What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

What are Your Thoughts on Democrats Calling Supreme Court Illegitimate, and State AG’s Vowing not to Enforce Abortion Bans? (1 Viewer)

Rich Conway said:
Isn't there an argument that more gridlock leads to more executive orders and governance by fiat instead of legislation?
Click to expand...


Maybe.  However,

1)  EO's can be challenged in court.

2)  EO's can be overturned as easily as they're enacted.  Good luck getting legislation reversed. 

 
timschochet said:
Because the federal immigration laws that we don’t enforce are unworkable and awful. 
Click to expand...
To be fair, so are most of the abortion trigger laws that currently exist on state books.  Lots of them were passed by legislators that didn't really expect them to become law, and as such, they were as much about virtue signaling as they were about legislating.

* Edit to add, I suspect many of these states will start updating those laws in the near future.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
John123 said:
If it's so popular getting 30 states to agree with you shouldn't be difficult.  If it is, maybe it's not as popular as you think.
Click to expand...
It would be extremely difficult because the Senate is not a democratic institution as you know. North Dakota has the exact same power as California. Despite the fact that the pro-life movement represents less than 40% of the population, that easily translates to nearly half of the Senate, which means an unjust result. 

That’s why the filibuster needs to be ended. 

 
John123 said:
Maybe.  However,

1)  EO's can be challenged in court.

2)  EO's can be overturned as easily as they're enacted.  Good luck getting legislation reversed. 
Click to expand...
Legislation can be challenged in court also.

Sure, EOs can be overturned.  It does, of course, typically require the opposing party to take control of the presidency.  There's also an argument that constantly flip-flopping EOs back and forth is poor governance.  Having entire departments or facets of government that might repeatedly change on a dime isn't great for planning (or morale).

 
The Commish said:
Not sure this answers my question.  I'm not asking about different laws in different states.  I'm asking about two laws in direct conflict with each other in the SAME state.
Click to expand...
Ah, my mistake. I misunderstood. 

I cannot recall an instance where this seems to have occurred. If I were the attorney on the matter, I would probably file some case dispositive motion on the matter (e.g. motion to dismiss) and cite to the law favorable to my side of the issue but note the conflicting law and force the court to address. This may then need to be special actioned to the appellate court to address as well. 

My gut reaction is that the most recent law would supersede but I admittedly don't have legal authority to support this take. 

 
Rich Conway said:
Legislation can be challenged in court also.

Sure, EOs can be overturned.  It does, of course, typically require the opposing party to take control of the presidency.  There's also an argument that constantly flip-flopping EOs back and forth is poor governance.  Having entire departments or facets of government that might repeatedly change on a dime isn't great for planning (or morale).
Click to expand...


EO's are poor government, and their increased use is concerning.  If I had my way that wouldn't be the case.  That doesn't mean I should change my stance on gridlock in congress. 

 
Westerberg said:
This idea that because religious conservatives got this big, hard earned win means that the rest of us are just supposed roll over and take it for next few decades is hilarious.  
Click to expand...
The refrains that Democrats should have spent some time in the last 50 years to codify Roe into law and win more elections when Republicans overturned Roe by getting Presidents elected without winning the popular vote, changed Senate rules to get the judges they wanted on the Supreme Court, and spent the last couple decades gerrymandering state legislative districts to pass statewide anti-abortion laws that don’t necessarily reflect the will of the people and have both the gerrymandering and the laws upheld by a Supreme Court majority achieved via anti-democratic means is particularly rich.

 
John123 said:
EO's are poor government, and their increased use is concerning.  If I had my way that wouldn't be the case.  That doesn't mean I should change my stance on gridlock in congress. 
Click to expand...
Nope, it doesn't.  I'm just suggesting that your stance should take into account the fact that more gridlock will generally lead to more EOs.  Your stance may well be that it's worth it.

 
Rich Conway said:
Wouldn't ending the filibuster be playing with the rules as written?  The current filibuster is really only tradition and can be, by the rules, ended with 51 votes.

Note that I'm not suggesting that Democrats should end the filibuster.  Just saying that doing so wouldn't be "rewriting the rules" any more than what McConnell did.
Click to expand...
That's fair.  

 
Zow said:
Arguably so did the Houston Astros, Tom Brady with the Tuck Rule, the 1981 Australian cricket team (legally underarm rolling the pitch in horrible sportsmanlike fashion),  Brett Hull in the crease (legal at the time), etc.

