly.

Meanwhile, this is part of what we're up against right now:

to this point: spoke to lots of young (eg 17-32 yo) folks at the NYC protests y'day. all dems. some leftist, some liberal. all said they vote. and literally every one looked at me like i was an actual space alien when i asked if they thought party leaders had a plan going fwd. (Greg Krieg, from Twitter)

There may not be a viable short-term plan that has a chance of succeeding. But if there is not at least a perception that they're attempting to find one, all bets are off in November.
posted by delfin at 5:37 PM on June 26 [8 favorites]


Give us your money and we'll codify Roe v Wade
Give us your money and we'll save Roe v Wade
Give us your money and we'll restore Roe v Wade
Give us your money and we'll commemorate Roe v Wade
Give us your money and we'll patronizingly explain why Roe v Wade was far more than the American people would accept
etc
posted by thatwhichfalls at 5:48 PM on June 26 [18 favorites]


"burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had" with their ruling overturning Roe v. Wade

What does that matter? Literally nothing can be done about them. "Legitimate" or not, doesn't matter, they can take away our rights.
posted by jenfullmoon at 5:51 PM on June 26 [4 favorites]


I don't even know what to do or say any more. On top of the last few years I am just overwhelmed by grief, fear, and rage.
posted by blurker at 6:13 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]


All I can think of is that all the people cheering the Dobbs decision are looking for their rocks, anxiously waiting to throw the first stone.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 6:17 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]




So, I've just read a few Twitter convos in which there are a loooooooooooooooot of people speaking up to say that "hey I'm a Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist/Agnostic/other non-Christian, and I would be more than happy to join in any First-Amendment based lawsuit challenging abortion bans."

I don't pretend to be a legal expert but it's an idea that is building some traction and it looks like some hope to me so I'll be clinging to it, kthnx.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:56 PM on June 26 [6 favorites]


And have another musical comment: Midnight Oil just concluded a North American tour last night, and during their encore they addressed the Supreme Court ruling by doing Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:01 PM on June 26 [11 favorites]


So, I've just read a few Twitter convos in which there are a loooooooooooooooot of people speaking up to say that "hey I'm a Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist/Agnostic/other non-Christian, and I would be more than happy to join in any First-Amendment based lawsuit challenging abortion bans."

I don't pretend to be a legal expert but it's an idea that is building some traction and it looks like some hope to me so I'll be clinging to it, kthnx.


What would be the basis for that?
posted by Gadarene at 8:08 PM on June 26


I'm just reading that, but the idea I had was that they violate the Establishment Clause, since the implied definition of life in the bans is Christian. Following onto that, I was thinking it would probably be good to start going after church tax exemptions.
posted by rhizome at 8:12 PM on June 26 [9 favorites]


The argument from the people who filed the lawsuit in Florida is that Jewish law requires abortion in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. Therefore, the abortion ban infringes in free exercise of religion.
posted by chrchr at 8:29 PM on June 26 [9 favorites]


The argument from the people who filed the lawsuit in Florida is that Jewish law requires abortion in cases where the life of the mother is threatened. Therefore, the abortion ban infringes in free exercise of religion.

I wish that argument the best of luck before the Supreme Court.
posted by Gadarene at 8:36 PM on June 26 [7 favorites]


Does kind of overlook that they’re Christian conservatives who are going to do whatever the fuck Christian conservatives want.
posted by Artw at 8:53 PM on June 26 [15 favorites]


Yeah, the Cato Institute trial-balloon response I've been seeing there is basically "If it's not Christianity how are we supposed to know what the *real* version of a faith is? So let's go with the most conservative version of Judaism, since if someone chooses not to take the most extreme interpretations of their faith, they have the choice of choosing not to treat an abortion ban as an issue".

I'm not sure how much trying to find One True Argument by which they'll be forced to admit defeat will work. I'm hopeful that it's still possible, of course. But what's stopping them from going "Nah, it's different because we say so, and before you think this'll set up precedent that could bite us down the line, we'll just say it's non-precedential"?
Power begets power, so it'll require finding an unignorable type of power to dislodge them. Everything else is just... norms. And we've seen how unignorable norms are.
posted by CrystalDave at 9:27 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]


That Cato Institute response is a really weird take. At its heart it seems to be accepting as a given the old canard that Catholics' ultimate allegiance is to the Pope over country (and that this is fine.) Whereas since Jews have no Pope, they can't really claim they must submit to a higher authority than the state.

(I suppose "God" isn't a sufficiently higher authority here. )
posted by xigxag at 9:37 PM on June 26 [3 favorites]


Xigxag, I guess no one at the Institute saw the Hebrew National commercial.

As Clouseau said many times, 'Cato, you fool!'
posted by zaixfeep at 10:18 PM on June 26 [5 favorites]


We're already verging towards humor and complacency.
posted by Gadarene at 10:33 PM on June 26


Humor is good for morale, it fends off despair and hopelessness. Who sees complacency anywhere in this discussion?
posted by zaixfeep at 11:01 PM on June 26 [9 favorites]


Judicial review is not in the Constitution. It was invented in 1803 by, you guessed, it the Supreme Court.

Congress can tell them to fuck off anytime it wishes.


This is the bit I've been thinking about today. An openly ideological supreme court issuing baldly political decisions and throwing out the norms becomes illegitimate, and states will start passing more laws in open defiance of SC rulings. And in fact, this process is already well-developed... On the right. My guess is we're going to see a lot more of it in blue states going forward, maybe escalating to things like state constitutional amendments defying particular decisions, or state laws or executive orders to ignore particular SC rulings.

The NYT has a good piece on Maine's workaround for the SC decision saying that the state has to give money to religious schools:
Anticipating this week’s decision, Maine lawmakers enacted a crucial amendment to the state’s anti-discrimination law last year in order to counteract the expected ruling. The revised law forbids discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation, and it applies to every private school that chooses to accept public funds, without regard to religious affiliation.

The impact was significant: The two religious schools at issue in the Carson case, Bangor Christian Schools and Temple Academy, said that they would decline state funds if, as Maine’s new law requires, accepting such funds would require them to change how they operate or alter their “admissions standards” to admit L.G.B.T.Q. students.
But I guess going forward we will see more blatant examples of defying the court. Maybe we get a New York policy action (constitutional amendment, law, etc) stating that the Heller decision was wrong and the right to bear arms applies in the context of a militia only. The end-game would seem to be the actual institutional splintering of the country.
posted by kaibutsu at 11:25 PM on June 26 [20 favorites]


The new Ezra Klein episode is very worth a listen, btw.

"The Dobbs Decision Isn't Just About Abortion. It's About Power."
posted by kaibutsu at 11:28 PM on June 26 [2 favorites]


On the other hand, Canada welcomed draft dodgers during the Vietnam war, and we currently have a shortage of doctors, so...
posted by klanawa at 9:20 AM on June 24
.

Yes.

Also Canadian abortion clinics will be open for US citizens needing care.

It has been covered extensively on cbc news, along with analysis of how, while abortion is decriminized here, access in Canada, especially rural and remote areas, is an issue.
posted by chapps at 12:07 AM on June 27 [6 favorites]


Early-term, obviously-pre-viability abortions on demand, late-term ones requiring a damned good reason to happen

OK, so, one thing. "Term" is an obstetric word co-opted and abused by the fringe, and they've mainstreamed the abused version. "Full term" describes the timeframe in which labor and delivery typically occurs (placed at 40 weeks by current standards). "Early term" is 37 to 39 weeks. "Late term" is 41 to 42. Elective abortions of pregnancies during any of these time ranges is vanishingly uncommon.
posted by jackbishop at 3:54 AM on June 27 [15 favorites]


packing the court or impeaching the liars on it isn't really a solution

It doesn't solve the underlying structural problem with American democracy but neither did R&W in the first place, it is a solution to the question "how does one get abortion rights safeguarded in as much of the US as possible, as fast as possible?"

There's all kind of theoretical problems with presidential systems, acres and acres of print about how the (almost globally unique) role of the US Supreme Court has essentially papered over those problems for a few decades, but if someone needs an abortion they need it right now, not when we eventually figure out a permanent solution.
posted by atrazine at 4:00 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


It doesn't solve the underlying structural problem with American democracy

Yeah, I don't think there's any time left for worry about that anymore and I don't think the problem may be resolvable at this point, but as long as it keeps being abused to limit or reverse change/rights, the need is to do anything to alter that trajectory even if it too pushes the limits of what the constitution arguably allows. It's not just about abortion rights of course, but the whole panoply of threats, not the least of which is climate change which needs action right now for even a hope of preventing millions and millions more from dying than the amount we've already condemned to suffer.

That means bullying the bullies and denying them their blockage of needed progress by any means necessary. The Democrats need to do this or get the fuck out of the way. Waiting for another election past the mid-terms borders on suicidal and now even the hope Biden and crew were just to realize the scale of the problem seems to grow fainter daily, as they had no useful response to the erasure of a now established right making the debate over options increasingly moot.
posted by gusottertrout at 4:18 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


A bit of humor just for those of you who need a bit of on-topic cheer: #catsjudgingthesupremecourt

To the rest of you here, don't mind me, keep on giving hell to the baddies...
posted by zaixfeep at 4:26 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]


Same link but through nitter - #catsjudgingthesupremecourt
posted by abulafa at 4:58 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


While we are on the subject, a horrible person said something about the intersection of the factors. Is there any truth to it?

Anecdotally, my wife and I (living in FL) had a very sober conversation Saturday morning about moving back to the PNW. We decided it would be too far from our elderly parents so we’re looking at Atlanta because, by our logic, the overturning of Roe should energize people to vote for Stacey Abrams, Raphael Warnock and GA down ballot politicians that don’t support a white Christian ethnostate.

We met friends for drinks Sat night after the Pride parade and everyone at the table was having the same conversation. One of the mom’s at the table has 2 queer high school aged daughters and she’s falling apart. A friend with a trans teenager left the state 2 weeks ago and was pulled over by the state patrol on the way out of town. For a brief moment they believed someone might have called to report them crossing the state line to seek medical care for their child. Turns out they had a tail light out on their Uhaul trailer. What a bleak and depressing thing to imagine a parent going through.
posted by photoslob at 5:19 AM on June 27 [28 favorites]


Here's a TPM piece on Elizabeth Warren where she names two congressional candidates - Mandela Barnes (Wisconsin) and John Fetterman (Pennsylvania) who would vote to get rid of the filibuster if elected, and codify Roe. Links to their websites should you be so inclined to donate/volunteer.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:04 AM on June 27 [17 favorites]


In 2010 Senator James Lankford (R-OK) said he thought 13 year old girls could consent to sex.

Just in case there was any doubt at all where the Republicans plan on taking this.
posted by sotonohito at 7:13 AM on June 27 [11 favorites]


A bit of humor just for those of you who need a bit of on-topic cheer: #catsjudgingthesupremecourt

On a cat-related note, cats being weird little guys @weirdlilguys has provided a list of helpful resources here.

I'm unsure if the account holder deletes offensive tweets so I'll warn you ahead of time: don't read the replies.
posted by fuse theorem at 7:32 AM on June 27


Referring to families moving to blue states from red, I think photoslob had some very good examples. There are a lot of parents out there with queer children. If living in one of these red states starts looking like a life or death situation, many of them will do whatever they can to gtfo. Some won't succeed. Some will in desperation attempt to get their kid to hide who they really are so they aren't bullied at best, and removed from their care by the state at worst. This ruling is the tip of the iceburg of awfulness that's going to eventually kill a lot of vulnerable queer children. It will leave cis straight kids in those states with almost no one to become friends with who's queer and out about it, making it easier for their parents and churches to convince them that not being cis/straight is wrong. The cruelty is the point.

I wanted to move out of this state (AZ) for some time now. It depends on what job Mr. Objects can find, as I can work from pretty much anywhere. He was sort of half-heartedly searching, but as of this week, I'm putting on the thumbscrews. I love him, but if he can't find something by the next prez election, I'm taking Kid Objects and heading up to Seattle to stay with friends. He can follow later.
posted by sharp pointy objects at 7:52 AM on June 27 [14 favorites]


Mark Joseph Stern on Twitter:
The Supreme Court's first decision of the day is Kennedy v. Bremerton. In a 6–3 opinion by Gorsuch, the court holds that public school officials have a constitutional right to pray publicly, and lead students in prayer, during school events.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
Under His Eye.
posted by non canadian guy at 8:06 AM on June 27 [8 favorites]


I think it's helpful to understand these next months as the coup/the takeover. What's going to happen as they hear a range of key cases is that our civil liberties are going to go down, one by one. There isn't "normal" after this. This is it, the moment we've been waiting on since Trump was elected.

Worth noting: in every blue state and blue city, there is a heavily armed, high-paid, well-organized far right force already infiltrated by neo-nazis and buddied up to the mayor and the governor. Do not think that your blue state/blue city will protect you, because those forces have everything short of field artillery now. Those are the storm troops that are going to enforce this stuff, first now in a weak form and later in a strong form when we lose the presidency.

I say this not to be scary but because we have to get our heads around what is happening. What is happening is a judicial coup.

I would suggest that everyone accelerate their timelines - if you are planning on a medical procedure, a job change, a move, a purchase, practice at the range, getting involved in your community, etc, don't wait. There will be some stability until 2024, but we've passed all the off-ramps at this point.
posted by Frowner at 8:18 AM on June 27 [52 favorites]


I would like to rant about these fundraising emails out of the DNC. I don’t know how many of you getting them, but they’re like ‘we’re really angry! That’s why we have to show the Republicans you’re a “pro-choice champion” before the end-of-quarter deadline!”
posted by corb at 8:19 AM on June 27 [12 favorites]


Corb: I've been responding to all of them with the slogan someone suggested in here - "No donation until legislation".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:32 AM on June 27 [11 favorites]


The Supreme Court's first decision of the day is Kennedy v. Bremerton. In a 6–3 opinion by Gorsuch, the court holds that public school officials have a constitutional right to pray publicly, and lead students in prayer, during school events.

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. " Matthew 6:5
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:33 AM on June 27 [26 favorites]


From Liz Lenz (the links below can be accessed at the original article link): You can’t politely smile hard enough for the state to give you your rights back. You cannot be sweet enough to protect yourself from violence. You cannot dress in a dress pretty enough. You can’t be blonde or white enough to protect you from what is coming. The day my community showed up to protest our loss of bodily autonomy, I saw a man try to kill us. And he got away. Because of Iowa’s laws protecting drivers who hit protesters, it doesn’t seem like any charges will be filed. Also, our mayor put out a statement casting doubt on the protesters and city council has been quiet. The local news as framed it as an “altercation.” As if pedestrians telling a truck not to kill them is a both sides issue. As if walking back to your car is a provocation. No the only provocation was existing. The only provocation was us screaming that we wanted a right to exist. To live. To choose our own lives.

... Here is How We Survive:

We get organized. We cannot do this alone. We cannot bootstrap our way through it. Already, organizations and networks exist that are doing the work. Our job is to join their networks and give them our time and talent and money. You might not like every activist in your town (I sure don’t). But guess what? Who cares. Put your ego aside and get the work done.

Find a local mutual aid group to get involved.
Here is a link to a Google document that has good resources for information, training, and best practices for your activism.
Anne Helen Petersen has a newsletter with important information that you might find useful.
Also, here is a list of abortion funds in every state. These independent organizations will also have information on how you can volunteer and get involved.
Abortion Access Front is hosting a training on July 17.

... This fight is also a fight of memory against forgetting. So keep using your voice. Keep shouting. It matters. If it didn’t matter they wouldn’t be trying to hit us with their cars.

posted by Bella Donna at 8:41 AM on June 27 [18 favorites]


“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. " Matthew 6:5

A liberal cuck who will doubtless be made an example of.

[alt-snark]
A Plain Reading of the Text™ indicates that this is meant to apply to synagogues, not churches.
[alt-snark]
posted by non canadian guy at 8:43 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


From Anne Helen Petersen: "... people were asking what so many of us were asking: what do we do. “Get organized,” Siena said. “Not just mobilized, which is showing up at a rally once or twice. Organized means acting in coordination with others who have a long term strategy. Finding a local group doing direct, tangible work and asking them how to help. They’re probably inundated right now so commit to following up in the coming month. Go in person if that’s appropriate, don’t just email. Show up thoughtfully. Be consistent and reliable. Follow their lead.”

... Some of us can give our time. Some of us can offer a safe haven or even just a ride. Some of us can give Excel spreadsheet skills, or grant-writing capabilities, or legal services, or be the other person on the other end of the line when someone calls in need. There are clinics moving across state lines that need immediate assistance. Northwest Abortion Access Fund needs fluent Spanish speakers for its hotline and a board member in Alaska. Cascades Abortion Support Collective needs people to provide practical support in Oregon and Southern Washington. There is a mass day of volunteer training on July 17th so that individual groups won’t have to figure out the infrastructure to train the influx of volunteers themselves. The networks are out there. You just need to place yourself within them.

I know you’re tired and grieving. I know you’re scared. I am too, I really am — and I also know that my fear as a white cis-woman without kids near the end of child-bearing age is nothing, comparatively speaking. And I know how disheartening it is that we will spend the next twenty years, if not more, working to regain the rights that our foremothers worked so tirelessly to achieve. What matters is that we don’t talk ourselves into apathy — or, just as importantly, individual solutions to collective problems that will inevitably protect the most societally privileged amongst us.

So if you’re furious or grieving, ask yourself: what am I willing to do to change it? What am I willing to do to protect the autonomy and safety of our generation, and the next, and the next? How do I push against the natural inertia to pull my own circle tight and protect them and them alone from the world outside? As AOC put it in her Instagram stories yesterday, “ultimately, we live in this world and in this time. We have no choice but to engage in it while we’re here. Even running away is a form of engagement. So will your engagement hurt or heal?”

Your engagement can be as big or as small as you need it to be in this initial moment, and it can continue to grow in the months to come. And I don’t care if you’re a man, or a teen, or grandparent, or a tough old broad. If you’re furious about the revocation of women’s political citizenship and bodily autonomy, are you ready to act?

posted by Bella Donna at 8:47 AM on June 27 [18 favorites]


The Bremerton opinion expressly overturned Lemon v. Kurtzman, by the way, an 8-1 decision from 1971 that is the foundation of all modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Just in case there was any doubt about the illegitimate justices' regard for precedent when it doesn't suit them.
posted by Gadarene at 8:51 AM on June 27 [23 favorites]


[alt-snark]
A Plain Reading of the Text™ indicates that this is meant to apply to synagogues, not churches.
[alt-snark]


[snarkback]
Which is why the verse says not to be LIKE the hypocrites who do that in their synagogues, rather than saying "don't BE that".
[/snarkback]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:51 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]


I too have been responding to all the spammy democratic emails with this phrase. But it’s just an auto-response, thanking me for my support.

Maybe it will get noticed, but I doubt it.
posted by Windopaene at 9:27 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


Nothing from my rep nor senators yet.

But I joined the DSA nearly immediately after today’s Also Terrible Ruling, and will be doing whatever I can with them and other similar orgs. Frowner is right: this is the judicial coup.
posted by hijinx at 9:35 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


I'd like to suggest a thought experiment for discussion here, in the hope that something useful might come out of it. If anyone is interested, of course.

Due to a freak metaphysical accident, a progressive version of a Koch brother and Newt Gingrich (or Rebekah Mercer or Steve Bannon or Lee Atwater) has suddenly appeared in our timeline. Horrified at the accomplshments and success of their conservative counterparts, but just as cunning (and evil? mercenary?), they have volunteered to put all the Dark (language, tactics, strategy) Arts in their repertoire in service of restoring RvW.

What do you imagine
they would tell us to do?
posted by zaixfeep at 9:48 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


PLAY DIRTY.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:51 AM on June 27 [10 favorites]


I normally would only mention Meet the Press in the context of hatewatching it, but AOC was just on, and very clearly, calmly, and professionally said that yes, of course justices who lied during confirmation should be impeached, and also put out the documented reasons why Thomas should be impeached, and mentioned that his wife is a seditionist on top of that. And more. She was quite good.

I've noted that there's no way the Republicans will join Democrats in removing their own team's judges for Biden to pick replacements, so impeachment is doomed to fail.

But I've concluded that Congress should do it anyway. Roberts is concerned with the Court's legitimacy, and impeaching these liars would emphasize how illegitimate their decisions are, not to mention putting the same black mark against their name that Trump now has twice.
posted by Gelatin at 10:15 AM on June 27 [14 favorites]


Yeah jenfullmoon, but let's be more specfic and actionable. This is more like the start of what I'm looking for:
"Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party." --NG

What conservative or working-class friendly vocabulary words would serve the cause here? Using standard progressive terms will actively turn off the people who need to be convinced.

My admittedly awful examples: "Don't listen to these false prophets. God is a God of love and forgiveness. He knows our hearts and will understand and forgive our sincerely-made choices." Or "Why are you so unhappy that I'm sending my child to heaven early?"
posted by zaixfeep at 10:20 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


NYT: The Man Most Responsible for Ending Roe Worries That It Could Hurt His Party:
"I never like to take credit for anything,” said Mr. Trump, who has spent his career affixing his name to almost anything he could."
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:22 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


that public school officials have a constitutional right to pray publicly, and lead students in prayer, during school events

is not the holding of the decision. that clearly is where the theocrats are heading, but not what the court did today, which was to say that the school district was wrong to fire the coach for bowing his head on the field after the game. that he _did_not_lead_students_in_prayer is significant in the majority analysis.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:22 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


... but in ruling so, did more or less through out the approaches to establishment and free expression clause questions have have prevailed for just a couple years longer than roe. so, whirlwind inbound.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:27 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


that he _did_not_lead_students_in_prayer is significant in the majority analysis

Sadly, as a photo included in SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting (page 5, scroll way down), that was untrue. The dude absolutely led students in prayer. Go check out the image.

Kennedy’s practice evolved into postgame talks in which Kennedy would hold aloft student helmets and deliver speeches with “overtly religious references,” which Kennedy described as prayers, while the players kneeled around him. Id., at 40. The District also learned that students had prayed in the past in the locker room prior to games, before Kennedy was hired, but that Kennedy subsequently began leading those prayers too.

While the District’s inquiry was pending, its athletic director attended BHS’ September 11, 2015, football game and told Kennedy that he should not be conducting prayers with players. After the game, while the athletic director watched, Kennedy led a prayer out loud, holding up a player’s helmet as the players kneeled around him. While riding the bus home with the team, Kennedy posted on Facebook that he thought he might have just been fired for praying.


Judicial coup, as Frowner explains somewhere above in this thread. Get your affairs in order, folks. Who knows what we will lose next?
posted by Bella Donna at 10:30 AM on June 27 [26 favorites]


Roberts is concerned with the Court's legitimacy, and impeaching these liars would emphasize how illegitimate their decisions are, not to mention putting the same black mark against their name that Trump now has twice.

Remember Jerimiah Wright?

Three Supreme Court justices were nominated by a guy who openly incited a violent insurrection against Congress and who conspired with others to overturn an election. What connections do they have with him? What are they hiding? Are they legitimate? If a Justice is nominated by an insurrectionist, does their elevation to the court still count? (it does--but there's nothing wrong with "just asking questions" and as Republicans have proven time and again, there's no consequences for just making shit up to provoke the reaction you desire)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:31 AM on June 27 [6 favorites]


Yes, the majority lied about the facts of the case. Read the dissent.
posted by Gadarene at 10:32 AM on June 27 [11 favorites]


"Why are you so unhappy that I'm sending my child to heaven early?"

When we spend time speaking to anti-choice Christians, we quickly grow to understand there is no One Weird Linguistic Trick that will work in our favor. The break with reality is too strong. We mustn't buy in to the propaganda that they have beliefs based on the Bible, or on theology as we normally understand it. We must set aside the reasonable-sounding anti-choice pundits and understand the mindset of the religious voter. Their beliefs are based on emotional appeals that have been screamed at them from a pulpit (or a Sunday school, or a Bible camp, or a classroom) for decades, loosening their grip on facts and rationality. These are people who believe doctors are sadistically mutilating actual babies, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. They're not against abortion because some Frank Luntz figure came up with a winning advertising line; they're against it because they've essentially been enacting psychological warfare on each other, exposing themselves to mental horror movies 24/7 until the gore is all they understand.
posted by mittens at 10:35 AM on June 27 [29 favorites]


What do you imagine they would tell us to do?
posted by zaixfeep at 11:48 AM on June 27


I don't know but if I suddenly had a ton of money the first thing I'd do is astroturf the July 6th committee hearings the way the Johnny Depp trial was absofuckinglutely everywhere. I'd also throw crazy money at every Dem hopeful in a senate race, and I would make it clear that I expected my bought-and-paid-for candidate to carry out my terrifying gay communist agenda.

And basically anything Republicans think George Soros does, I'd look into.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:36 AM on June 27 [19 favorites]


working on dissent now. thanks Gadarene & Bella Donna. of course the dissent's articulation of the majority holding is not the articulation that becomes the rule, or, until this week, became the binding precedent.

nevertheless, the holding of the majority does not authorize school officials to lead students in prayer, as that _lie_ about the students was essential to the analysis, however much it sets the stage for such behavior.

interesting that the lemon test does not get the thorough "but the quality of the reasoning!" stare decisis analysis/rationalization the dobbs case spent several pages on.
posted by 20 year lurk at 10:44 AM on June 27


They're not against abortion because some Frank Luntz figure came up with a winning advertising line; they're against it because they've essentially been enacting psychological warfare on each other, exposing themselves to mental horror movies 24/7 until the gore is all they understand.

Then psychological warfare in the opposite direction is needed? Perhaps a commercial depicting a graphically violent act during which the perpetrator exclaims, 'I do this because my parents constantly told me I was unwanted!' Admittedly an inept example, but a better version could be devised.
posted by zaixfeep at 10:51 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


They're not against abortion because some Frank Luntz figure came up with a winning advertising line; they're against it because they've essentially been enacting psychological warfare on each other, exposing themselves to mental horror movies 24/7 until the gore is all they understand.

I used to go to a lot of flea markets including some at churches. Here in the Boston area this is usually pretty safe because a lot of Congregational, Episcopal, and Lutheran churches are generally progressive and only "mostly harmless" at worst, but I won't forget the quaint little Presbyterian church I stopped at which had an extremely graphic and disgusting floor-to-ceiling anti-abortion diorama behind glass immediately inside the front door. This was quite obviously the first thing the parishioners wanted everyone who entered their church to see and they had no qualms about making everyone who showed up file past it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:52 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


anti-abortion diorama behind glass

Yep, I've seen those displays. I wish the new Star Trek folks would remake 'The Mark Of Gideon' and really show the visceral horror of a sardine-tin of an overpopulated world, but with the remake specifying the illegality of pregnancy termination as the cause. The suffering caused by overpopulation could be made to look pretty bad in a diorama too.
posted by zaixfeep at 11:05 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


I wish the new Star Trek folks would remake 'The Mark Of Gideon' and really show the visceral horror of a sardine-tin of an overpopulated world, but with the remake specifying the illegality of pregnancy termination as the cause. The suffering caused by overpopulation could be made to look pretty bad in a diorama too.

I’ve thought for some time that they should do another film adaptation of Harry Harrison’s Make Room! Make Room! , one that’s more book-faithful and less campy than Soylent Green.
posted by non canadian guy at 11:21 AM on June 27 [6 favorites]


Yep, the excavator scooping up a mob and carrying it away gets the point across nicely.

I also thought of crossing the Judean People's Front/Splitter sketch with Highlander, to make a serious ad about the eventual cull of the 'wrong' denominations/faiths. Caption 'Soon, there will be room for only one.. faith. What if your church, the way you worship God, is cancelled by the others? What will you do? Where will you go?"
posted by zaixfeep at 11:34 AM on June 27


Eh, I think the anti-abortion crowd tend to already believe that hordes of non-white people are horrific. Their answer to over-population is more likely to be declaring a holy war and killing a bunch of the out group or enacting even more restrictive control over womens’ bodies and fertility, not switching to a reasonable, democratic, pro-choice stance.

In general, it’s very difficult to start from “over-population is a main/the problem” and end up anywhere outside of eco-fascism. There’s way too much water under that bridge.
posted by eviemath at 11:44 AM on June 27 [18 favorites]


Then psychological warfare in the opposite direction is needed? Perhaps a commercial depicting a graphically violent act during which the perpetrator exclaims, 'I do this because my parents constantly told me I was unwanted!'

Hell, just bring back that picture of Gerri Santoro.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:45 AM on June 27 [2 favorites]


(They’ll assume that they will be the one winning faith in a Highlander scenario, because they are the one true faith. And/or they’ll redouble their authoritarian fascism to ensure that end. It’s basically what they already believe - that they are in danger of being overrun by other groups.)
posted by eviemath at 11:47 AM on June 27 [4 favorites]


Their answer to over-population is more likely to be declaring a holy war and killing a bunch of the out group or enacting even more restrictive control over womens’ bodies and fertility, not switching to a reasonable, democratic, pro-choice stance.

They've realized they don't need to. Secure the water, monopolize renewable tech while doing little to control emissions and then let everyone else starve, thirst and war beyond the walls.

I know there is a left argument to be made for deglobalization (from a world systems/dependency theory/Wallersteinian perspective) but BE SUSPICIOUS -- because it's the ecofascist vision too.
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:53 AM on June 27 [3 favorites]


The 4 remaining Supreme Court cases of this blockbuster term

EPA one will probably gut it entirely.
posted by Artw at 11:55 AM on June 27 [5 favorites]


I guess the old Improv idea of 'yes, and' rather than 'no' isn't really taking hold for my question. Thanks for your responses, carry on. :-)
posted by zaixfeep at 11:57 AM on June 27 [1 favorite]


I understand the urge to cackle into the void, but read the room.

The only brick wall I'm seeing is the one we may be lined up against.
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:02 PM on June 27 [4 favorites]


Eh, I think the anti-abortion crowd tend to already believe that hordes of non-white people are horrific.

A family member I no longer speak to once posted an article that used the phrase "demographic inferno" to describe increasing non-white/non-Christian birth rates, so YEP.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:10 PM on June 27 [5 favorites]


Eh, I think the anti-abortion crowd tend to already believe that hordes of non-white people are horrific.

Ironic then, isn't it, that most of the women who will be left unable to get access to an abortion (because they won't be able to travel to a state which provides it) will be poor and likely POC?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:25 PM on June 27 [2 favorites]


well, it's not like lemmings* actually think of where they're going, is it?

*yes, i know real lemmings don't go over cliffs, but metaphorical lemmings do
posted by pyramid termite at 12:41 PM on June 27


(They’ll assume that they will be the one winning faith in a Highlander scenario, because they are the one true faith. And/or they’ll redouble their authoritarian fascism to ensure that end. It’s basically what they already believe - that they are in danger of being overrun by other groups.)

See, for example, Supreme Court Takes 'Wrecking Ball' to Separation of Church and State With Prayer Ruling
posted by eviemath at 12:44 PM on June 27 [3 favorites]


@VP Harris tells @DanaBashCNN that the idea of putting abortion clinics on federal lands "is not right now what we are discussing."

"In terms of the states, we also have to recognize that we are 130 odd days away from an election, which is going to include Senate races"


link

Glad to see a sense of urgency and a commitment to use the powers of the executive to their fullest extent in the face of this unconscionable stripping of rights by an illegitimate court.

Also, the election will include Senate races??? Tell me more, o master of oratory.
posted by Gadarene at 1:33 PM on June 27 [14 favorites]


"OK well I just asked you so it's what WE'RE discussing right now"

someone summon the ghost of tim russert
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:36 PM on June 27 [5 favorites]


Legal challenges opposing trigger laws

Louisiana, Utah, Florida, Ohio.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 1:43 PM on June 27 [5 favorites]


Wow, Harris doesn't even endorse a carve-out to the filibuster to codify Roe.

Absolutely unconscionable. We are governed by people who do not care.
posted by Gadarene at 1:43 PM on June 27 [13 favorites]


And one of these two chucklefucks is going to be the nominee in '24. DNC will crush anyone else who tries to enter the fray. What a shitshow.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:47 PM on June 27 [14 favorites]


And one of these two chucklefucks is going to be the nominee in '24.

At this point I genuinely don't know about that. Biden's approval ratings are terrible, and Harris' are even worse. Barring a major turnaround, there's never been a better opportunity for an insurgent primary candidate.
posted by mightygodking at 2:06 PM on June 27 [7 favorites]


OK, to clarify:

The Biden administration explicitly says it will not help women obtain abortions on federal land.

The Biden administration says maybe it might think of something with the FDA about medical abortions.

The Biden administrations says it does not want a filibuster carve out to save Roe.

So their solution is to wait 130 days to the next election and vote hard enough to get the Democrats 61 Senators, and realistically let's say more like 63 or so, and that's the plan?

Wait until the next election and if we can't do the totally impossible and get 60+ Democratic Senators just shrug and give up?

Yeah, there's no magic Green Lantern thinking here, they just really don't give a shit and they're not going to even try to do anything but blame us for not voting hard enough to get 60+ Democratic Senators.

Someone tell me I'm being meanspirited and that I'm misunderstanding/misrepresenting what Biden and Harris are saying. They aren't **REALLY** saying that the only possible way forward they intend to pursue is getting 60+ Democratic Senators in 2022, right?
posted by sotonohito at 2:24 PM on June 27 [33 favorites]


Slow and steady, and play by the rules and everything will work out.

That seems to be the gist of it.
posted by Lord_Pall at 2:25 PM on June 27 [6 favorites]


Someone tell me I'm being meanspirited and that I'm misunderstanding/misrepresenting what Biden and Harris are saying. They aren't **REALLY** saying that the only possible way forward they intend to pursue is getting 60+ Democratic Senators in 2022, right?

My charitable, if perhaps terrifying read, is that they aren't confident of keeping the presidency in 2024, and they don't want to eliminate the filibuster because they're not sure it won't be used against them.
posted by corb at 2:27 PM on June 27 [10 favorites]


Well, VP's usually don't contradict what the president says. Even if she disagrees with Biden, she's probably not going to say anything until at least after the mid-terms.
posted by FJT at 2:27 PM on June 27 [3 favorites]


My charitable, if perhaps terrifying read, is that they aren't confident of keeping the presidency in 2024, and they don't want to eliminate the filibuster because they're not sure it won't be used against them.

Then they're stupid as well as cowardly, because it will be used against them anyway.

EDIT: if you mean that they're worried that support for eliminating the filibuster will be used against them by their opponents in 2024, I cannot imagine that they are that divorced from reality.
posted by Gadarene at 2:32 PM on June 27 [8 favorites]


My charitable, if perhaps terrifying read, is that they aren't confident of keeping the presidency in 2024, and they don't want to eliminate the filibuster because they're not sure it won't be used against them

Then they're not only cowards but also idiots. Jesus fuck. Who doesn't think that the first thing the GOP will do if they get a Senate majority is eliminate the filibuster? They already got rid of it for Supreme Court nominees. They care about power, not propriety or rules. Wake the fuck up, Democrats.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:34 PM on June 27 [30 favorites]


Well, VP's usually don't contradict what the president says. Even if she disagrees with Biden, she's probably not going to say anything until at least after the mid-terms.

She has anointed herself the administration's fighter for abortion rights, per recent articles. If the only thing she has to offer in the way of fighting is "¯\_(ツ)_/¯ let's get 10 more senators in November!", then...

Let's just say that I wish we had administration officials who were actually willing to fight for things, at least/especially in an emergency. Because this is an emergency.
posted by Gadarene at 2:37 PM on June 27 [14 favorites]


Also pretty gobsmacked to hear her reaction was shock and a “whoa, didn’t think they’d do it!” I mean, laypeople had months to figure out they would - someone with her resources didn’ti?

An incredible opening for firebrands here to step up. The current admin is sitting still, almost like… they’re totally okay with it. JFC, LFG.
posted by hijinx at 2:53 PM on June 27 [8 favorites]


In reaction to the total faceplant by the Dem party's leadership, the modification of a tweet shared in the Uvalde thread seems to fit:

just one more senator bro. i promise bro just 5 more senators and it'll fix everything bro. bro. just 10 more senators. please just 70 senators in all and and we can fix this whole problem bro. bro cmon just give me 75 senators and 300 reps i promise bro. bro bro please i just need 80 senators 310 reps and 7 justices thats i

Tip o' the hat to Going To Maine for sharing that tweet in the thread
posted by lord_wolf at 2:55 PM on June 27 [21 favorites]


Also pretty gobsmacked to hear her reaction was shock and a “whoa, didn’t think they’d do it!” I mean, laypeople had months to figure out they would - someone with her resources didn’t?

LOL. Elite Democrats just assumed that Republicans would never kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. They've been fundraising off the back of Roe for years; they just assumed the other side was the same (ie, "we'll keep taking your money, but we won't actually codify this because then we couldn't use it to scare you into donating").
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:56 PM on June 27 [14 favorites]


Yeah, it's like if Pearl Harbor happened and the next day FDR made a speech saying he'd tighten up embargoes and send more money to the Allies.
posted by FJT at 3:02 PM on June 27 [10 favorites]


Who doesn't think that the first thing the GOP will do if they get a Senate majority is eliminate the filibuster?

Me.

They know damn good and well that they own the rural states. (Read upthread. 18% of votes is controlling almost half the Senate, IIRC.)

Rs can lose some bills as long as they can pack the courts. Look at the last fucking month, (concealed carry wherever, overturning Roe, limitations on Miranda rights, for example. ) I know I am forgetting at least one other monumental case and that terrifies me that I can't remember all the stuff that is happening right now.

The filibuster has done nothing but help Republicans. They have removed it to pack the courts, and that is all they need to do. Blowing up the rest of the filibuster only helps Dems, and they have clearly shown they can just wait "us" out.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 3:03 PM on June 27 [7 favorites]


I don't think they're that patient, or that smart.
posted by joannemerriam at 3:09 PM on June 27


Read upthread. 18% of votes is controlling almost half the Senate, IIRC.

I'm the one who actually posted that info, and 18% of the population are represented by an outright majority in the Senate. Considering that this is on the docket in the near future, I expect the Republicans to be comfortable enough in the entrenchment of minority rule with the assistance of the illegitimate Supreme Court to abolish the filibuster so they can just ram through a national abortion ban, among other things. They no longer care much about democratic legitimacy; that should be obvious.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:10 PM on June 27 [10 favorites]


Would a “we’re keeping all options open” kill these people? Even if largely a bluff it’s better than premature disarmament.
posted by Artw at 3:10 PM on June 27 [13 favorites]


On a related note from ca. 2008, Ayn Rand acolyte Alan Greenspan, 82, "acknowledged under questioning that he had made a 'mistake' in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions."

What a genius. Beltway echo-chamber hubris is something Ozymandian to behold.
posted by zaixfeep at 3:11 PM on June 27 [9 favorites]


Surely the leopards won't [be permitted to] eat my face.
posted by Mitheral at 3:21 PM on June 27 [10 favorites]


I'm not sure a political solution exists for this.

I feel these rulings and the others Justice Thomas' concurrence portends represent an ominous break between the State and its citizens. This break may well be irrevocable, as I cannot imagine rights of personal autonomy discovered, then so arbitrarily withdrawn, may ever be trusted again if they are granted by the same means, and by the same system.

We must of course vote, and we must use every other lever our constitution provides.

But we must also ensure these laws and the institutions behind them are treated from the start with the same irreverence and public disrespect that marked the end of Prohibition.

Prohibition was at least well-intentioned, and the consequences not easily foreseen. This repeal of Roe vs. Wade was naked authoritarianism in service to misogyny and religious delusion, and the consequences are fucking obvious, because they've happened before. And now they're going to happen again.

We need to teach jurors to hang juries, and we need to teach witnesses to comprehensively withhold cooperation from any legal system advancing these discriminatory ends.

We must do it until our systems right themselves, which we may hope for but I do not expect, or until these institutions prove so obviously and irrevocably broken that we may reform them on foundations as much of empathy as of liberty and order.

More than anything else, we must educate the American people that the Nation is not the State, and that reforming the State to save the Nation is the purest expression of patriotism.
posted by The Confessor at 3:24 PM on June 27 [27 favorites]


One of the most infuriating and hurtful things about the Biden administration's response so far is that they're treating this like it's a run of the mill disagreement with the Republicans over something like, say, marginal tax rate brackets.