Sometimes playing "within the rules" still doesn't make it right. 
Click to expand...
MLB rules ban the use of electronic equipment to steal signs.  The Astros used electronic equipment to steal signs.  That's literally breaking the rules.  It's not the same.  

Tom Brady lives with the rules as they're carried out by the refs.  If the refs get a call wrong, it's not on Tom Brady to give the other team the ball.  I don't find that "wrong."

 
jm192 said:
MLB rules ban the use of electronic equipment to steal signs.  The Astros used electronic equipment to steal signs.  That's literally breaking the rules.  It's not the same.  

Tom Brady lives with the rules as they're carried out by the refs.  If the refs get a call wrong, it's not on Tom Brady to give the other team the ball.  I don't find that "wrong."
Click to expand...
Eh, maybe the Astros example was a poor one. I'll give you that.

Perhaps the 1981 Australian cricket team maneuver is most spot on. I'm sure their fans loved it. The rest of the cricket world found it, though while within the rules, disgustingly unsportsmanlike. Much like how many find what McConnell did to be even though he technically played "within the rules." 

Not surprisingly the cricket rules were changed pretty quickly I believe. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Reading posts like IKs, that is not my takeaway.  Not "take it", but stop #####ing and do the same thing conservatives had to for 40years. 
Click to expand...
But then we’re impulsive,  “petulant children”…

We need to start playing just as dirty as they have. It’s the only way to get things done in the current landscape. This going high when they go low thing has been a failure. 

 
jm192 said:
They don't have a magic wand to do as they please.  That's absolutely absurd.  

They literally cannot make laws.  Legislators make laws.  The justices decide if they're constitutional or not.  But they cannot wave their wand and say "abortion is illegal."  Legislators do that.  And they are elected.  
Click to expand...
They saw an opportunity to save babies and took it. That’s the bottom line. They’re imposing their values on our laws.

If you honesty believe that these people peered into the Constitution and thought “my unclouded legal knowledge tells me we need to overturn Roe, etc” I can’t help you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Westerberg said:
But then we’re impulsive,  “petulant children”…

We need to start playing just as dirty as they have. It’s the only way to get things done in the current landscape. This going high when they go low thing has been a failure. 
Click to expand...
The problem with the Dems is they won't be able to accomplish this.  Not sure what it is- lack of central core issues, more diverse base, more infighting, don't have the stomach or foresight to play the long game like the Rs just just did, or probably a combination of the above.  Imo this is where some of the anger and frustration comes in with them- they know odds are against them to do what you say they need to do.   So I guess piss and moan it is? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Westerberg said:
They saw an opportunity to save babies and took it. That’s the bottom line. They’re imposing their values on our laws.

If you honesty believe that these people peered into the Constitution and thought “my unclouded legal knowledge tells me we need to overturn Roe, etc” I can’t help you.
Click to expand...
It's a fun little trick the left likes to do.  "If you don't think like me, I can't help you."   You're not able to present an organized, logical argument, you resort to "I can't help you."

I actually just don't need your help.  I'm very capable of thinking for myself.  And if you were to present a compelling argument, I would certainly consider it.  But "I can't help you if you don't think like me" is certainly not compelling.  

They didn't impose their values on our laws.  They returned the law making to the states.  The state legislators imposed their values on our laws.  As I said before, Legislators are the only ones that can make laws.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Westerberg said:
But then we’re impulsive,  “petulant children”…

We need to start playing just as dirty as they have. It’s the only way to get things done in the current landscape. This going high when they go low thing has been a failure. 
Click to expand...
Both sides -- and this definitely includes but is not limited to your side -- have been playing just as dirty as one another since 1987.  Your tribe hasn't "gone high."  You just live in a slightly different sewer than other tribe.

 
jm192 said:
It's a fun little trick the left likes to do.  "If you don't think like me, I can't help you."   You're not able to present an organized, logical argument, you resort to "I can't help you."

I actually just don't need your help.  I'm very capable of thinking for myself.  And if you were to present a compelling argument, I would certainly consider it.  But "I can't help you if you don't think like me" is certainly not compelling.  

They didn't impose their values on our laws.  They returned the law making to the states.  The state legislators imposed their values on our laws.  As I said before, Legislators are the only ones that can make laws.  
Click to expand...