Nothing I've seen or read from Biden and Harris so far indicates that they understand that people who are capable of becoming pregnant are going to die as a result of this ruling.

They're going to die from botched abortions, and they're going to die at the hands of spouses, partners, and lovers who don't want to be financially responsible for children. Even in a world with Roe, homicide was already the leading cause of death for pregnant people in the United States. Are they unaware of this, or do they think this statistic is going to change for the better somehow post-Roe?

Being incompetent at this moment in history is inexcusable, but adding on to that by being seemingly uncaring? That's damnable.

I've often felt that the Dem party leadership behaves like they think real life is like The West Wing, where they can give a rousing speech that earns them applause even, begrudgingly, from "the distinguished gentleman across the aisle" they're so in love with and that changes the course of history. That's wrong. But one line from the West Wing is true: People love Democrats when they're fighters.

And yet they keep choosing not to fight. And to distance themselves from the Democrats like Abrams, AOC, and Warren who do fight.
posted by lord_wolf at 3:37 PM on June 27 [40 favorites]


until these institutions prove so obviously and irrevocably broken

18% of the population controls a majority of votes in the Senate, which confirms federal judges. The electoral college means that Republicans can win the presidency while losing the popular vote (and have twice since 2000). Our system was built to enshrine minority rule and white supremacy; it's already irrevocably broken (at least, by any standard of expectation of reasonably democratic outcomes). People just didn't notice so much until it became obvious.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 3:39 PM on June 27 [13 favorites]


18% of the population are represented by an outright majority in the Senate

I cannot help but believe that this is a large portion of the reason for the reversal of Roe v Wade rather than any sincerely held beliefs about abortion=murder. They know that abortion will continue to be legal in blue states; they don't really care about that. But without abortion legal in red states, sure, some very committed people will travel for abortions, but more people will simply have the baby, thus increasing the population of...largely red states.

And while the Senate doesn't result from population, Congressional districts do - even if that population is all a baby boom as a result of not having accessible abortions. I think it's very easy for people to forget what pregnancy rates - and teen pregnancy rates - were before legal abortion.
posted by corb at 4:13 PM on June 27 [10 favorites]


I cannot help but believe that this is a large portion of the reason for the reversal of Roe v Wade

The larger reason is white supremacy (non-Hispanic whites were 80% of the population in 1980, and are now around 59%). The goal is "more white births" (this will become more obvious when they overturn Griswold, but we've already had a fascist ghoul celebrating the "victory for white life" at a Trump rally, so it should ALREADY be obvious; some of them are not shy about admitting this).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 4:19 PM on June 27 [11 favorites]


Seen on Twitter: “I’ve had Crunchwraps more supreme than this court.”
posted by mochapickle at 4:43 PM on June 27 [12 favorites]




McSweeney's seems to have nailed the Democratic response:
We Would Do Something, But Then We Wouldn’t Have the Power to Do Something, So We Can’t Do Something
It makes sense you’d feel angry at what’s happening. It makes sense you feel a sense of rage. Good! We’ll need that passion in November. As the people in power, we can tell you that the best way to solve a problem happening right now is us waiting for you to vote later. Because if we did something now, some people might not vote for us. And if they don’t vote for us later, then we can’t do something later! You see the problem.
posted by cheshyre at 5:17 PM on June 27 [28 favorites]


the best way to solve a problem happening right now is us waiting for you to vote later. Because if we did something now, some people might not vote for us

Yep Cheshyre, it's a bit like the old Machiavelli admonition that a king should absolutely help people dependent on him, but never help them enough that they cease being dependent on him.
posted by zaixfeep at 5:36 PM on June 27 [3 favorites]


Keep that powder dry, Democratic leadership.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:40 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


So, what's up with that draft opinion leak investigation? It was "heating up" at the beginning of June, but I haven't heard much since.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:56 PM on June 27 [3 favorites]


I think it was almost certainly a conservative clerk or family member who leaked it.
posted by Gadarene at 6:02 PM on June 27 [4 favorites]


And while the Senate doesn't result from population, Congressional districts do - even if that population is all a baby boom as a result of not having accessible abortions.
Missouri’s junior Republican senator, Josh Hawley, hopes Republicans use right-wing laws — like abortion bans — to terrorize political opponents and accumulate more power.

“I think we will see a major sorting out across the country that is already underway, as we speak, as states move to change their laws or adopt new laws in response to this decision,” he said, according to Insider.

“More and more red states, they’re going to become more red, and purple states are going to become red, and the blue states are going to get a lot bluer,” he said.

Nonetheless, he said Republicans will be a shoo-in for future elections once — you know — Democrats are scared into liberal enclaves, where they’ll be disempowered by an Electoral College that has historically given conservative states outsize power.

His plan calls for making GOP-led states so unlivable for nonconservatives that they're forced to flee — and then taking political advantage of their absence.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:09 PM on June 27 [11 favorites]


I think it was almost certainly a conservative clerk or family member who leaked it.

Why?
posted by escape from the potato planet at 7:15 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]


If by some miracle the Democrats get 60 Senators and hold the House after the midterms all the pickups will be squeakers in otherwise conservative states, right? So we’ll have Sinema, Manchin, and 10 DINO Blue Dog Democrats in the Senate. Then all the self-proclaimed realists will say “You fools! If we force a vote on bringing back Roe now, we’ll lose our supermajority and then the Republicans will block anything else we want to do! And we can’t do any pie in the sky court expansion or judicial impeachments either for the same reason!” Which seems in line with how the ACA being Romneycare was the best we could do vs the Blue Dogs and Lieberman. What can we expect from Blue Dogs and Manchin/Sinema and 60 seats in the Senate this time around? A federal exception for rape and incest that gets watered down to just incest squeaked by in a week before the next Presidental/House elections?

Is this literally the best we can hope for right now? Can someone please lay out a better scenario? Better yet, can somebody with actual power in the Democratic Party lay out that better scenario?
posted by delicious-luncheon at 8:03 PM on June 27 [8 favorites]


Hawley's plan is interesting because it reveals how little he knows of how average Americans live. Moving is expensive and disruptive. Red states are often cheap places to live while the blue states are often not. People often have deep roots for where they live. Americans don't have as much mobility as he seems to think they do.

He should be careful in what he wishes for. Any sizeable wave of internal refugees will indicate the civil war is about to kick off. Which will be bad for him because his permanent home is in a blue-ish Virginian suburb. Not in the safe-for-him red parts of Missouri.

And he's mistaken about how solid the red blocks of voters are. They might be willing to vote for terrible people like Trump and himself. But a majority of them do support some abortion access. In my own state of Kansas, 56 percent in polls support choice. Other red states have even higher percentages. Some of those Republicans will switch sides. They already have as my state has a Democratic governor. Even some Republicans have a limit to how much terribleness they'll tolerate.

In terms of the Senate, in theory the magic number is 52. Assuming the 2 who get elected will vote against the filibuster, and assuming the other 48 (minus the obvious two) will do the same. 52 is a possible number considering the abortion fallout and considering the GOP is picking terrible candidates in competitive states.

I suppose that's a lot of assumptions involving large amounts of luck. But it's still possible.
posted by Teegeeack AV Club Secretary at 9:06 PM on June 27 [11 favorites]


Wonder if Republican voters would see them loudly proclaiming “we’re the guys making everything terrible” and put two and two together over why everything was terrible… probably not.
posted by Artw at 9:34 PM on June 27 [5 favorites]


Why?

Because they're the only ones who would have the motive to do so, to keep Roberts/Gorsuch in line and prevent them from waffling.

Also, delicious-luncheon, it's essentially impossible for the Democrats to end up with 60 Senate seats after November. I think the best possible case scenario has them picking up five more, which 1) does nothing if we don't have a majority to eliminate the filibuster, in whole or in part, and 2) is itself exceedingly unlikely, given the stat I think I saw about how an incumbent president's party has only gained more than one senatorial seat in the off-year elections twice in the last century.
posted by Gadarene at 10:06 PM on June 27 [4 favorites]


> a constitutional amendment specifically enshrining a right to privacy

If done right, this could have really broad popular support.

However - I'm not so sure about broad political support. It's the type of thing the rightmost 20% of the Republican Party might ruin for all the rest of us.
posted by flug at 10:32 PM on June 27 [5 favorites]


If Democrats picked up five senate seats in November they'd almost certainly have the votes to eliminate the filibuster over abortion rights. But they won't pick up 5 senate seats in november (as Galderene says). Picking up two Senate seats would be almost inconceivably awesome. Keeping the status quo of a 50-50 senate would be cause for at least some celebration.
posted by Justinian at 11:14 PM on June 27 [13 favorites]


well bo burnham is looking downright prophetic right now. or something.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:25 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]


Are we talking about the outlook for the November elections now? Here's my take on the Senate:

Polling SUCKS. Senate polling was historically terrible in 2020--some races were off by as much as 15 points in the polling averages.

That said, the published polling for Senate races doesn't show any anti-Democrat upheaval in the offing. The only seated Democrat in a tossup right now is Warnock in Georgia. Democrats have legitimate pickup opportunities in PA, WI, NC, OH. (Yes, acknowledging that DNC could fumble these opportunities.)

Sixty seats? Unlikely. You'll probably see fundraising appeals for D Senate candidates in MO, FL, IA, KY; at the moment any of those are unlikely longshots. Hey, they could change! But there's no evidence of Ds having momentum in any of those states.

There are a lot of journalists and pundits using the lazy, stupid take of "well, the party in power loses in midterms" to predict a big anti-D swing--I don't buy that take. Polarization has already baked in the result in most states (and this is even more true in the House). However, there is a pattern from more recent midterm vs presidential elections to consider--both parties are effectively leaderless. Yes, the White House is unlikely to be a positive factor, but the R side is also without help. Trump only got people to vote when his own name was at the top of the ballot--in 2018, that segment of Trump-only voters stayed home.

Which brings me to one more factor that people don't like to talk about: you can win elections by getting the other side to stay home. There aren't a lot of "rational Republicans" out there, but you don't have to get them to crossover and vote D to win. You just have to get them to sit the election out. This year, there's no Trump at the top of the ticket, there's no real R leader with charisma to guarantee turnout (Trump himself couldn't swing races in 2018) and there are plenty of reasons for voters, particularly old-school upper-middle-class Republicans, to sit this one out. Extremism on abortion could be one of those reasons. January 6th findings could be another. General disgust and disgruntlement could be another. Doesn't have to be a mass movement, you'd still have the core of braindead MAGA-heads doing what they do, but a smallish slice of voters sitting out can swing close races.

Could Democrats lose the Senate? Could happen, not the most likely outcome at this point.

Best outcome for Democrats--pick up two seats to neutralize the Sinema/Manchin blockade.

Could they get to 60? Only if bizarre and unforeseen things happen, like a couple of very lurid scandals, or Murkowski leaves the Republican party and crosses the aisle. And it would take more than one bolt from the blue like that to get to 60.

(Could Democrats lose the House? Yes. But polarization and gerrymandering could mean that the age of big swings like 2010 are over. If Republicans take the House, they probably won't take it by much. Separate discussion.....)
posted by gimonca at 4:46 AM on June 28 [11 favorites]


I guess my point here is less about “60” specifically and instead whether any additional senators over what we have now are going to be squeakes in red states and thus likely to balk at doing anything and we’ll just end up getting either more nothing or some horribly watered down thing? Are the likely pickup Dems progressive enough to actually do something? Are there other senators who are likely hiding behind Manchin/Sinema that will suddenly find they can’t support this once a couple more progressive Senators get in?

I guess it would be nice to get a feel for what the actual odds of this getting addressed at the federal level are even after some successful scenario in November or if we’re just going to get the football snatched away again despite any gains.
posted by delicious-luncheon at 5:08 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]


If the only solution being proposed is to spend the next twenty, thirty, or even forty years slowly building coalitions and getting people elected to all levels of government, what the fuck have Democrats been doing for the past twenty, thirty, forty years?

Shouting "do something" and demanding that some sort of action be taken now may be green lantern theory, but it's also an expression of anger that Democratic leaders have done fuck all to build the kind of movement that they're now sternly lecturing us is the only thing that can undo the damage. It's been no secret that Republicans have been diligently working towards this moment for decades, and it's shameful that the only thing Democratic leadership has to respond to the culmination of that effort is to shrug their shoulders and ask us to vote for more Democrats.

When we're told after the fact that it's not enough to elect a Democratic majority--that we have to go beyond and provide a wide-enough margin to accommodate self-aggrandizing assholes like Manchin and Sinema--it's not inspiring, it's demoralizing. While it is a little reductionist to say Democrats control both the Executive and the Legislative branches, they still control two branches of government and to throw up their hands and say "really, we'd like to get something done but our hands are tied" is terrible optics. On top of that, Republicans tried to overturn an election they've given every indication that they're going to do it again, and so far nothing has been done to stop them: expanding voting rights at the federal level failed (because Manchin) and so far there haven't been any indictments of anyone involved in the planning of 1/6.

For anyone involved in the Democratic establishment, what is the path forward here? Or is there no path and we're just supposed to somehow get to 60 Senators?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:13 AM on June 28 [17 favorites]


Obviously the solution is for Pelosi, Schumer, Biden and a bunch of others to resign and make room for a new generation of leadership who could commit themselves to a new agenda while promising not to make the mistakes of the past, but it's not very practical since a) resignations would be interpreted as a display of weakness and b) is not an option for Biden.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:33 AM on June 28 [3 favorites]


If by some miracle the Democrats get 60 Senators and hold the House after the midterms all the pickups will be squeakers in otherwise conservative states, right? So we’ll have Sinema, Manchin, and 10 DINO Blue Dog Democrats in the Senate.

Two years ago, Georgia sent Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to the Senate, both of whom are pretty left by most standards in their stated positions, their bills sponsored, and their voting records. This year, NC has nominated Cheri Beasley, who is similarly pretty left.

Not all "purple" states are West Virginia. In fact, I think Maine is probably the only state whose politics really resemble West Virginia in that they are mostly white people who claim to be "independent" while mostly voting Republican. Most other "purple" states have substantial populations of people who are historically disenfranchised who are taking back their state and local elections and now coming for Congress.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:33 AM on June 28 [15 favorites]


52 isn't the magic number. 55 isn't the magic number. 60 isn't the magic number.

The magic number where we have enough Democratic Senators to actually accomplish anything is one more than however many we have. Always.

We gave the D's 60 in 2008 and the magic number then was 61. We gave them 50 in 2020 and the magic number became 51.

The reason the Green Lantern theory seems realistic is because they keep moving the goalposts to just slightly more than we gave them and then scolding us for not voting hard enough.

If we gave the Democrats 100 Senators I fucking guarantee that SOMEHOW it wouldn't be enough and they'd that we needed 101.

Because the real answer is that they don't want to do things. They're fine with the status quo of our laws slowly ratcheting rightward as the Republicans accomplish big things with tiny minorities and the Democrats are totally helpless to change anything even when we gave them 60 votes.

That's the eternal message of the Democrats: "You voters are bad, childish stupid, people for daring to even think of asking us to do something when you didn't vote hard enough to give us one more Senator than we currently have".
posted by sotonohito at 6:13 AM on June 28 [18 favorites]


Are we talking about the outlook for the November elections now? Here's my take on the Senate: Polling SUCKS.

Seconding this, and endorsing the rest of the commentary after - and adding one particular additional reason why polling sucks.

It is only just about to be July. Mid-term elections are not until November - four months away. A politically astute friend of mine always reminded me that a lot can happen in four months to alter the outcome of an election.

Polls can only tell you which way the wind would blow if the election were right now. ...And....there's a weather forecast scheduled for 1 pm this afternoon that I'll be keeping my eye on.

And even if that doesn't affect the polls - there's an entire summer's worth of things that could happen to shift things in either direction - we could turn up a massively scandalous thing against any of the candidates. We could continue to have protests about SCOTUS and there could be one particular speaker who goes so viral that it changes a lot of people's minds. We could finally get the pee tape. (ew.) We could have some kind of natural disaster where one candidate's response in particular shines. A candidate could die. A SCOTUS justice could die. A sitting Senator could die. Biden could die and Harris could take over. The UN could take our government over and enforce a parliamentary system because we're fucking up the two-party one.

I will grant that some of those things are far-fetched, but...four months is a long time in which things could happen which could shift the outcome of an election.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:20 AM on June 28 [12 favorites]


That's the eternal message of the Democrats: "You voters are bad, childish stupid, people for daring to even think of asking us to do something when you didn't vote hard enough to give us one more Senator than we currently have".

Here in Minneapolis, we actually elected some real, genuine, fire-breathing left-leaners to the City Council and it turned out that the majority of them are in the pockets of the developers and/or cozying up to the police. I was just gutted to see several of them support demolishing some of our last public housing. There's always one outlier in the City Council, occasionally two, who vote in line with their promises - but no matter who we elect, there will never be enough to enact left policies. And I stress that this is a very liberal city! Flawed, sure, not a city of abolitionists, etc, but a city with support for policies well to the left of what we get.

I think that as long as there is profound financial inequality, you can't get democracy through voting - the politicians will always serve the rich and/or come from the rich. You need a real, unfixable break in the system so that the existing power structures are also broken before you can make any kind of change. Admittedly, letting inequality get worse and worse since the seventies definitely made this more difficult, and that is absolutely on the Democrats since they were mostly happy to get rich too, but the vast majority of even left-leaning politicians will always be in the pockets of the rich, I think.
posted by Frowner at 6:22 AM on June 28 [20 favorites]


Obviously the solution is for Pelosi, Schumer, Biden and a bunch of others to resign and make room for a new generation of leadership who could commit them selvage to a new agenda while promising not to make the mistakes of the past

The exact kind of people they’ve been kneecapping at every primary to prevent serious challenges. The Democratic parties lack of a deep bench is a serious issue here.
posted by Artw at 6:23 AM on June 28 [15 favorites]


The Trumps spent four years merrily breaking rules to sell hotel rooms and handbags. I'd like to see this administration put half that zeal into addressing the theft of a fundamental right. (The fuck we lost any rights to this court.)

WaPo's headline today is "Frustration, anger rising among Democrats over caution on abortion". I don't know if that will move the needle at all, or if it's just more 'Democrats in disarray' coverage. I'd certainly appreciate help from the federal government on this and other issues, but it's not safe to rely on it.
posted by mersen at 6:29 AM on June 28 [11 favorites]


Backing up a bit, what is “green lantern theory”? (For the perhaps small number of us who are still vaguely following this thread because we are politically active and concerned, just not in that insider, pundit-speak sort of way?)
posted by eviemath at 6:51 AM on June 28 [11 favorites]


I was discussing the situation with my BFF just now, and had a bit of a minor brainstorm.

So....there are certain national standards for education in this country, yeah? Things which have been legislated by Congress?

Maybe we could start calling for MANDATORY COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED being added to the list.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:54 AM on June 28 [6 favorites]


Backing up a bit, what is “green lantern theory”?

Ezra Klein, Vox: The Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency, explained
According to Brendan Nyhan, the Dartmouth political scientist who coined the term, the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency is "the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics." In other words, the American president is functionally all-powerful, and whenever he can't get something done, it's because he's not trying hard enough, or not trying smart enough.

Nyhan further separates it into two variants: "the Reagan version of the Green Lantern Theory and the LBJ version of the Green Lantern Theory." The Reagan version, he says, holds that "if you only communicate well enough the public will rally to your side." The LBJ version says that "if the president only tried harder to win over congress they would vote through his legislative agenda." In both cases, Nyhan argues, "we've been sold a false bill of goods."
posted by non canadian guy at 6:56 AM on June 28 [9 favorites]


“Any” as in literally anything or “any” as in anything at all?
posted by Artw at 7:01 AM on June 28


Nyhan further separates it into two variants: "the Reagan version of the Green Lantern Theory and the LBJ version of the Green Lantern Theory." The Reagan version, he says, holds that "if you only communicate well enough the public will rally to your side." The LBJ version says that "if the president only tried harder to win over congress they would vote through his legislative agenda."

I'd actually add the "Obama version", which I feel like I saw a lot during his administration - where people thought he could somehow just do stuff, through some un-articulated means.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:03 AM on June 28 [6 favorites]


Trunp just did stuff. Through the means of doing it and no one having the power to stop him.

He was a bullying idiot, but he correctly understood that the American President is essentially an elected monarch and that the question on Presidential action is not "what am I allowed to do" but "who's going to stop me".

We watched it go down time and time again, Trump would do something outrageous and "impossible", but despite it being impossible, or outside his official powers, it happened.

He literally tweeted an entire new branch of the fucking military into existence, something that theoretically has to START in Congress.

But suddenly when the President is a Democrat it's all norms and hands tied and nothing they can do becuase the President is really nothing but a figurehead.

Fuck man, Trump rounded up semi-random armed agents of a dozen different Federal agencies and used them to disappear people off the streets.

So no, I don't accept that I'm a fucking childish idiot for daring to think that there's **SOMETHING** that Biden can do.

I don't think he can necessarially fix everything all at once, but he needs to start asking "who's going to stop me".

WHy hasn't he already sent four Supreme Court nominees to the Senate? Who's going to stop him?

Why hasn't he already issued an Executive Order that any doctor prescribing abortion and any person getting an abortion on any Federal property up to and including Federal court buildings, are immune from mere state laws banning abortion? Who's going to stop him?

Sure, maybe the Supreme Court will find his Executive Order to be invalid, but it buys several months of legal abortion for us and puts the Republicans on the defensive for a change. And it shows action, boldness, a willingness to take risks and do shit instead of just sitting around and saying "vote harder".

Trump proved that the Green Lantern Theory is 100% correct. Any President willing to simply start acting, rapidly, decisively, and as if they had the authority to do it, can get an amazing amount of shit done.

Maybe not everything. Maybe some of it gets reversed later. But shit still gets done and some sticks.

If anyone says "oh, but we can't act as badly as the Republicans did becuase that'd normalize the Imperial Presidency", dude, come on! Do you really think that in 2024 Presiden DeSantis or President Trump is going to say "well, I could act decisively and do stuff by executive fiat but Biden didn't so that reasserted norms and therefore I can't?"

If they're going to be doing it anyway, then we'd better do it harder and first.
posted by sotonohito at 7:17 AM on June 28 [50 favorites]


oh, but we can't act as badly as the Republicans did because that'd normalize the Imperial Presidency

Yeah, and this isn't even a new criticism! Remember when conservatives howled over Clinton's overuse of executive orders? We've been having this particular argument for nearly thirty years. Biden has not been shy about using executive actions. No one has. It's just part of the modern presidential toolbox, and the neglect of those tools at a moment of severe national crisis is damning.
posted by mittens at 7:27 AM on June 28 [12 favorites]


“Obviously the solution is for Pelosi, Schumer, Biden and a bunch of others to resign and make room for a new generation of leadership who could commit themselves to a new agenda while promising not to make the mistakes of the past, but it's not very practical since a) resignations would be interpreted as a display of weakness and b) is not an option for Biden.”

I’m not interested in blaming RBG, but I was wondering if one thing that the party leadership could take from this is to understand that they won’t live forever, take advantage of the deep bench we have when it comes to young people and support successors.
posted by Selena777 at 7:34 AM on June 28 [6 favorites]


So....there are certain national standards for education in this country, yeah? Things which have been legislated by Congress?

Maybe we could start calling for MANDATORY COMPREHENSIVE SEX ED being added to the list.


No, there are not, actually. For good and ill, education content is determined locally, and sex education content is consistently (well, was) among the most locally, vehemently controversial topics for school boards. (While there are National Standards available in various subjects, those are merely recommendations from teacher coalitions within those subject areas. And basic standards for primary and secondary schools are set and maintained via accreditation, overseen at state level.)
posted by LooseFilter at 7:37 AM on June 28 [8 favorites]


^ this is correct. The Federal government has the power of the purse; the availability of supplemental funding is the leverage behind No Child Left Behind and whatnot. Thus the dilemma of who really gets hurt if funds are withheld.
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:45 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


understand that they won’t live forever

Possibly thy understand that but don’t believe that any world that doesn’t have them in it is worth it. They want to take their power and prestige to their tombs.
posted by Artw at 7:47 AM on June 28 [5 favorites]


maybe the Supreme Court will find his Executive Order to be invalid, but it buys several months of legal abortion for us

It would be enjoined by a district court judge within 24 hours, same as Trump's worst ideas were enjoined.

It's just not true that Trump was uniformly able to just issue executive orders and do stuff for a while until judges caught up. There were loads of preliminary injunctions that prevented Trump policies from being enforced pending litigation, and it only takes one judge to do it. Biden's currently right now being required by a judge to restart Trump's Remain in Mexico policy because one Trumpy federal judge wants him to.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:00 AM on June 28 [9 favorites]


Recall how even before "Critical Race Theory" was a Republican straw man, they railed against "Common Core" educational standards, a bad faith attack against a good faith effort to standardize educational curriculum. To this day I remain unsure exactly what their beef was supposed to be.
posted by Gelatin at 8:03 AM on June 28 [7 favorites]


To this day I remain unsure exactly what their beef was supposed to be.

Any possible loss of sovereignty for Republican run fiefdoms.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:07 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]


Destroy public education. That was the only goal there.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:08 AM on June 28 [9 favorites]


They'd rather the Texas School Board's influence continue to constitute de facto standards they can control extralegally by the economics of textbook publishing.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:12 AM on June 28 [7 favorites]


Of course. To clarify, I don't recall if the Republicans even bothered with a cover story specifying why Common Core was supposed to be bad.
posted by Gelatin at 8:16 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


They want all kids homeschooled and isolated from outside influences that might contradict a religious conservative world view.
posted by Artw at 8:20 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


Hawley's plan is interesting because it reveals how little he knows of how average Americans live.

No it's interesting because he buys into the BS that every woman is having dozens of abortions, and when they stop it'll be enough to marginally alter the populations of states with millions of residents.

Biden's currently right now being required by a judge to restart Trump's Remain in Mexico policy because one Trumpy federal judge wants him to.

So judge shop, and find a Democraty-judge. Problem solved.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:24 AM on June 28 [4 favorites]


I believe that’s one of next dockets Supreme Court cases?
posted by Artw at 8:29 AM on June 28


So judge shop, and find a Democraty-judge. Problem solved.

How? The state of Texas brought the lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas (quite reasonably). They're the ones suing the administration, and they get to choose how to bring the case and maybe do a bit of judge shopping. Biden can't just go to another judge and ask them to issue a counter-order (if you could, why did Trump never do that? The Right spent years fulminating against evil liberal national injunctions). And if he could you are now in a situation where nobody knows what the operating law is, the confusion itself would not do anything to encourage abortion providers to reopen, and SCOTUS would intervene on an emergency basis within days.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:33 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]


The Mexico immigration detention decision will be this term, IIRC.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:37 AM on June 28


Trump just did stuff. Through the means of doing it and no one having the power to stop him.

No one USED THEIR power to stop him.

Two different things.
posted by archimago at 8:37 AM on June 28 [3 favorites]


Biden's currently right now being required by a judge to restart Trump's Remain in Mexico policy because one Trumpy federal judge wants him to.

So there is not one state with a border in the entire US to bring a suit in favor of Biden's rule and against Trump's? Man that guy really was amazing.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:39 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


So there is not one state with a border in the entire US to bring a suit in favor of Biden's rule and against Trump's? Man that guy really was amazing.

Texas is suing the administration. Who would the other state sue? If they sue Texas, they have to do it at the Supreme Court directly.
posted by BungaDunga at 8:42 AM on June 28


So there is not one state with a border in the entire US to bring a suit in favor of Biden's rule and against Trump's?

The only states with a border with Mexico are Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. Only one of those three states would be likely to file such a suit.

I mean, I guess Connecticut could try blocking that suit, but its only borders are with Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:42 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]


The entire Democrats fuss about immigration under Trump seems to have been opportunistic posturing and not really any kind of commitment to do anything or help anyone after he was gone.
posted by Artw at 8:44 AM on June 28 [11 favorites]


Biden has taken an action under executive authority that contravenes law passed under Trump. Thus the alignment of the parties.
posted by snuffleupagus at 8:50 AM on June 28


No it's interesting because he buys into the BS that every woman is having dozens of abortions

No, Hawley was talking about mass migration of red state liberals to blue states. Unless I missed it, he didn't say anything about the red states getting pumped up by increased (forced) birthrate.

Though I have heard other forced birthers talk about it. They somehow think a baby boom would work to their benefit. Which is just delusional in a world where the raised-in-the-church twentysomethings are leaving in droves. And where very few young people outside of the church are converted.
posted by Teegeeack AV Club Secretary at 9:02 AM on June 28 [1 favorite]


Ummm...wouldn't a baby boom also lead to more non-white babies? And with people of color being disproportionately unable to get abortions due to socioeconomic injustices, a higher percentage of babies of color?
posted by kirkaracha at 9:12 AM on June 28 [3 favorites]


Turns out 'race science' isn't scientific and hate isn't rational.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:12 AM on June 28 [12 favorites]


So Biden et al. do have an rationale for not allowing abortion on federal land.
With this proposal — we understand the proposal is well intentioned, but here’s the thing: It could actually put women and providers at risk. And importantly, in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees, as you look at the federal land, could potentially be prosecuted.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:18 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


Ummm...wouldn't a baby boom also lead to more non-white babies? And with people of color being disproportionately unable to get abortions due to socioeconomic injustices, a higher percentage of babies of color?

I...sort of can speak batshit, and I think the thought process here might be: "okay, there are too many non-white babies - probably because too many white people are having abortions. So if we outlaw abortion...presto, more white babies!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:19 AM on June 28 [3 favorites]


There’s also a theory that younger generations are “less woke” and any generational bulge of Democrat leaning voters is passing. This mainly seems to be based on 4Chan Nazis.
posted by Artw at 9:30 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


... baby boom ... Being curious, I checked out the ratio of abortions to live births. This deep dive into 2019 data come up with an overall number of 625,346 abortions and 195 abortions per 1000 births, meaning roughly that there was one abortion for every 5 births. Lots of age cohort slicing in their data. Here's the trend of Legal abortions per 100 live births reported in the U.S. from 1973 to 2019
posted by achrise at 9:48 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


With this proposal — we understand the proposal is well intentioned, but here’s the thing: It could actually put women and providers at risk. And importantly, in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees, as you look at the federal land, could potentially be prosecuted.

You can always find reasons not to do things, if you're not driven to get them done.
posted by Gadarene at 9:55 AM on June 28 [8 favorites]


... baby boom ... Being curious, I checked out the ratio of abortions to live births.

That ratio is in a world where people have ready access to contraception; the Christofascists on the court have already signalled that they want to overturn Griswold v Connecticut.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 10:07 AM on June 28 [6 favorites]


One thing I haven't heard much of is a description of how an abortion ban affects access to medication, and the steps the federal government would take after that, and I would like to understand that better. Is it that doctors will not be able to prescribe, or pharmacies will not be able to fill that prescription? Would the patient be expected to file a lawsuit? Is the suit against the doctor or the state? Would this be a protracted process...i.e., could it be drawn out to the point that the medication would no longer be the recommended course, or is there some sort of instant injunction a judge could offer to make the medication available? How does it all work?
posted by mittens at 10:27 AM on June 28


You can always find reasons not to do things, if you're not driven to get them done.


That's true, but the a state arrests every doctor as soon as the leave to go home, an empty clinic isn't going to do much good, either.

You could argue that forcing the states into that position would turn people against them, which I suspect is true, but you better make damn sure that the people who end up in jail know what they're signing up for.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:32 AM on June 28 [2 favorites]


That's true, but the a state arrests every doctor as soon as the leave to go home, an empty clinic isn't going to do much good, either.

Wouldn’t any supposed crime occur outside the state’s jurisdiction? I guess they could hold you for the annoyance factor but would eventually have to release you since the federal government will have no interest in prosecution.

Probably a simpler argument against doing this is that as soon as there’s a Republican president, any protections these clinics have would be rescinded. So it would make it hard to do any planning what with having to open and close clinics every (some multiple of 4 years here).
posted by delicious-luncheon at 12:39 PM on June 28


So Biden et al. do have an rationale for not allowing abortion on federal land.

"Dangerous ramifications." There are some pretty fucking dangerous ramifications to Roe being overturned. How about the administration try it and see and let the women and providers decide for themselves whether they're okay with the risk.
posted by jedicus at 12:41 PM on June 28 [15 favorites]


Here's an askme some of us are in on the topic.

A Federal government that wanted to take that fight could potentially issue administrative orders authorizing the procedure and take the position that doing so "overrides" the state law that would normally apply. (The more certain way would be to modify the statute in question to straight up exclude laws applying to reproductive rights, but then you need Congress to pass the bill.)

There's probably no precedent (even from the few cases interpreting the statute in question), an agressive red state would indeed be likely to arrest people anyway once off the Federal reservation, and then you might have a habeas corpus fight in which the state refuses to give up its prisoners to the Federal government.

With the scary possibility that this Supreme Court might take the state's side.

(I should note that this is far away from the kind of law I actually do, so please take with a grain of salt.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:47 PM on June 28 [4 favorites]


Further and especially in light of today's testimony in Congress: any court on which the insurrectionist Thomas has a seat is illegitimate, and its decisions should be treated as such.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 12:51 PM on June 28 [20 favorites]


Probably a simpler argument against doing this is that as soon as there’s a Republican president, any protections these clinics have would be rescinded. So it would make it hard to do any planning what with having to open and close clinics every (some multiple of 4 years here).

And? We'd have those protections in the interim.

"Don't do this thing to improve a terrible status quo because when the Republicans are in power they might revert it back to the terrible status quo" is an argument for inaction that I will never, never understand.
posted by Gadarene at 1:01 PM on June 28 [14 favorites]


Further and especially in light of today's testimony in Congress: any court on which the insurrectionist Thomas has a seat is illegitimate, and its decisions should be treated as such.

I appreciate the sentiment, but under the actual legal system this argument has less force than fringe on the flag.

Lying to Congress to get confirmed is at least cognizable, by contrast. Not that it's going to result in any decisions being vacated by operation of law, even if a Justice were removed. That's just not how it works under the present Constitution.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:12 PM on June 28


The only reason Alito's opinion in Dobbs has any force is because of an illegitimate majority ; I am not a lawyer, but I do have a fair understanding of the early modern period of c. 1500-1700, and I can tell you, based on that understanding, that the foundation of the argument for banning all abortions relied upon in the opinion is egregiously wrong. (cf the many historians of the early modern period saying so when the draft opinion was leaked.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 1:34 PM on June 28 [7 favorites]


Illegitimate philosophically. Legally, that would have to be found in an impeachment proceeding (in which fact finding doesn't actually matter ultimately, impeachment is political).

And it would not automatically invalidate any cases without new ones coming up for review to discredit them. (At least one, at the extreme; and doing it that way--i.e., a single case purporting to set aside all holdings for the past n years -- would be courting a more exigent crisis.)

We are going to this war with the Constitution we have, not the one we might want. As it were.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:42 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]


I'd add, you don't really want to live under the common law as it existed from 1500-1700 anyway. The people who would are on the other side of this debate. Plus, that law was rather famously modified by the US project.
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:49 PM on June 28 [5 favorites]


Didn't say I cared to; what I said is that Alito's reading (or his clerk's) is so ignorant that being expected to treat it with respect is as insulting as you no doubt perceive my comments about the court's legitimacy to be.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 2:00 PM on June 28


No, this Court is illegitimate (in the sense of corrupt, falsely installed and etc.), Alito is a naked sophist and ideologue and I can't imagine how anyone reading my comments would think I'm somehow offended by any vitriol directed at it.

What I'm saying is that this:

The only reason Alito's opinion in Dobbs has any force is because of an illegitimate majority

is fine as an expression of outrage, but that's as far as it goes without the will to impeach; and even that would not change the bad law made now.

And, I suppose, that attempting to apply older English law to the US Constitution that was intended to reform it is kinda lolwut.
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:07 PM on June 28 [3 favorites]


On the subject of people taking immediate action:

North Dakota's only abortion clinic raises over $700K for move across border into Minnesota

An initial fundraising goal of $20,000 had to be continually adjusted upward and now stands at $1 million. More than $710,000 had been raised as of 6 p.m. Monday...
posted by gimonca at 3:04 PM on June 28 [16 favorites]


From that North Dakota article:
Another top donation of $5,000 came from Karen Stoker, ex-wife of Republican North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.
posted by Glinn at 3:18 PM on June 28 [14 favorites]


Allison Gill of Mueller, She Wrote tweeted this last month:
CONTENT WARNING (sexual assault): ABORTION: When I was 21, I was drugged and raped violently in the military. When I tried to report it, I was told I’d be dishonorably discharged for filing a false report and court martialed for adultery because my rapist was married 1/

Despite trying to take multiple birth control pills as a makeshift Plan B (which wasn’t available then), I found out I was pregnant. I was able to get access to abortion care at @PPFA along with a counseling referral since I couldn’t talk to anyone in the military 2/

Access to that care saved my life. Rape in the military is prevalent and TO THIS DAY they still haven’t taken the decision to prosecute assault out of the chain of command, leading to situations like mine where it’s unsafe to report the rape. 3/

Active duty service members don’t exactly get to choose what state they live in, and without abortion care, I would have been forced by the government to give birth to my rapist’s baby and raise it while trying to cope with PTSD. 4/

Active duty service members also don’t have the freedom to simply travel to other states without a leave chit approved up the chain of command. The same chain of command that gets to decide whether or not to prosecute rape. 5/

I hope @SecDef & @POTUS will support leave for abortion care, & that @SenSchumer will bring the bill by @SenGillibrand & @SenJoniErnst that takes the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command to the floor for a vote. It has 66 co-sponsors in the senate. END

Link
Yet another actual horrifying scenario.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 4:53 PM on June 28 [35 favorites]


An initial fundraising goal of $20,000 had to be continually adjusted upward

Which state is gonna be the first the pass a bill to ban traveling to the next state over.
posted by 922257033c4a0f3cecdbd819a46d626999d1af4a at 5:06 PM on June 28 [1 favorite]


Didn't Texas already do that?
posted by mbo at 5:47 PM on June 28 [2 favorites]


I heard NPR's interview with the Vice President today and I was.....unimpressed. Particularly grating was her answer about why she hasn't personally visited a Planned Parenthood to show support. Also this:
Harris declined to engage on the idea of term limits for Supreme Court justices, noting President Biden had been clear that he doesn't favor expanding the court. "I personally think we need to win the midterms," she said.
Fucking hell. How is it that the people who claim to be fighting for us keep deliberately kneecapping themselves?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:06 PM on June 28 [21 favorites]


With this proposal — we understand the proposal is well intentioned, but here’s the thing: It could actually put women and providers at risk. And importantly, in states where abortion is now illegal, women and providers who are not federal employees, as you look at the federal land, could potentially be prosecuted.

Make all the medical staff federal employees and give them a blanket presidential pardon before leaving office.

Protecting the patients might be a little harder, but if given the resources of the federal government I'm sure there's a way to keep them anonymous. At least the patients would have the choice to take that risk.

These aren't serious obstacles, they're excuses some junior staffers had to brainstorm when their bosses realised democratic voters weren't going to accept the original vote harder bullshit.

Biden has no intention of doing anything except maybe making it easier to mail pills. Unless someone tells him he can't do that in which case he'll fold like origami.
posted by zymil at 6:22 PM on June 28 [8 favorites]


Presidential pardons do not work for state crimes.

But I agree. They should be doing something other than just repeating the list of all the things they won't do.

They're cowards. They don't care.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:29 PM on June 28 [4 favorites]


Well if we're throwing out stare decisis, then maybe the privileges and immunities clause means something after all. Coupled with right to travel. There are certain fault lines that (I hope) can't be passed even with the reactionaries, due to their own peculiar ideological fetishisms, and I think domestic passports are among them. Too plainly Soviet. Incompatible with tricorner hats and teabags. (But, with the undercurrent that some would conclude more preemptive state violence to enshrine their preferred reforms is the solution to that puzzle.)
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:28 PM on June 28 [3 favorites]


This thread on today's shadow docket decision reinstalling Louisiana's racial gerrymander map--a map so clearly contrary to the VRA that even the conservative Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court decision striking it down--makes it pretty clear that we're not going to be voting our way out of things any time soon.

Expanding the Court is the only answer.
posted by Gadarene at 7:34 PM on June 28 [13 favorites]


Presidential pardons do not work for state crimes.

True, but it would protect the medical staff from a future republican presidential administration.

If the facilities were located on the grounds of military airbases the staff could be flown in from blue states to do rotating shifts of a couple weeks at a time without ever stepping foot in the state that bans abortion.
posted by zymil at 7:34 PM on June 28 [4 favorites]


>they've seen this coming for weeks. They could have had a plan in place

>WHy hasn't he already sent four Supreme Court nominees to the Senate

>Why hasn't he already issued an Executive Order

>How is it that the people who claim to be fighting for us keep deliberately kneecapping themselves

>Biden has no intention of doing anything


Look, I'm not saying the Democratic leadership are complicit in all of this—playing good cop to the GOP's bad cop, putting up ineffectual performative opposition so as to give the masses the semblance of something being done in order to stifle action, keep them passive, and maintain the status quo.

I'm just saying, if they were... what would they be doing differently?
posted by rustybullrake at 9:43 PM on June 28 [20 favorites]


An easy test for your supposition that the Democratic leadership is only interested in ineffectual performative opposition is to ask which Democratic Party leaders are best in a position to immediately do something non-performative and investigate if they are they doing anything non-performative? Since the Supreme Court has thrown the issue of abortion back to the states, the Democrats in leadership positions that are in the best position to immediately do something non-performative are the Democratic governors of states whose legislatures are currently controlled by the Democratic Party.

Looking to my own governor, in the last few days Newsom has signed legislation to protect California residents and those seeking abortions in California from civil liability due to laws in other states that might allow residents of those states to sue those providing or seeking abortions in California, spoke in favor of the California constitutional amendment to make explicit the right to abortion that was successfully added to the upcoming ballot, and signed an executive order that prevents any information, including medical records and patient data, from being shared by California's agencies or departments in response to inquiries or investigations brought by other states or individuals within those states that seek to impose civil, criminal, or professional liability for providing, seeking, or assisting with reproductive healthcare. I haven't looked to see what other governors have done, but along these lines, the governors of California, Oregon and Washington issued a Multi-State Commitment to defend access to reproductive health care.
posted by RichardP at 10:37 PM on June 28 [22 favorites]


Some coverage of this from Norwegian media, I linked the machine translated versions as they seem to mostly be quite good these days:

NRK (the state broadcaster, think BBC): Supreme Court of the United States with historic abortion verdict: It is the composition of the judges of the Supreme Court that has made it possible to remove the right to abortion.

Former President Donald Trump promised to appoint judges who are against self-determined abortion. During his four years as president, from 2016-2020, he nominated three lifelong judges to the United States Supreme Court.

Of the nine Supreme Court justices, six are now considered conservative.


Aftenposten (biggest conservative newspaper): The US Supreme Court removes the federal right to abortion: Since 1973, a ruling in the well-known case Roe vs. Wade secured women's right to abortion in the United States. In 1992, it was determined that one can have an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the uterus, usually between 22 and 24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Pending a Supreme Court decision, 13 states have already enacted laws that in practice prohibit abortion. Now it is expected that these will come into force shortly.

On behalf of the majority, Judge Samuel Alito writes that the Supreme Court believes that the political United States - not the judiciary - should decide such an important issue.


Dagbladet (opinion piece from a tabloid, but they are far from say British tabloids): American Taliban: It is an American tragedy, decided by the country's Supreme Court. At the same time, the verdict could have serious consequences for American democracy. Confidence in the Supreme Court is already at an all-time low after Trump installed three ultra-conservative judges who have created a super-majority completely out of step with the majority of the people. Americans may be divided, so to speak, in the middle of most issues, but not when it comes to abortion. Eight out of ten Americans believe that abortion should be allowed in one form or another.
posted by Harald74 at 1:27 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]


I just saw clips from yesterday's Late Show with AOC; that woman is a force of nature. She is so good at her job.

Everything she says is very obvious but she is also very well-prepared, and thus she makes it clear that the democratic leadership are not doing their jobs. She and Colbert talked both about the congressional hearings and the the Supreme Court decisions.

I don't know how many times, when I was a young woman, elder men were telling me "we just can't do that", and I bet she is getting that a lot, and she is the person who steps up and says of course we can.
posted by mumimor at 2:26 AM on June 29 [25 favorites]


There are certain fault lines that (I hope) can't be passed even with the reactionaries, due to their own peculiar ideological fetishisms, and I think domestic passports are among them.

That's also a point when a reasonable observer would expect corporate muscle to step in, not on behalf of people's rights, but in their own interest. You think supply chain is messed up now? Checkpoints at state borders would be a huge multiplier of that problem.

It does highlight the limits of what individual states can do. It might be useful to think not so much about the legal restrictions--precedents and norms are being tossed in the trash--but maybe to think about the limits on resources, infrastructure, funding, staffing that states would face in enforcement. Surveillance states aren't cheap.

Another step to watch for: attempts by states to get the federal government to do the enforcement that they can't do themselves. This becomes yet another reasons why Republicans have to be kept from power, of course. You can also find parallels from the previous Civil War era, notably the Fugitive Slave Act. And, note that the Fugitive Slave Act was an attempt at "compromise" between "both sides"--which is also a danger today.
posted by gimonca at 4:12 AM on June 29 [7 favorites]


Democrats could codify Roe right now. Either eliminate or carve out the filibuster and 50+1 == passage in the Senate. They can't do that because Manchin (and maybe others) aren't willing to go that far to protect women, so they don't have the votes. But explaining why they don't have the votes--that there are some Democrats who aren't actually with us on this--risks alienating Manchin (who's term doesn't expire until 2024) and giving him a sad. But admitting this risks alienating the vast majority of supporters...

This is why the Democratic message is so wishy-washy. They can't say "Vote for Democrats, we promise to codify Roe" because:

a) why aren't you doing that right now?
b) any Democratic majority in the Senate will still depend on Manchin
c) there's no guarantee that they can actually get it done anyway

So we're left with the usual crap of telling voters vague things like "Roe is on the ballot" and "voting is important" because party leadership has quietly sided with Manchin and the holdouts for 11-dimensional chess reasons.

During her NPR interview, Harris got combative when questioned about the filibuster. She could only say they "didn't have the votes" and kept changing the subject when asked why. She also kept talking about how important electing more Democrats is, but also got combative when asked about how a slightly larger Democratic majority would codify Roe with the filibuster still in place...

The only plan Democrats have is the one they've always had: Stroke Manchin's ego at the expense of everyone else.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:17 AM on June 29 [10 favorites]


At any point, on any issue, Biden and Harris could go to a significant location and give a stump speech at a rally. They could, for instance, give a speech to a crowd at a pro-Roe rally. They could actually tell people to organize, they could encourage protest. They could visit states where the governors are codifying abortion rights into state constitutions, meet with the governors, meet with activists, etc. They could appoint some high-profile Democrat to be their spokesperson on this issue and send them around the country rallying the troops. They could start stumping for pro-choice politicians at the state level.

Obviously, they can't do this on literally every single issue since there are two people and only 24 hours in a day, but they could absolutely pick a couple of flagship issues.

Further, they could encourage and support Democrats who do the same thing. They could, for instance, be seen meeting with AOC on this issue.

Even if Biden cannot literally do anything legislatively, he can use his presence to build a national consensus. He could be going to big rallies and saying "80% of Americans support abortions at least some of the time, the Supreme Court is exceeding its mandate in order to push an agenda that is against the will of the American people, we must fight this at every level". He could use his presence to create a constituency with a sense of itself.

The administration can always do that. Trump did it. Biden could have an actual agenda and attempt to mobilize popular support for it. Now, yes, this is a break with procedure - it's not something that modern presidents are supposed to do (except Trump). But it doesn't take a genius to see that we're headed for Trump II or DeSantis or Cotton and they aren't going to hold back.

A politician can always do something with their own presence, even if they can't pass a law. If Americans stopped thinking of abortion as this tragic, controversial, both-sides issue and started thinking of it as a widely supported medical technique, there would be way fewer openings for the right.
posted by Frowner at 6:14 AM on June 29 [56 favorites]


Exactly, Frowner! That's the crucial point.
posted by Gadarene at 6:32 AM on June 29 [1 favorite]


Dana Bash: "What do you say to Democratic voters who say 'wait a minute, we worked really hard to elect a Democratic President and Vice-President, a Democratic-led House, a Democratic-led Senate - do it now?"

Kamala Harris: "But do what now?"

In the same interview she refused to endorse filibuster reform.

The Democratic leadership is utterly unable to handle the moment. It's just sad.
posted by mightygodking at 6:56 AM on June 29 [16 favorites]


The thing that really bothers me here is that we are in the middle of the worst global crisis since perhaps the Bronze Age, or ever. And there is no sense of urgency from Democratic leaders.

These things are not unrelated: the people who have been sponsoring Trump and the Trumpist judges are all involved in fossil fuels, and that very much includes Putin (and his war in Ukraine) and yeah the KSA. The anti-abortion movement, the revitalized racists, the anti-woke movement, all are sponsored by climate deniers, or rather, people who know well that climate science is right but who don't care because après nous le deluge. Or as I here they are saying now: YOLO. They have weaponized racism, sexism and bigotry to protect their own wealth.

The less fortunate people who fall for these scams should take a good look at how Trump abandoned even his closest allies.

BUT Democratic leaders are treating all of this as business as usual. They are not taking on the absurdities of Republican talking points, they are not speaking for the majority.
posted by mumimor at 7:02 AM on June 29 [11 favorites]


Kamala Harris: "But do what now?"

And then she tried deflecting the conversation to talk about the child tax credit? Something Democrats also weren't able to extend despite having majorities in the House and Senate? Seriously? And she's this directionless and evasive in every interview she gives?

What the hell Democrats.

If there is a reason you can't overcome the filibuster to pass legislation now, whether it's because the party just doesn't see it as a priority or because there are certain members of your caucus who are holdouts--fucking tell us so we can take action and mount a pressure campaign. This condescending bullshit isn't having the effect you think it's having.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:47 AM on June 29 [8 favorites]


Frowner: I've borrowed from your comment, and I've put it into the following email which I am now sending to Kamala Harris.
Dear Madam Vice President:

Recently Dana Bash of CNN asked you what you would say to the millions of Democratic voters who are now saying "we worked really hard to elect a Democratic President and Vice-President, a Democratic-led House, a Democratic-led Senate - do it now?". You responded by asking "Do WHAT now?"

As one such voter, I am happy to offer some suggestions.

1. At ANY point, concerning ANY issue, you or President Biden could speak at one of the myriad rallies which are taking place throughout the country. Reproductive rights are only one such issue - gun control is another, separation of church and state is still another.

2. You or President Biden could visit states where the governors are codifying abortion rights into state constitutions, and meet with the governors, meet with activists, etc. to encourage and applaud their actions.

3. You or President Biden could visit states where governors are writing abortion bans into state constitutions to urge them to reconsider.

4. You or President Biden could do either of the same concerning gun control or other causes.

5. If you are not able, you or President Biden could appoint another high-profile Democrat to be your spokesperson on various issues.

6. You or President Biden could start stumping for pro-choice politicians at the state level. Not simply by telling citizens to "get out and vote" - rather, by actively visiting those states and speaking on behalf of those candidates, and listening to the citizens they wish to serve.

7. In your unique position as president of the Senate, you could work with other high-profile Democratic Senators to overturn the filibuster.

8. You could encourage and support Democrats facing particular GOP attacks, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ilahn Omar.

In short - you could make your leadership ACTIVE AND VISIBLE. We do not see you leading at present - it looks more like shrugging. We need you to do more than shrug. PLEASE.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:12 AM on June 29 [30 favorites]


In today's edition of impacts of this bullshit on people's heath: doctors are now denying patients medications which might cause miscarriages, particularly medications to treat rheumatism.

Mortellus on twitter:
I take methotrexate to control my Rhumatoid. I was told today I could not be prescribed it any longer as I am viably fertile and it is a medication that can be used for abortion.
Matthew J. Luther on twitter:
Just got off a video visit with Elisabeth's rheumatologist. Because of today's ruling, his department is taking all their female patients off any meds with teratogenic risks, because such medicines might result in the miscarriage of any unplanned pregnancies they might incur. 1/

This is not a decision driven by the best medical interests of the patients: rheum. drugs are often very strong, some are basically chemo, but those patients need them. Instead, it's because if the patients miscarry, they could face murder charges, or die without DnC. 2/

So those patients are going to have to go off the drugs that were helping to control their condition and have worse health outcomes. People are going to die because of this, in a context miles away from elective abortion, because GOP lawmakers wanted to "own the libs." 2/x
The implications of this are pretty terrifying, if it's extended to include things like chemotherapy and other essential drugs which have a side effect of harming a foetus or causing a miscarriage.

(Also, this thread is getting pretty long and unwieldy, do you folks think it would be useful to start another?)
posted by fight or flight at 8:13 AM on June 29 [26 favorites]


(in case anyone is wondering which drugs can be considered teratogenic, and wants to think about the impact the unavailability of these drugs will have on a wide, wide variety of patients and conditions, here is a brief list.)
posted by mittens at 8:25 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]


In your unique position as president of the Senate, you could work with other high-profile Democratic Senators to overturn the filibuster.

George Mason and I think this would violate separation of powers:
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution states: “the Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.” It further specifies the chamber elects a president pro tempore, but only to serve in the Vice President's absence. The clause generated some debate, and several delegates spoke out against it.

George Mason asserted this would be “an encroachment on the rights of the Senate; and that it mixed too much the legislative [and] executive, which as well as the judiciary departments, ought to be kept as separate as possible.”
Vice presidents were sometimes more active in Senate business during the 19th century, but "the vice presidency shifted dramatically in the middle of the 20th century from being mainly a legislative position to a predominately executive branch post."

I didn't like IMPOTUSx2 trying to stretch the VP job for political gain, and I wouldn't like it here, either.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:25 AM on June 29


Another ramification. Robin Marty, director of operations for West Alabama Women’s Center, on the New Abnormal podcast this week (June 28) states that in Alabama, 50% of pregnancies in Alabama are unplanned. As of this date, they can send women to Georgia but that will not be an option much longer and the nearest abortion clinic will be in North Carolina. Some of these women are already coming from Oklahoma and Texas.

Here’s the thing, in Alabama, if you have a medical/non-surgical abortion (pill) and experience complications, hospitals there will refuse to treat you. A woman who had taken the pill, was having what she thought was “not normal” pain, went to her local hospital where they asked her if she’d had a medical abortion. She admitted it and they refused to even see her, sent her home. Fortunately she drove back to the Women’s Center where the doctor did a basic physical exam and determined the patient had appendicitis.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 8:33 AM on June 29 [10 favorites]


American Taliban

i'm assuming it's written in bokmål and because of that i'm not really that het up, but i cringe whenever i see this because it very much continues the tradition of americans seeing something bad happening in our country and being all, "what are we, a bunch of asians/africans/muslims/mexicans"

no need to compare this with the taliban, really. the call is coming from inside the house, this is a home-grown festering rot.

trying to draw that metaphor can sometimes look like a way of trying to avoid responsibility, avoid the horror that is who we are

god damn america, for treating our citizens as less than human
god damn america, as long as it tries to act like it is god, and it is supreme
posted by i used to be someone else at 9:07 AM on June 29 [23 favorites]


I think it's fair to compare a minority group of religious extremists trying to impose their warped religious views with a minority group of religious extremists trying to impose their warped religious views.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:31 AM on June 29 [7 favorites]


That isn't a comparison at all. It could be a metaphor, but if so it's a shitty one. It's really just a racist pejorative. Please stop using it.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:36 AM on June 29 [16 favorites]


I think it's fair to compare a minority group of religious extremists trying to impose their warped religious views with a minority group of religious extremists trying to impose their warped religious views.

Two thoughts about comparisons:

1. Comparisons made in mass media aren't neutral. It's not like we're all scholars of religion and we're making some kind of sophisticated comparison for a particular purpose after considering a wide range of fundamentalist movements; we're making a comparison in an Islamophobic society where people have been known to call Muslim Americans "Taliban" as a racist insult.

2. We just spent seventy years comparing bad things to Nazis and we've ended up with a sizable minority of Americans who respond by saying "the Nazis were very good actually, more fascism please". Fascists don't mind taking inspiration from non-white and non-Christian societies when it comes to violence and repression, either, so all we're building up to is fascists saying "well, if the Taliban kill people for religious and sexual offenses, good for the Taliban, surely we white Christians can kill people even better".

2.5. You have to be a very particular kind of person at a particular kind of moment to really be mobilized by comparisons. Definitely it was very mobilizing for me as a tween/teen when I learned that all of our patriotic garbage was just lies and we did the same things that we villainized others for doing, so I don't really think that comparisons are ipso facto odious, but I think they don't usually hit at a wide scale.
posted by Frowner at 9:50 AM on June 29 [13 favorites]


Here's the thing about the, in my semi informed opinion about pro- forced birth enthusiast type people.... They aren't pining for the 1950s, but the 1850s, or even 1750s. Guns + power to make the laws, + a massive underclass that doesn't get education or freedoms = profit. If you're on top of the pile, who cares about those on the bottom?
posted by Jacen at 10:03 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]


"what are we, a bunch of asians/africans/muslims/mexicans"

I disagree. Taliban doesn't conjure up a particular ethnicity for me. They are a mix: Pashtun, Punjabi, Afghani, and more. What days then apart is their misogyny and religious intolerance. An intolerance based on religion, not race/ethnicity.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 10:08 AM on June 29 [7 favorites]


well, actually...

Nah, I'll refrain. Just note that it is from a Norwegian newspaper, and Norway has just suffered a fundamentalist attack on a LGTB+ club. TBH, I (not Norwegian) can't guess what the author wants to say, but it might be something like we should look at the log in our own eye, or something.
posted by mumimor at 10:24 AM on June 29


I'll sometimes compare to Sharia law. Its nature as a public expression and the fact that the right has used it as a rhetorical red herring over the years has solidified it as a unique religious activity. Where this breaks down for me is where the problem with Taliban and Christianity (and others) is fundamentalism. I'm no theologist, but it seems to me that fundamentalism is necessarily a backwards-looking ideology, which just happens to call back to a time where men held all the power and made all the rules to their own advantage.
posted by rhizome at 10:38 AM on June 29 [3 favorites]


I'm inclined to be uncharitable to the current administration, so I'm asking for a sanity check.

Did VP Harris actually seem incredibly contemptuous with her "do what?" response when asked what she'd say to people asking why she and Biden weren't doing something, or is that just me taking offense where none was given?

Because to me that came across like a slap in the face.
posted by sotonohito at 10:50 AM on June 29 [6 favorites]


Well, the idea of putting reproductive care clinics on tribal land is out thanks to Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. If any party to the act that a state considers a crime, they now have concurrent jurisdiction.

Never mind the explicit language of treaties signed with the tribes and laws passed by Congress give the feds exclusive jurisdiction.
posted by wierdo at 10:50 AM on June 29 [3 favorites]


I'll put it this way: Biden's done a lot better previously than I would have expected, but current reaction is....about what I would have expected.
posted by jenfullmoon at 10:52 AM on June 29 [5 favorites]


I didn't like IMPOTUSx2 trying to stretch the VP job for political gain, and I wouldn't like it here, either.

Okay, but I suggested a shit-ton of other things she could do aside from "overstep for political gain" and "sit back and say 'whaddya want'", and I'm sure she has advisors who could help her pick something.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:53 AM on June 29 [6 favorites]


Well, the idea of putting reproductive care clinics on tribal land is out thanks to Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. If any party to the act that a state considers a crime, they now have concurrent jurisdiction.


Is the crime to receive an abortion or to perform one? My understanding is that under McGirt, the state still doesn't have jurisdiction over a Native performing what the state considers to be a criminal act if it occurs on tribal lands. I won't be surprised if I'm wrong, but it seems to me Castro-Huerta only gives the state jurisdiction over some more white people. Not that that's great, but again, I think it depends on how abortion is defined as a crime.
posted by rhizome at 11:03 AM on June 29 [1 favorite]


It's the CNN-abridged version, but have a look at what John Oliver said about the Dem response.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:07 AM on June 29


RichardP, thank you for that writeup. I desperately need to have the helpers pointed out to me right now.

When I said Democratic leadership—and perhaps I am using a term I do not fully understand, as is often my habit—I meant at the federal level; Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.

When the opinion first leaked, I scheduled a vasectomy. The conservatives were broadcasting their intentions, so I planned accordingly.

That the Democrats in positions of power made no preparations, and furthermore expressed surprise, strains credulity. Hanlon's razor is buckling under the weight of my mounting skepticism. Anything beyond treating it as a thought experiment ventures into the realm of conspiratorial conjecture, so I'm doing my best not to pull at that thread, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it alarmingly plausible.

I applaud and appreciate state-level (or nation-state level) Democrats who are doing whatever they can right now to make up for federal failures.

...I cannot help but wonder what good it will do when the GOP take over and enact a federal ban on abortion, but I'll take what solace I can get.
posted by rustybullrake at 11:10 AM on June 29 [11 favorites]


rustybullrake - if it helps to hear this, a handful of men I know are also scheduling vasectomies in the wake of the Dobbs ruling as well.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:40 AM on June 29 [2 favorites]


Israel is increasing access to abortions.

"The new rules, approved by a parliamentary committee, grant women access to abortion pills through the country’s universal health system and remove a longstanding requirement that women appear physically before a special committee before they are permitted to terminate a pregnancy."
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:54 AM on June 29 [4 favorites]


That the Democrats in positions of power made no preparations, and furthermore expressed surprise, strains credulity.

Feigned surprise is saving face and seeking cover. Actual surprise should be followed by immediate resignations.

Before the leak, surprise that Alito and his minions would go straight for the jugular instead of continuing death-by-a-thousand-cuts might have been possible. The leak was Alito shrieking "judicial coup, corner pocket" while steadying his pool cue. The intent was obvious. The result was obvious. The looks of shock a month later are simply insulting.

Kamala Harris: "But do what now?"

Impotence.

They believe themselves completely checkmated by the Senate imbalance and by Manchin and Sinema's stubbornness. And they're right, presently; they are checkmated, according to the rules and processes. If Mr. Bipartisan Outreach can't get a single phone call returned, if no amount of persuasion or argument or ratfucking or bribery can make even one of the 52 Anti-American Caucus members budge, we're done until the numbers change. I can scream all I want, and that remains true. There are no preparations because the powers that be have no options that they consider viable.

If the Dems somehow ridiculously fill an inside Royal Flush and reach 52 Senators and hold the House in the fall, those options expand somewhat. A filibuster carve-out or a SCOTUS expansion becomes nominally more achievable with two new faces on the side of good. But I would like someone to hold up evidence that even if that happens, current leadership (Biden, Harris, Schumer, anyone else involved in the process) views those options as possible even under those circumstances. One more reluctant "No" will pop up, or two, or three, or however many are needed to scuttle talks, because That Is Not How Things Are Done Here. They won't say "if we get to 52, we'll pursue these tactics" because they know that if they get to 52, 53, 54, whatever, they still won't have 50.

But saying "We are impotent, vote for us" is not exactly a productive campaign ad. So they are shuffling in place, stalling for time and praying that a miracle happens in November, or that something utterly catastrophic and batshit happens between now and then that might sway the masses. ANYTHING to distract from these failures and from the drumbeat of economic instability.
posted by delfin at 12:11 PM on June 29 [12 favorites]


In a rare bit of good news Breyer has anounced that he is retiring tomorrow at noon, which should give Biden time to fill his seat while there's still a theoretical Democratic majority in the Senate. Assuming Manchin and/or Sinema don't decide to ratfuck us even harder.

That'll make all three of the "liberal" Justices at least kind of youngish and not likely to die and let a future Republican President fill their seats to make the situation even worse than it currently is.
posted by sotonohito at 12:16 PM on June 29 [1 favorite]


Ketanji Brown Jackson has already been nominated and confirmed to replace Stephen Breyer.

Although if Biden were to conveniently "forget" that he's already filled that vacancy and send another nomination to the Senate for confirmation...is there any rule against confirming a nomination before a vacancy has opened up?

(Seriously. This something he should 100% do considering Mitch McConnell has already said he will never again allow a Democratic President to fill another Supreme Court position if Republicans control the Senate)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 12:20 PM on June 29 [18 favorites]


Is the crime to receive an abortion or to perform one? My understanding is that under McGirt, the state still doesn't have jurisdiction over a Native performing what the state considers to be a criminal act if it occurs on tribal lands.

Oklahoma has a version of Texas' civil anti-abortion laws coming into effect shortly, which could easily be construed to make a woman liable for procuring an abortion. Criminally, for the moment their 1910 statute is in effect, which can be used against anyone but the pregnant person, including their spouse who advises or pays for an abortion.

Same goes for the criminal law soon coming into effect, but it at least is not as insane as Missouri's, as it has carveouts for the life of the pregnant person, ectopic pregnancies (no need to wait until it actually ruptures something), and contraception.

By my reading, though, the ruling in Castro-Huerta seems to indicate that the state can exercise jurisdiction even if all parties involved are Indians in Indian Country. Gorsuch certainly seemed to think so in his dissent.

The ruling is really quite fucked because Congress has imposed concurrent jurisdiction in several states that requested it, but declined to do so universally after McGirt. Instead, Congress passed laws to better fund tribal law enforcement and left in place the system where tribes could choose to allow the state to take jurisdiction in individual cases at their discretion. Congress' intent could not be more clear, yet here we are.

The Court is straight up out of control at this point. I often disagreed with past rulings, but only rarely in my lifetime have they so disregarded every canon of the judiciary as they have repeatedly done in this term.
posted by wierdo at 12:49 PM on June 29 [13 favorites]


RonButNotStupid I"m aware of that, but given how generally shitful the Supreme Court is I was half expecting Breyer to say that he had changed his mind about retirement.
posted by sotonohito at 1:35 PM on June 29 [1 favorite]


Reporting this afternoon that Biden will be nominating an anti-abortion GOP lawyer to a federal judgeship as the result of a deal with Mitch McConnell.

link

If true, I have no words for how much I hate this man and his appalling political instincts.
posted by Gadarene at 3:44 PM on June 29 [21 favorites]


And as if on cue...

"Biden and officials are concerned that more radical moves would be politically polarizing ahead of November's midterm elections, undermine public trust in institutions like the Supreme Court or lack strong legal footing, sources inside and outside the White House say."
(Alex Thompson, Politico)

Words fail me.
posted by delfin at 3:46 PM on June 29 [18 favorites]


Okay NOW do do you believe they are useless? Jesus Christ.
posted by Artw at 3:48 PM on June 29 [19 favorites]


WHUT
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:57 PM on June 29


I wonder what part of Green Lantern thinking is expecting the Democratic president not to be thinking about nominating a pro-forced birth member of the Federalist Society to a lifetime judgeship less than a week after Roe v. Wade is overturned. (Or, indeed, fucking ever.)

I'm such a naive idealist, I guess.
posted by Gadarene at 3:58 PM on June 29 [14 favorites]


"Biden and officials are concerned that more radical moves would be politically polarizing ahead of November's midterm elections, undermine public trust in institutions like the Supreme Court or lack strong legal footing, sources inside and outside the White House say."

In the grand tradition of presidents with the initials JB. Is anyone surprised by this? I, for one, am not; Biden is personally anti-abortion and has fond memories of working with racists. He's not REALLY troubled by the decision and is too fucking out of touch to realise that the Republican Party of 30 years ago is dead, there is no compromise, there is no reaching across the aisle, because the opposition have been radicalised into extremism. We're at a point where there is either acquiescence to fascism (whether tacit or overt), or there is opposition to it. Fucking white moderates. Negative peace over positive justice, every fucking time.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 4:02 PM on June 29 [18 favorites]


I'm just...

I'm...

"It might undermine trust in institutions like the Supreme Court."

THAT IS THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF THE EXERCISE. There is no trust to be found in the Supreme Court at present. There is no legitimacy. There is no rhyme or reason to its recent decisions. It is a Play-Doh Fascism Factory squeezing out one horrible ruling after another and the ONLY WAY TO STOP IT that is even vaguely morally sound is to EXPAND IT to incorporate justices who can counterbalance the two stolen seats.

But, decorum.
posted by delfin at 4:04 PM on June 29 [22 favorites]


Reporting this afternoon that Biden will be nominating an anti-abortion GOP lawyer to a federal judgeship as the result of a deal with Mitch McConnell.

The deal, incidentally, is to nominate the anti-abortion GOP lawyer to a judgeship first, so McConnell won't interfere with future judicial nominations, because he's a trustworthy bargaining partner as we all know.

Honestly, the sanity wing of the Democrats needs to find a Presidential candidate to primary Biden (or Harris, whatever) in 2024. Julian Castro would probably be a good choice.
posted by mightygodking at 4:07 PM on June 29 [20 favorites]


Polite institutionalists will be the death of the Republic. (Or at least, they won't do much to hinder the fascist authoritarians on their way to total control, because taking a stance might be controversial and could alienate swing voters who might be inclined to support fascists.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 4:09 PM on June 29 [12 favorites]


Reporting this afternoon that Biden will be nominating an anti-abortion GOP lawyer to a federal judgeship as the result of a deal with Mitch McConnell. link

This strikes me as an obviously a terrible idea. I can't imagine trusting Mitch McConnell to honor any deal. On the other hand, this reporting strikes me as bullshit. There are no current vacancies for a federal judge in Kentucky (nor a future vacancy).
posted by RichardP at 4:09 PM on June 29 [9 favorites]


Asides from anything else who the fuck expects Mitch McConnell to honor any deal ever? That alone should be grounds for declaring mental unfitness.
posted by Artw at 4:11 PM on June 29 [4 favorites]


This strikes me as an obviously a terrible idea. I can't imagine trusting Mitch McConnell to honor any deal. On the other hand, this reporting strikes me as bullshit. There are currently no vacancies for a federal judge in Kentucky.

It's an article by actual journalists with quotes from an actual Congressman. I have no reason not to assume that it is accurate in the particulars, regardless whether it's for the next available vacancy or anything else.
posted by Gadarene at 4:12 PM on June 29 [2 favorites]


There are nearly one thousand comments here and I believe some of these matters are distinct enough to deserve their own front page posts.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 4:28 PM on June 29 [2 favorites]


How many dimensions is their chess game taking place in now? I've lost track.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 4:29 PM on June 29


It's an article by actual journalists with quotes from an actual Congressman.

If you’ve read the article, could you provide some details? I’m not seeing any corroborating coverage and the article itself is strongly pay-walled.
posted by a box and a stick and a string and a bear at 4:57 PM on June 29


If you’ve read the article, could you provide some details? I’m not seeing any corroborating coverage and the article itself is strongly pay-walled.

It quotes Rep. John Yarmuth (Kentucky's only Democratic representative) to the effect that there is a deal in place for Biden to nominate staunch Republican Chad Meredith to a district court judgeship in exchange for McConnell agreeing not to block all judicial nominations in the event that the GOP takes back the Senate.

Frankly, if this is something that was in the wind, but it's shelved due to Democratic backlash as a result of the article, then Yarmuth is a damn hero.
posted by Gadarene at 5:07 PM on June 29 [5 favorites]



Okay NOW do do you believe they are useless? Jesus Christ.


I've been on this site for almost two decades, and I promise you, there are many people who will go down with the ship no matter how many times the Democrats pretend they're going to do something they are supposed to do. They will keep telling us all we have to do is vote harder next time.
posted by chaz at 5:10 PM on June 29 [13 favorites]




Biden's surprising nomination comes even as he has fiercely defended women's right to abortion, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last Friday when it overturned Roe v. Wade.

Okay so they’re wrong about at least one thing about Biden.
posted by Artw at 5:23 PM on June 29 [7 favorites]


fiercely defended

Like a Rottweiler with arthritis, hip dysplasia, and no teeth that would rather be taking a nap, but will make some token noises for the sake of form.
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 5:31 PM on June 29 [8 favorites]


I used to wonder how people could be so complacent when fascism was marching through their homes and country.... Now I know. People are just inherently broken, aren't we?
posted by Jacen at 7:09 PM on June 29 [6 favorites]


I used to wonder how people could be so complacent when fascism was marching through their homes and country...

Not everyone's complacent.

Tonight, in New York, there was a dinner held by the Federalist Society. Members of the DSA and abortion rights protestors showed up and made sure they had trouble getting inside.

(Thanks to the erstwhile Whelk for linking to that tweet, if he's peeking in)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:10 PM on June 29 [22 favorites]


I used to wonder how people could be so complacent when fascism was marching through their homes and country.... Now I know. People are just inherently broken, aren't we?

We are, yes. Though there are also things to be said for being busy struggling to keep one's head above water, or for growing weary from continuous outrage, or for wondering to one's self, if the people with POWER won't do anything, what the hell can I do?
posted by delfin at 9:06 PM on June 29 [12 favorites]


The Hill has confirmed the story of Biden's plans to nominate an anti-abortion Federalist Society lawyer to a lifetime judgeship.

He is the worst Democratic president in memory, and Lord help us all.
posted by Gadarene at 9:22 PM on June 29 [14 favorites]


At the very least, The Hill is reiterating the reporting. I really, really hope it's not true. It is exactly who Biden is, however.
posted by Gadarene at 9:23 PM on June 29 [2 favorites]


FWIW, LegalEagle has a good breakdown on the various issues regarding how SCOTUS killed RvW, by going into the details of the assents and dissents.

I find it interesting that it's Thomas who's the most hardline on revising all the due process stuff, whereas Roberts would have left RvW alone and setup competing rights (essentially kick the ball down the road) and Cavanaugh sounded like he can go either way.

But it's pretty obvious, to this layman that this SCOTUS is cherrypicking its arguments to justify its position, and as this will bite them in the *** later. The problem is finding the right case to do it.
posted by kschang at 9:39 PM on June 29 [7 favorites]


They will keep telling us all we have to do is vote harder next time.

It's possible to keep two opposed ideas in one's head. It's possible to recognize that many (maybe most) Democratic politicians are inert sacks of potatoes. And to also recognize that keeping inert sacks of potatoes in seats of power is a far better alternative to seeing the fascists fill those seats.

So, yeah, I'm going to encourage people to vote for the potato sacks while bemoaning the fact that our only national political power lies in a pile of barely sentient taters.
posted by Teegeeack AV Club Secretary at 3:31 AM on June 30 [15 favorites]


Except the potatoes seem to be very active, articulate, and without a trace of ambiguity when it comes to some of their goals--for instance, there was no hesitation about expanding the US troop footprint in Europe. No hesitation on giving Ukraine a blank check. No fumbling around when it came to resuming oil leases on public land. At some point it must strike us all odd that this government is very, very good at doing some things well. Just not the pursuit and protection of our basic human rights.
posted by mittens at 4:19 AM on June 30 [23 favorites]


Mitch himself gave very strong support to sending Ukraine weapons and cash. Which meant any Ukraine funding bill would pass with bipartisan votes and zero GOP resistance. The president can pretty much do what he wants regarding troop deployments as long as it fits within the current budget. Being commander-in-chief and all that.

Same goes with oil leases. That jurisdiction falls under various Federal agencies. Biden can simply tell them what to do. He has the power to stop and start drilling on Federal land. Congress could stop the drilling with a law. But there will be no Congressional challenge to oil leases. Practically every Republican supports it and many easily spooked Democrats do too.

If there was bipartisan support for codifying abortion rights, it would have happened as quickly as sending Ukraine money. If you could manage abortion rights purely through Federal offices and agencies, we might have seen something done there too.

This isn't to defend the Democrats' tepid & idiotic response. Where the strongest action was found in the mass sending of fundraising emails. But abortion isn't even remotely as easy as Ukraine and oil drilling.
posted by Teegeeack AV Club Secretary at 4:36 AM on June 30 [5 favorites]


If there was bipartisan support for codifying abortion rights, it would have happened as quickly as sending Ukraine money.

If there was support amongst Democrats for codifying abortion rights, it would have happened. Through their inaction, Democrats have decided that protecting the rights of women isn't worth abolishing the filibuster, just like they decided that protecting voting rights and police reform weren't worth it either.

Yes, it's true that they don't have the votes. But they're not being honest about why they don't have the votes. Party leadership wants to have it both ways. They want to channel our outrage into electoral gains, but they also don't want to admit that not every Democrat supports abortion (or fair elections, or police reform....).

Democrats could create an official list of current Senators and candidates who promise to codify Roe as soon as enough signatories are elected to office....but they won't because that would only draw attention to how fractious certain elements of Democratic coalition are.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:14 AM on June 30 [11 favorites]


People are just inherently broken, aren't we?

Not so much inherently as deliberately.

The first priority of almost* every hierarchical power structure is its self-preservation. Having way more disempowered people than empowered people is the defining characteristic of a hierarchical power structure, so that first priority gets acted upon by making sure in all kinds of interlocking ways that it's as difficult as possible for the disempowered to organize themselves well enough to mount a challenge to the hierarchy.

When people are broken, it's almost always because some hierarchical power structure has broken them as a matter of implicit policy. In the US, this is most often done by keeping people's livelihoods as insecure as the majority of them can tolerate; the minority who cannot are simply allowed to break, at which point they get completely destroyed by what's laughably referred to as the health care system.

The empowered always get sloppy eventually, though; they go too far and end up overthrown. Unfortunately what most often overthrows them is a rival hierarchical power structure.

The reason that the powers that be are so completely terrified of terrorists is not because terrorists actually commit more or worse atrocities than they do themselves, but because the ongoing existence of terrorism demonstrates the complete viability of an alternative organizational form: the distributed network of largely autonomous non-hierarchical cells working toward an often loosely shared understanding of purpose. Labor unions also generally start out with a very similar organizational form, though they're susceptible to being absorbed by the existing hierarchical Borg over time.

Concentrated power of pretty much any kind is inimical to peace and security, but it's also sometimes the only practical way to get shit done. The best resolution to that inherent conflict, it seems to me, is not the one chosen by the Founding Fathers where multiple branches of Government are set against one other in a system of "checks and balances" in order to reduce the powerful's freedom of action. I would far prefer to live in a world where those who rise to power - all of them, including those in the "private sector" - were quite free to wield such power as has been licenced to them, but within a legal and cultural and traditional framework that renders their decision making processes transparent in proportion to their consequentiality, and where the standard penalty for abuse of power was not incarceration but total asset stripping and reduction to penury.

*I'm only inserting the qualifier to allow for the possibility that there might exist a completely benign hierarchical power structure I'm not familiar with.
posted by flabdablet at 5:26 AM on June 30 [21 favorites]


Also just thinking about that last para: pretty sure that what "abuse of power" means to me is any wielding of power that benefits only the person doing the wielding and/or their cronies, while making the lives of everybody else involved worse (bandit behaviour). If you're going to do that, your social and financial credit needs to dry up until you've lived poor for long enough to learn better.
posted by flabdablet at 6:10 AM on June 30 [3 favorites]


FINALLY!
Biden said he would support changing the Senate filibuster rules to codify abortion rights nationally.

“We have to codify Roe v Wade in the law and the wya to do that is to make sure Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, ... we should require an exception to the filibuster for this action,” he said.
Why wasn't this the message a week ago?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:37 AM on June 30 [13 favorites]


Because a week of everybody heaping opprobrium on the man and his cabal for their completely milquetoast initial response has made a difference. So that works, which is good to know.
posted by flabdablet at 6:41 AM on June 30 [28 favorites]


Great! Now promise never to nominate a pro-forced birth Republican to a lifetime appointment at the behest of the worst person in the world.
posted by Gadarene at 6:48 AM on June 30 [9 favorites]


I would like to think that the KY judge thing is Biden being like 'well, I can nominate him, but the Senate still has to confirm him, wink wink' instead of Biden being like 'golly gee, you can hang your hat on a promise from Mitch McConnell,' but I just don't know.

Here's a very rosy read from a Jezebel commenter:
It is a trade of 1 trial level judge nomination (and presumably only a nomination because Biden can’t promise that no Democratic Senator will filibuster or that 10 Democratic Senators will vote to override the veto) that would be bound by decisions and subject to appeal to the Sixth Circuit (which the Federalist Society hates) and eventual appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has no vacancies at the moment, in exchange for 19 Federal judgeships, including 2 Circuit Courts of Appeal Judges.

This doesn’t speak to whether McConnell will live up to his end of the bargain, but I suspect McConnell and Biden have probably made analogous deals in the past that McConnell honored.
posted by box at 6:55 AM on June 30 [3 favorites]


2. We just spent seventy years comparing bad things to Nazis and we've ended up with a sizable minority of Americans who respond by saying "the Nazis were very good actually, more fascism please".

i mean, that's already starting to happen--you've got gender crits/"sex realists" saying "at least the taliban know who women are", so...

---

I disagree. Taliban doesn't conjure up a particular ethnicity for me. They are a mix: Pashtun, Punjabi, Afghani, and more.

all of those ethnic groups are in asia tho. and the country, the people they're devastating is in asia.

and whenever something bad happens here so many americans point to some non-american country, usually in asia, africa, latin america and then make a derogatory comparison saying that america shouldn't be like that country, even if it's, like, a super american thing.

gun control is mentioned, "what are we, north korean?"
a christian fundamentalist attacks things, "what are we, afghanistan??"
inflation happens, "what are we, venezuela???"

it's a rhetorical pattern. sorry you haven't noticed it.

---

Nah, I'll refrain. Just note that it is from a Norwegian newspaper, and Norway has just suffered a fundamentalist attack on a LGTB+ club. TBH, I (not Norwegian) can't guess what the author wants to say, but it might be something like we should look at the log in our own eye, or something.

hence why i said i wasn't super het up about someone writing in bokmål doing it, but mentioning that it's something i've been seeing a lot of white americans saying and that it's a bit eyebrow raising

the movement to overturn roe is american at its core. it's white at its core. it's christian conservative at its core.

---

anyway, this is home-grown religious fundamentalism, so very american (refer to that apocryphal sinclair quote "when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross").

who knew underscoring that would be controversial?
posted by i used to be someone else at 6:56 AM on June 30 [16 favorites]


The fact that the Taliban was formed more than a decade after the terrorist resistance to racial integration in the U.S. converted into terrorist resistance to reproductive rights should tell you all you need to know about what the comparison is really saying.
posted by Etrigan at 7:02 AM on June 30 [3 favorites]


EPA gone.
posted by Artw at 7:12 AM on June 30 [6 favorites]


The Taliban had existed for a very long time as a relatively benign scholarly institution before being corrupted by Wahabi influences from Saudi Arabia and financed indirectly by the CIA. The US Christian Right was built by spivs and grifters (Falwell, Roberts, Bakker, Copeland and their ilk) from the get-go. They're not really comparable.
posted by flabdablet at 7:13 AM on June 30 [3 favorites]


So's Remain in Mexico.
posted by box at 7:25 AM on June 30


So's Remain in Mexico.

No, it just got remanded for further proceedings. Won't be gone until the Fifth Circuit says so.

Let's see if they say so anytime soon.
posted by Gadarene at 7:28 AM on June 30 [1 favorite]


That's another of those inevitable decisions we knew were coming, but still hurt when they arrive.

Nothing the Court has done has been the slightest surprise. But seeing it actually happen rather than be a potential is still painful.

And the Biden administration still stands steadfast against expanding the Court. We just have to live with Christians forcing their religion on students in schools, no regulations to save us from dying in climate change catastropies, and women being classified as second class citizens with fewer rights than corpses or guns.

Or, we have to have that general strike and mass protest, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
posted by sotonohito at 7:47 AM on June 30 [7 favorites]


EPA gone.

The internet is divided on how to read today's decision, between "this is a narrow ruling that the EPA will be able to regulate around" and "might as well seal the earth in a plastic bag until it suffocates b/c there is no more hope." Hopefully more detailed takes and responses will make clear which of these is true.
posted by mittens at 7:50 AM on June 30 [2 favorites]


regardless of what happens with the epa, i don't think the court comes back from this term with a shred of legitimacy for at least a couple generations

if the country even lasts that long
posted by i used to be someone else at 7:54 AM on June 30 [5 favorites]


And the Biden administration still stands steadfast against expanding the Court.

A week of reacting to their condescending bullshit about voting our way out of this may have caused them to do an about face on doing away with the filibuster. We can only hope that they're reconsidering their statements about expanding the court.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:54 AM on June 30 [10 favorites]


So - I had some interesting thoughts in the wake of the EPA ruling just now.

A week ago, we had a shit-ton of protests and marches around the country. when Roe was struck down. But here's the thing - those were abortion rights-specific marches. And a few days earlier, there were other gun-control specific marches in response to another ruling. And there are no doubt other groups planning protests in response to church/state overreach with another ruling. And I'm sure we'll be seeing more environmental action after todays' ruling about the EPA.

It strikes me, though - that's four different marches on four different topics - but they could all unite into a SINGLE focus, because they all have a SINGLE adversary.

* Roe was struck down because of Supreme Court overreach.
* Gun control was threatened because of Supreme Court overreach.
* The separation of church and state is threatened because of Supreme Court overreach.
* The EPA has been gutted because of Supreme Court overreach.

These are four different issues - ALL OF WHICH face THE SAME THREAT - Supreme Court overreach.

Now - the three-branch government system we have was designed expressly so that if one branch over-reached, the other two branches could check its power. But that isn't happening. So in a sense, it LOOKS like we have four different problems, but we have only one - one branch of our government is too powerful and the other branches aren't doing bupkis to block it.

The way Heracles killed the Hydra in Greek mythology wasn't by lopping off each of its individual heads one by one - he found the root of the whole thing and cut it down there. It strikes me that if each of us picks only one thing to protest about, that's just each of us trying to fight one single head of the hydra. But if we ALL united - environmental activists, abortion-rights activists, gun-control activists, religious freedom activists - into one single ABSOLUTELY ENORMOUS march focused on the White House urging Biden to DO HIS DAMN JOB and put a check on the Supreme Court, or focused on Congress urging them to do the same, that might finally kill the Hydra.

So in a sense, I am saying "Avengers - ASSEMBLE."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:55 AM on June 30 [27 favorites]


Speaking of court overreach, the SC just agreed to hear a case regarding independent state legislature doctrine, which is the theory that state legislatures (controlled by Republicans, of course) can enact election laws that override their own state constitutions.

Just straight-up trying to take states entirely out of play if Republicans are in control.
posted by mightygodking at 8:10 AM on June 30 [9 favorites]


Sandra Day O’Conner, still alive at 92, was the first woman appointed to the SC under Reagan and resigned after 25 years, unfortunately during the W Bush administration which appointed Alito.
“Justice O’Connor was thrilled with the appointment of (Chief Justice John) Roberts and very disappointed with the appointment of Justice Alito,” [Biographer and Newsweek reporter Evan] Thomas said. “Justice O’Connor was quite careful not to be critical of people publicly, but she didn’t do a very good job of hiding her apprehensions about Justice Alito.”

She believed, Thomas said, that Alito would undo the signature pieces of her work on the Supreme Court. The biggest was on abortion rights, and the other is on affirmative action.

“She said, ‘You know, the court’s going to undo what I did,’” he said. “Sure enough, that happened. It took a while, but it happened, and it’s going to happen again next year on affirmative action.”
Link
posted by TWinbrook8 at 8:11 AM on June 30 [6 favorites]


Because a week of everybody heaping opprobrium on the man and his cabal for their completely milquetoast initial response has made a difference. So that works, which is good to know.

Expand the Court, or no support.

Simple, direct, easy to chant.

Pass it on.
posted by delfin at 8:18 AM on June 30 [6 favorites]


Why Permanent Minority Rule is Actually Good for the Country - future NYT Op-Ed.
posted by Artw at 8:22 AM on June 30 [12 favorites]


Not just the EPA: the very concept of the administrative state was gutted by today's ruling. Did it not go as far as it could have? Sure. But where it did go is pretty, pretty fucking bad.

Just wait until this tees up all kinds of challenges to agencies' abilities to do virtually anything positive without an explicit step-by-step instruction handed down by Congress. Even if Congress wasn't impotent and deadlocked by conservative design, it would still be a wholly unworkable state of affairs (this is what agencies are for! to take care of the details to advance broader congressional aims!) with the prospect of eviscerating virtually every significant regulatory scheme on the varying ideological whim of six radical lunatics in black robes.
posted by Gadarene at 8:23 AM on June 30 [7 favorites]


I am willing to reinstate Roe, but only if every democratic politician, current or retired, and their spouse emails me to ask for money.
posted by snofoam at 9:21 AM on June 30 [6 favorites]


We definitely need a new thread.
posted by Gadarene at 10:06 AM on June 30 [5 favorites]




This is a good reminder for the people who were quick to read disaster into that CNN reporter’s interpretation:
We have to codify Roe v. Wade into law.

And as I said this morning: If the filibuster gets in the way, then we need to make an exception to get it done.
posted by adamsc at 10:16 AM on June 30 [1 favorite]


This is a good reminder for the people who were quick to read disaster into that CNN reporter’s interpretation

No. It's not.

Either they always supported eliminating the filibuster and Harris is just terrible at giving interviews and the administration is terrible at letting their supporters know where they stand or the sheer amount of pushback and outrage that's been vented over the past week caused them to reconsider their position.

Considering how evasive Harris was in the CNN interview and the NPR interview (where the reporter noted that she had to ask Harris repeatedly where she stood on the filibuster) I'm guessing the latter is the more likely scenario.

It's also worth noting that Biden only said he supports it. He hasn't said anything about whether he would push the Senate to eliminate the filibuster. Talk is cheap.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 10:45 AM on June 30 [11 favorites]


Hmm. So, SCOTUS said that they were ceding decisions about abortion back to the states, and it looks like some states' judiciaries are saying "Well, in that case...."

A Florida state judge just ruled that Governor Ron DeSantis' proposed abortion ban is unconstitutional and is blocking it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:29 AM on June 30 [21 favorites]


How totally not in the least bit ironic that they've gone after the EPA given that Gorsuch's mother was a Reagan-era EPA head, brought in to destroy the agency and lasting only two years before resigning after bungling the handling of the Superfund budget. Like a Batman-villain origin story. Revenge, dish, cold, you know the old cliché.
posted by hangashore at 11:31 AM on June 30 [6 favorites]


BREAKING: The Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v Harper, an appeal advocating for extreme interpretation of the Constitution that could make it easier for state legislatures to suppress the vote, draw unfair election districts, enable partisan interference in ballot counting.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 11:51 AM on June 30 [1 favorite]


BREAKING: The Supreme Court agreed to hear Moore v Harper

....during its next session which doesn't begin until October.

My two points being:

1. This allows for time to curb the SCOTUS' overreach. There's even historical precedent for this - in the 1930s, when the Supreme Court was poised to outlaw a lot of FDR's New Deal programs, he apparently threatened to expand the court and the Supreme Court panicked and said "never mind" and dropped it.

2. This then also gives us three months to blow up the inboxes forof our House and Senate reps, and of the White House, with a single demand - "REIN THOSE FUCKERS IN ALREADY."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:03 PM on June 30 [16 favorites]


That demand will have more impact if it correctly uses REIN as above, rather than REIGN which will give the recipient an excuse to snort and circular-file it. Double check that auto-correct hasn't done you dirty.
posted by flabdablet at 12:35 PM on June 30 [7 favorites]


And after Florida, it looks like Delaware has joined the states' party.

There's a part of me that kinda hopes that what happens now is that one by one, each of the states is going to come forward and say "right - well, SCOTUS said that they were kicking this can back to the states to decide. So, we are officially hereby deciding. BAM." And one by one, either the governors enact reproductive clauses in their states, or judges strike down trigger bans as unconstitutional - and we get to a point where Roe has been effectively codified into law on a state-by-state level.

Which would freak out some of the conservative activists because disputing it THEN would open up a whole can of other states' rights worms, I am assuming...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:36 PM on June 30 [6 favorites]


It's a nice dream, but it won't happen. Some rights need to be recognized and protected on a national level.
posted by Gadarene at 12:40 PM on June 30 [1 favorite]


This then also gives us three months to blow up the inboxes forof our House and Senate reps, and of the White House

I don't know if this is just screaming into the void but I am sending a daily message to both Biden and Harris through whitehouse.gov and not mincing words.

I live in a pretty blue state but I'm still calling my congresspeople constantly.

It feels like the only thing I can do right now.
posted by archimago at 12:40 PM on June 30 [5 favorites]


You know, it occurs to be that Robert Bork has surely been watching events of the last week from whichever circle of Hell he’s in and grinning from ear to ear.
posted by non canadian guy at 12:48 PM on June 30 [2 favorites]


I don't know if this is just screaming into the void but I am sending a daily message to both Biden and Harris through whitehouse.gov and not mincing words. I live in a pretty blue state but I'm still calling my congresspeople constantly. It feels like the only thing I can do right now.

If Biden's finally waking up to talk about the filibuster today is any indication, this might be the best thing for us all to do now. His finally speaking is a sign that this might actually be working.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:51 PM on June 30 [7 favorites]


1. This allows for time to curb the SCOTUS' overreach. There's even historical precedent for this - in the 1930s, when the Supreme Court was poised to outlaw a lot of FDR's New Deal programs, he apparently threatened to expand the court and the Supreme Court panicked and said "never mind" and dropped it.

In the 1930s, FDR had 59 Democrats in the Senate, then 69, then 76 out of 96.

In the 2020s, Alito has more incentive to call Biden's bluff and see what happens.
posted by delfin at 12:59 PM on June 30 [4 favorites]


So....what's the alternative then, just throw up our hands and say fuck it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:13 PM on June 30 [5 favorites]


Pretty much, yes.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:21 PM on June 30 [1 favorite]


We skip point 1 of the two that you'd mentioned.

The Alito Caucus has no reason or motivation to moderate itself, at present. If we reach their consideration of Moore and the makeup of the Court has not changed, I don't know what point 3 is but no one is going to enjoy it.
posted by delfin at 1:26 PM on June 30 [3 favorites]


So....what's the alternative then, just throw up our hands and say fuck it?

...

Pretty much, yes.


....Unbelievable.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:32 PM on June 30 [2 favorites]


IMHO, the alternative is to turn out and vote as many GOP out of office as possible, from school board and all the way on up. It will not happen immediately, but there is plenty of time to prepare for 2024, and be vigilant in watching for more vote suppression and other cheats.
posted by kschang at 1:37 PM on June 30 [3 favorites]


So....what's the alternative then, just throw up our hands and say fuck it?

A lot of us here on the blue are middle aged people, and we have middle aged people power if we use it. We can point to a young, visionary person and tell our peers to help lift that person. At first they will be confused. They will ask what it is we see in that young person, and they will be afraid we want to deprive them of middle age person power they have fought to achieve.

But we can tell them that those young people carry our torches, and have a new perspective and energy. That we need them and that they are about to live in the future we have already created. And that they will not take from our power but enhance it by giving vision and longevity. If we listen to them and aid them in their dreams.

This is spoken from practice. I know this works because I practice it. I can see I'm being a bit preachery, but I am having a tough job selling it to my peers, while the actual effect is amazing.
posted by mumimor at 1:37 PM on June 30 [23 favorites]


Thank you, mumimor, for not throwing up your hands and saying fuck it and giving up.

I don't think you're being preachery either.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:42 PM on June 30 [12 favorites]


AOC on Twitter is encouraging citizens to contact their Senators much as in the same ways as EmpressCallipygos is. There are smart and serious people out there who still see a path out of all of this. I would caution anyone who thinks this is a hopeless cause to remember that willpower and persistence from the other side got us into this mess, so it stands to reason we'll need to display some of the same in return.

My grandma, before she passed from COVID, would always say "Do the right thing because it's right, not because of what you're gonna get after."
posted by Jarcat at 1:43 PM on June 30 [20 favorites]


I will remind folks that all of the fights for equality and liberty:

... the fight for LGBT liberation in the wake of Stonewall and the AIDS
... the struggle for desegregation
... the right for everyone to vote

all pursued a diversity of tactics aimed at moving the needle in a number of directions. It was not just court packing or voting in senators or demonstrations, but it was all of that moving with consistency and persistence. The Right Wing's effort to overturn Roe involved The Federalist Society grooming judges and misinformation campaigns and getting Presidents to appoint judges and getting trigger laws written by state legislatures and having zealots terrorize abortion clinics.

I would gently ask all of us to back off from arguing over whether any method or other is feasible or perfect or impossible or a daydream. If you feel strongly about the concrete viability of your idea and it's impact, I urge to spend your energy finding other people who agree with you and Go Get It Done. We are millions. We can do a lot of things. We can't just sit around debating about Perfect.

I will repost some of my suggestions from earlier in the thread.
Michigan needs help getting an amendment to its state constitution defining a right to abortion

Ohio Dems also want to get a similar amendment in but first need to break the Republican supermajority in November.

Florida's ACLU just successfully blocked HB-5.

Kansans for pro-choice are working to prevent an abortion ban from being written into their constitution.

I am choosing to support these local fights because I think they can have an immediate impact that's more attainable than shaping the Senate so that we can pack the court. I'm not going to tell any of you not to go after that goal, and I'm not interested in arguing over what's better or more effective. If you succeed I will be overjoyed, but it's just not where I feel like my support is best used.

Pick the lane that resonates with you and run down that lane as hard as you can. It's better than standing still.
posted by bl1nk at 1:51 PM on June 30 [40 favorites]


In my current job, I have a lot of projects that I am promoting. And the easiest one to fund it is the one where we want to give the new generation a platform for change. This is very discreet, no one is out there shouting out new visions. But a lot of big money people know we need this, and they want to funnel money via our organisation.
posted by mumimor at 1:53 PM on June 30 [6 favorites]


Thank you, mumimor, for not throwing up your hands and saying fuck it and giving up.

For the record, since I was also one of your responders, I am not endorsing throwing up our hands and saying fuck it and giving up. Quite the opposite. I am endorsing the notion that every minute that passes in which Democratic leadership is not thundering about the illegitimacy of this court is wasted time, dangerously wasted time, time that needs to be used to BELLOW a message to Americans that this court's dismantling of America cannot and will not be allowed to stand.

Where I disagreed with you is the notion that this court can be persuaded to step back. They are on the one-inch line and ready to punch in the winning touchdown; they are in no mood to treat the President or Sane America as having any legitimacy. Catch-22, in its most distilled form: They have a right to do anything that we can't stop them from doing.

They cannot be fixed. They must be stopped, by weight of numbers and force of will to put those numbers there. There has to be a clear message from the top that, yes, that is what we are aiming for in these midterms, the mandate to throw down. And if they do not show that message, the public needs to instill raw, naked fear in them that it's all going straight to hell if they do not. That people are hurt, people are endangered, and far more people are furious than would be gained via a moderate approach.
posted by delfin at 3:35 PM on June 30 [11 favorites]


A fantastic Twitter thread from Alexandra Erin on the Democrats and the gravity of the situation. If you are wondering why people like me are so angry, so determined to provoke a stronger reaction from Biden and Schumer and Pelosi, this is a far more elegant summary of it than anything I've expressed.

Some excerpts:

Here's the thing for me:

The day that I no longer see any point in being angry at Democrats, the day that the Democratic leadership loses its power to disappoint me?

That's when you need to worry if I'm voting, or how I'm voting.

...

I don't foresee a day when I no longer believe that putting the Democrats in office and keeping them there is an obstacle to Mitch being himself. I think better of the Democrats than that. I expect better of them than that. I believe better of them than that.

If the day comes when I am no longer capable of expressing anger at the Democrats, if the day comes when I can no longer be disappointed by them... it will be because I can no longer see any distinction between voting for them and voting to hand the reins to Mitch McConnell.

...

The people who need to feel team spirit to vote will find it with each other.

The people who need space to vent because they need to believe their electeds could be better will find that without them.

We don't have to all stand shoulder to shoulder all the time.

posted by delfin at 4:06 PM on June 30 [3 favorites]


Where I disagreed with you is the notion that this court can be persuaded to step back. [...]

They cannot be fixed. They must be stopped, by weight of numbers and force of will to put those numbers there. There has to be a clear message from the top that, yes, that is what we are aiming for in these midterms, the mandate to throw down. And if they do not show that message, the public needs to instill raw, naked fear in them that it's all going straight to hell if they do not. That people are hurt, people are endangered, and far more people are furious than would be gained via a moderate approach.


I am genuinely and sincerely not clear how anything you said in this second paragraph is NOT a description of persuading the court to step back. But really all I care is that people PICK SOMETHING AND DO IT, that's all. It was what sounded like a sort of defeatist "well, we're fucked" attitude that alarmed me.

Chalk it up to a misunderstanding, in part on my own part, and apologies and as you were.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:24 PM on June 30 [7 favorites]


More than fair enough, and no ill will on my part whatsoever, as nor did I sense any on yours.

My argument, as it was, is that there is a clear difference between the FDR precedent you provided and today; FDR had the open desire to pull the trigger on expansion, should it have proven necessary, and the necessary numbers to make its execution quick and easy. Biden has neither the numbers to force a roster change -- yet -- nor the desire to do so.

It would be a very empty threat... unless Democratic leadership reaches a point where most come together on that it is a necessary step to take. It goes hand-in-hand; making it unmistakable that they view the court as illegitimate and that nothing is off the table is absolutely necessary for Dems to win the seats that might enable them to take those steps.

I don't want Biden and Schumer to threaten an expansion. I want them to insist upon one, to rally the American voter base around one, and to execute it once they have the 50+1 required.

But they have to want one first... and that will be a long road.
posted by delfin at 6:08 PM on June 30 [3 favorites]


I apologize for not being full of the fighting spirit, but also I'm completely stumped as to how one stops the Supreme Court now.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:09 PM on June 30 [4 favorites]


My argument, as it was, is that there is a clear difference between the FDR precedent you provided and today; FDR had the open desire to pull the trigger on expansion, should it have proven necessary, and the necessary numbers to make its execution quick and easy. Biden has neither the numbers to force a roster change -- yet -- nor the desire to do so.

It would be a very empty threat... unless Democratic leadership reaches a point where most come together on that it is a necessary step to take.


Ah, I see the disconnect; I left out the conclusion. Yes, FDR had the desire and the numbers to expand the court and did it on his own, but Biden and/or the Congress do not have either yet.

And my conclusion was that, therefore, since Biden and the Congress don't have the will yet, it is on us to SCREAM TOTAL FUCKING BLOODY MURDER AT THEM until they DO.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:12 PM on June 30 [9 favorites]


...which plan has already shown itself to be, probably, a thing that works.
posted by flabdablet at 11:23 PM on June 30 [1 favorite]


In the 1930s, FDR had 59 Democrats in the Senate, then 69, then 76 out of 96.

Not enough folks realize this. FDR didn't just "have the Senate", he had up to the equivalent of 79 senators today. It's hard not to get your shit through the Senate with that dominating a majority.

I could pass an agenda and bully the Supreme Court with 79 senators and my qualifications include and are mostly limited to 20,000 Metafilter comments.
posted by Justinian at 6:31 AM on July 1 [13 favorites]


"regardless of what happens with the epa, i don't think the court comes back from this term with a shred of legitimacy for at least a couple generations"

I hear a lot of talk about this factor, but what does that mean functionally for them?
posted by Selena777 at 7:36 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]


jenfullmoon, hoping for a convenient heart attack is about the best we can do here (without getting your comment deleted)
posted by rikschell at 7:40 AM on July 1 [3 favorites]


"regardless of what happens with the epa, i don't think the court comes back from this term with a shred of legitimacy for at least a couple generations"

I hear a lot of talk about this factor, but what does that mean functionally for them?
The Supreme Court has been ignored before. They ruled against Georgia being able to pass laws that infringed on the sovereignty of native lands, and Andrew Jackson essentially said, "that's an interesting opinion, but ... nah."

So losing legitimacy could mean things like New York governor Kathy Hochul reacting to the Court's ruling on concealed carry and saying, "you know, what? Our voters like our concealed carry laws just fine. We appreciate your advice, but we'll keep the current restrictions in place. Kthxbye."

To be clear, having this happen is a terrible idea and essentially expedites the fracturing of the country, but it is a possibility given that the Court has no actual enforcement ability aside from being able to use its dwindling legitimacy as a way to influence state and federal legislators.
posted by bl1nk at 8:44 AM on July 1 [10 favorites]


And, predictably, a district court judge in Kentucky is now going to seek senior status at the end of the year, creating a vacancy.

Biden is really going to nominate an anti-abortion Federalist Society fuckwad to a lifetime judgeship of immense power in the wake of Roe being overturned.

I only pray the Senate Democrats have the stones to stop him. (But if the nomination does happen, then it will garner all Republican support + Manchin and will be confirmed anyway. I'm sure it's Biden's wet dream to make a nomination that gets 50 Republican votes, and damn his own party.)
posted by Gadarene at 8:50 AM on July 1 [4 favorites]


I can not adequately express how enraged I am at the inaction by the Democratic 'leadership". NOW Biden says, oh yea, I'm ok with carving out the filibuster for healthcare. EPA and next the oversight of state voting processes by the federal government. We are heading into the abyss while the Dems sing god bless america. Where is the leadership?
posted by bluesky43 at 11:08 AM on July 1 [8 favorites]


Kyiv.
posted by snuffleupagus at 2:50 PM on July 1 [8 favorites]


South Carolina bill SC1373, introduced four days after the ruling. Selected excerpt from the summary:

Section 44-41-860. (A) It is unlawful to knowingly or intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with another person to violate the provisions contained in Section 44-41-830. A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to the same penalties as provided in Section 44-41-830.

(B) The prohibition against aiding and abetting a violation of Section 44-41-830 includes, but is not limited to knowingly and intentionally:

(1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion;

(2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion;

(3) offering or providing abortion doula services, knowing that the services will be used, or are reasonably likely to be used for an abortion;

(4) providing a referral to an abortion provider, knowing that the referral will result, or is reasonably likely to result, in an abortion; and

(5) providing a referral to an abortion provider and receiving monetary remuneration, or other compensation, from an abortion provider for the referral.


If anyone wants to participate in democracy in South Carolina, here are the sponsors of this bill:

Richard Cash
Rex Rice
Danny Verdin

I think that they have earned the right to hear from their constituents about this draconian, oppressive proposed bill. Keep in mind the tactics employed to protest this bill should not be comparable to the actions of anti-abortion-rights protestors outside abortion clinics in my state. That would be unacceptable.
posted by JDC8 at 5:56 PM on July 1 [6 favorites]


Keep in mind the tactics employed to protest this bill should not be comparable to the actions of anti-abortion-rights protestors outside abortion clinics in my state. That would be unacceptable.

I'm starting to wonder just how unacceptable that would be, actually. (NOT to the point of any violence, of course, but...I mean, playing nice hasn't been working as well as we'd hoped so far, and maybe it's time to be a little naughty.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:11 PM on July 1


Perhaps some enterprising parent or prospective student could inquire with the University of South Carolina's Student Health Department about the possible felony convictions for the staff or students?

I mean, they do provide "... a safe, judgement-free space for conversations about sex and relationships and provide information that can help you make informed decisions about your sexual health."

803-777-8283

Seems like this topic might make for a useful high school newspaper/blog article for juniors and seniors shopping for colleges?
posted by JDC8 at 6:20 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]


JDC8 - I wonder if it would be okay if someone who was only PRETENDING to be a Concerned Parent considering their College-Age Daughter's welfare called to ask these questions, because no, my "daughter" hasn't applied yet, but is on the fence and honestly THIS is what's stopping her, so I just have a few questions...

Or maybe a whole lot of people could pretend to be such Concerned Parents?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:39 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]


Musa al-Gharbi of Columbia University charges white liberals with "hurling outrageous and overtly racist remarks" against Clarance Thomas, whose opposition to abortion he posits as an expression of the justice's Black nationalism.

What the reactions to Clarence Thomas post-Roe reveal about white liberals
posted by non canadian guy at 7:32 PM on July 1 [1 favorite]


So South Carolina wants to police the internet? good luck with that. What a godawful and hateful bill.
posted by bluesky43 at 7:33 PM on July 1 [3 favorites]


I’ve no doubt some of the opposition to Clarence Thomas has veered into racism. We live in a racist society, and yeah, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. most famously noted, that absolutely includes white liberals. But anti-choice as Black nationalism? Sure and Ceaușescu just had the best interests of Romanians at heart, cryptocurrency is an answer to the financial difficulties of the unbanked, trickle-down economics will solve poverty, and I have an NFT of a bridge to sell that’s just a spectacular investment opportunity.

To another point from the link on “What the reactions to Clarence Thomas post-Roe reveal about white liberals”: Thomas is accused of being a hypocrite and a race traitor by Black progressive voices, not just by white liberals, and based on his actual actions.
posted by eviemath at 9:08 PM on July 1 [10 favorites]


eviemath, as warped as that sounds, interviews and his history indicate that Clarence Thomas is, indeed, a Black Nationalist .
A particular kind.

"The clarity of Jim Crow was preferable to the mush of liberalism, because hardship and struggle are better for the black man’s sense of self than the culture of dependence and condescension.
...
It will be through capitalism rather than the ballot box, Thomas believes, that the black American will be freed. Electoral politics can only confirm white power, but money can allow a man to speak and be heard." *

And he has said that he believes that only Black men can save Black people, with women subservient. Definitely not in control of their bodies.

Anti-choice.

*from a Guardian piece on The Enigma of Clarence Thomas by Corey Robin
posted by pt68 at 9:25 PM on July 1 [10 favorites]


That doesn’t address the point of whether an anti-choice position is consistent with Black nationalism though.
posted by eviemath at 10:05 PM on July 1


I’ve no doubt some of the opposition to Clarence Thomas has veered into racism.

In fact it occurred in your very comment. I don't disagree with anything that Micheal Harriot says in your link, but he absolutely did not call Thomas a "race traitor." In fact, you are the only person to use that gross, racist language in this entire thread.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:07 PM on July 1 [2 favorites]


That doesn’t address the point of whether an anti-choice position is consistent with Black nationalism though.

It seems to be consistent, if you read that piece, or just dig up old interviews, with Thomas' version of Black Nationalism.
posted by pt68 at 10:13 PM on July 1


Sorry, I was using the language of the link that non canadian guy posted. What is your read of what Harriot is calling Thomas a traitor to?
posted by eviemath at 10:23 PM on July 1


Mod note: One deleted. ActingTheGoat, you need to dial it back and try to discuss civilly if you are going to continue in this discussion. Aside from that, everyone please be careful / thoughtful about phrasing, and use direct quotes when paraphrasing might muddle or misrepresent the info shared. For example, in the disputed link Herriot uses the phrase "a water carrier for white supremacy," not "race traitor," so if / when referring to a particular voice in the overall assertion, just use their own words.
posted by taz (staff) at 12:11 AM on July 2 [7 favorites]


I'm just checking back into this thread, and the derail to Clarence Thomas and racism is just that, a derail. The issue is the democratic leadership and why they have done nothing but ask for money after this horrific decision. A ten year old girl in Ohio was raped, became pregnant and was denied an abortion. She was able to travel to Indiana to receive care. This is the issue, and where the hell are the democrats. How long do you think rape victims at any age will be able to travel across state borders to receive care? The SC bill is your answer. And the democratic leadership is silent.
posted by bluesky43 at 9:46 AM on July 2 [15 favorites]


Oh, and I see on reading back over that the other link I had tried to include, that would have provided more context/made it more clear that I was quoting, got lost between my initial composition and posting. I can see that that definitely reads as more inflammatory than I intended. I will work to be more careful in my use of language in the future (in particular when relying on links, but also in situations like this where a word or phrase can have rather different meanings depending on the positionality of who is speaking it), have learned that others have different association with the phrase in question (I’ve mainly heard it from Black radicals in describing what they want white folks to do or in criticizing other Black people, but recognize that that’s not the position I’m speaking from, so I’ll put it on the list of expressions I should avoid using myself), and extend my apologies for contributing to the derail.
posted by eviemath at 10:53 AM on July 2 [5 favorites]


Thank you to JDC8 for posting the links to the SC bill, and naming names.
posted by mittens at 11:44 AM on July 2 [1 favorite]


I read the al-Gharbi article and it has a big hole right in the middle of it, and that is how Thomas is received and percieved by actual black nationalists who are alive today. That probably would not support the "digital lynching" narrative.
posted by Selena777 at 12:22 PM on July 2


You know, we don't often talk about professional athletes ability to reach out into the local community to promote their sport. I believe that many professional players have access to free game tickets for fans in their home town.

Who wouldn't want to see your local team, like the Dallas Cowboys or Houston Astros, play in San Francisco or Seattle? The team could be nice enough to invite you and your sister to fly with the team to a road game. There would be plenty of time for both of you to take in the sights outside of the game. No one would question the decisions made by the Cowboys players-- they are "America's Team," after all.

And I'm sure that there are many prospective college students in Mississippi or Alabama who might like to take a tour of the beautiful campus of UC San Diego. You'd need a chaperone to talk to the many medical students and professionals there, so bring Mom along. She might have some questions, too. I'm sure that there are many wealthy scholarship funds that could help arrange low-cost out-of-state college visits. It's totally normal to leave your state to visit colleges.
posted by JDC8 at 8:21 AM on July 4 [2 favorites]


There is definitely an anti-choice strain in (some groups of) Black Nationalism, I have no idea how that intersects with Clarence Thomas' beliefs, but it's not hard to find articles about the subject.

In a country where Black women's reproductive rights and health have been horrifically abused, it's not totally surprising to see a diverse approach by different types of nationalism, although Black women-led movements seem to be firmly on the side of choice.
posted by chaz at 2:05 PM on July 4 [2 favorites]


Clarence Thomas took the opportunity, in a much-quoted speech at a 1980 conference of Black conservatives, to portray his older sister, Emma Mae Martin, as an example of abject dependence on public handouts ("She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check") because she had received assistance for a couple of years in the 1970s in order to care for her ailing aunt, Annie Graham.

Earlier in Martin's life, after Martin's husband had left her, the older woman had watched Martin's four children while Martin was holding down several low-paying jobs at a time.

While Martin was taking care of Aunt Annie, who had had a stroke, Thomas was a big shot lawyer with a high-paying job. Did he help out? Three guesses. The first two don't count.

By the time of Thomas' 1991 Supreme Cpurt confirmation hearings, the spotlight was on Thomas' family. Martin, who had long since returned to the workforce, was was employed as a cook at the hospital near her home in Pin Point, Georgia, the tiny town where Emma, Clarence, and their younger brother, Myers, all had been born.

In The Enigma of Clarence Thomas, biographer Corey Robin notes that Thomas later worked to appear more empathetic, saying in 1983 that Martin was "a good person, a super person" who was nonetheless "different from" Thomas and Myers, an accountant. "She isn't educated."

Thomas' father, M.C., deserted the family when Clarence was very young; at the age of 7, he was sent to Savannah to live with their maternal grandparents, as was Myers. Their grandfather, a "very devout" Catholic convert and owner of a fuel oil business, ensured that Clarence received a Catholic education from primary school through college.

Their mother, who had remarried, decided that Emma was to stay in Pin Point, where she was raised by Aunt Annie.

Referring to Thomas' infamous 1980 speech, biographer Robin writes:
As feminist scholars such as Nell Painter, Kimberle Crenshaw, and Christine Stansell pointed out after his confirmation, nowhere in Thomas' account of Emma's life did he acknowledge the truly gendered quality of their opposing fates. It was his gender that ensured that he got a private school education and the attentions of his grandfather; it was her gender that consigned her to a life of caregiving for her children after her husband had deserted the family (much as M.C. Thomas had deserted his family ...), of caregiving for her aunt after she had a stroke, of minimum-wage jobs, sometimes two at a time. Instead, Emma's story was reduced to one of welfare dependency, even though her time on welfare was actually brief ...
posted by virago at 5:14 PM on July 4 [27 favorites]


So, we're back at bog-standard, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, man-style mythmaking? Maybe there's a strong dose of fear there, too. I have to hate them so I can keep my distance and not end up like them–powerless, poor, low-class, vulnerable. How dare his sister save the family by sacrificing herself? How lowly of her.
posted by amanda at 1:41 PM on July 5 [5 favorites]


How uneducated of her.
posted by TWinbrook8 at 2:35 PM on July 5 [3 favorites]


A thread regarding Biden's deal with McConnell to put an anti-abortionist on the KY federal court. "The Biden/McConnell judgeship deal is SO MUCH WORSE than the few details that originally leaked indicated [...] Biden's people gave the governor of Kentucky just a one-day heads-up on the appointment. It would have gone through on the 24th if Dobbs hadn't been released that day. [...] June 29, hours before the story breaks: WH emails KY gov to say they forgot to mention that no decision has been made and he should keep the first email secret."
posted by mittens at 8:37 AM on July 6 [10 favorites]




Is some part of that order going to be to protect people leaving their states for care from prosecution upon returning to their home states? That seems to be among the most urgent areas he could potentially impact.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:23 AM on July 8 [2 favorites]


DirtyOldTown: See the third paragraph I've quoted.

"Friday's executive order will prompt Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to take steps to ensure access to abortion, including FDA-approved medication abortion and expanded access "to the full range of reproductive health services," according to an administration fact sheet shared with CNN. Those services include "emergency contraception and long-acting reversible contraception like intrauterine devices (IUDs)," the fact sheet says, citing coverage of birth control under the Affordable Care Act.

HHS is tasked with submitting a report within the next 30 days to the President regarding the implementation of the order's provisions, which also include steps to increase outreach and protect the medical and digital privacy of patients seeking abortions.

In addition, the order establishes an interagency task force between the HHS and the White House Gender Policy Council, which includes Attorney General Merrick Garland, who the White House says will provide "technical assistance to states affording legal protection to out-of-state patients as well as providers who offer legal reproductive health care."

The White House has dismissed several progressive ideas to protect abortion access, including allowing abortion providers to work from federal property in states where the procedure is banned.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said using federal lands for abortion services would have "dangerous ramifications." The White House has also reiterated the President does not support expanding the Supreme Court, as many progressives have pushed for.
Biden intends to nominate a conservative, anti-abortion lawyer to federal judgeship, Kentucky Democrats say Biden intends to nominate a conservative, anti-abortion lawyer to federal judgeship, Kentucky Democrats say But Biden said recently he would support making an exception to the filibuster -- the 60-vote threshold in the Senate needed to pass most legislation -- in order to codify abortion rights and the right to privacy through legislation passed by Congress. The President had previously been reluctant to support changing the Senate's rules in order to pass his agenda.

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona -- two lawmakers whose support the President would need -- both quickly expressed opposition to changing filibuster rules, essentially blocking any plan to drop those rules."
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:57 AM on July 8 [1 favorite]


That paragraph is about access by mail to abortion meds, though, right? At most, it's about access to care. I'm specifically saying the president needs to put it into writing that, for example, if you live in Texas and travel to las cruces for an abortion, Texas cannot prosecute you upon return. In writing.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:13 AM on July 8 [4 favorites]


"Legal protection" might mean protection from restrictions by the home state, but I agree it's foggy. Time to rev up the interstate commerce clause.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:48 AM on July 8


I'm specifically saying the president needs to put it into writing that, for example, if you live in Texas and travel to las cruces for an abortion, Texas cannot prosecute you upon return. In writing.

This sounds like a job for either the legislature, or more likely, the Supreme Court. Which will probably only rediscover the Supremacy and Interstate Commerce clauses after California's gun control law with a similar civil enforcement action is passed and subsequently granted cert.

It's not clear to me what the president can do "in writing." I don't think a federal executive order should be able to dismiss a state civil suit. Changing Federal Register similarly should hold little power--though I'm hopeful some people will find something to do on the margins, it necessarily won't be granting full immunity to lawsuit. The president shouldn't have the power to remove legal jurisdiction any more than he should have the power to decertify an election.

The situation sucks but appealing to strongman "leadership" tactics seems like it would only make things more unstable?
posted by pwnguin at 9:50 AM on July 8


If the Executive is in a position to do anything like that in prospective prevention of any arrests, I would expect it to be through the Attorney General's office, by pursuit of a consent decree on the basis that the State prosecution violates some Federal right.

Presuming (fantasizing) that some grounds could be identified that this Supreme Court would feel compelled to approve (to avoid disturbing other law the majority favors or undermining their overall agenda).

This majority, after ruling that abortion is a state concern, isn't likely to find some new penumbral protection against state abortion law and interstate extradition by combination