Hold up. Are you saying "the right" presents organized logical arguments? I'd love to see one.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Both sides -- and this definitely includes but is not limited to your side -- have been playing just as dirty as one another since 1987.  Your tribe hasn't "gone high."  You just live in a slightly different sewer than other tribe.
Click to expand...
@Westerberg is not speaking for me. I don’t want to play dirty. Ending the filibuster is not playing dirty IMO. I don’t want or intend to live in any sewer. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is another thing that needs to die.  Garland was a perfectly well-qualified nominee.  There was no good reason why any Republican should vote against him.  "I don't like how I think he'll vote" shouldn't be accepted as a legitimate reason for voting against a president's nominee.
Click to expand...
No way.  Judges are so political these days.  The era of neutrality is over.

 
timschochet said:
@Westerberg is not speaking for me. I don’t want to play dirty. Ending the filibuster is not playing dirty IMO. I don’t want or intend to live in any sewer. 
Click to expand...
Many would argue that ending the filibuster is the type of tough political move that the Dems have been reluctant to do. If you don't see it as dirty, fine by me, as long as we're on the same page with how to move forward. It seems like the best plan available. 

 
Ending the filibuster is one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments for the Democrats.  At some point in the future, the Republicans will control the House, Senate and Presidency (maybe as soon as 2024).  Democrats ending the filibuster to codify Roe seems short-sighted when the Republicans could just codify an abortion ban in 2024.  The Republicans didn't nuke the filibuster in 2005, I don't think it's smart for Dems to do it now.  But I don't think the Democrats are smart so...     

 
Snotbubbles said:
Ending the filibuster is one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments for the Democrats.  At some point in the future, the Republicans will control the House, Senate and Presidency (maybe as soon as 2024).  Democrats ending the filibuster to codify Roe seems short-sighted when the Republicans could just codify an abortion ban in 2024.  The Republicans didn't nuke the filibuster in 2005, I don't think it's smart for Dems to do it now.  But I don't think the Democrats are smart so...     
Click to expand...
I don’t think Democratic leadership as it is currently comprised will get rid of the filibuster.  

In January 2025, if Republicans have a one-seat edge in the House, a 50-50 Senate, and a Republican President, how quickly do you think they will get rid of the filibuster to pass a nationwide abortion ban?  I think they will get that done before the Cabinet gets confirmed.  

 
jm192 said:
Sure.  So we slam McConnell for breaking tradition and applaud the Democrats for doing it?

I like it. 
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Yeah. Such a dilemma. Breaking tradition for the purpose of preventing the Senate from doing its job really is almost exactly like breaking a tradition for the purpose of allowing the Senate to do its job. Tough one.

Also, on a related note, and maybe this is just me, "advise and consent" seems like it might be a smidgen more than tradition. :rolleyes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
Isn't there an argument that more gridlock leads to more executive orders and governance by fiat instead of legislation?
Click to expand...
Obama’s most famous executive order is probably DACA.  DACA happened because a 2013 immigration reform bill that passed the Senate 68-32 didn’t get taken up in the House.  That particular bill was the result of months of negotiations between a group of eight Senators, four Democratic and four Republican.  The bill meaningfully addressed immigration reform and did so in way that would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars long-term.  It was good legislation but the House didn’t take it up because they didn’t want to give Obama a win, and dedicated would rather run on that wedge issue in 2014 than actually address it.  

After Obama issued DACA, Republicans and the press crushed Obama for ruling by fiat instead of having the legislative branch legislate.  Even though DACA happened because a bipartisan Senate bill passed with supermajority support in the Senate didn’t become law because House Republicans took the ball and went home.

 
Coach Beard said:
I don’t think Democratic leadership as it is currently comprised will get rid of the filibuster.  

In January 2025, if Republicans have a one-seat edge in the House, a 50-50 Senate, and a Republican President, how quickly do you think they will get rid of the filibuster to pass a nationwide abortion ban?  I think they will get that done before the Cabinet gets confirmed.  
Click to expand...
 To complete that scenario, the GOP candidate would have won his election although he finished second in the popular vote, Republican senators would be representing 50 million fewer people than their counterparts and House Dems would have also racked up millions more total votes in their elections.

 Republicans can cry "them's the rules" all they want but they're fooling themselves if they think minority power will function over time.

 
roadkill1292 said:
 To complete that scenario, the GOP candidate would have won his election although he finished second in the popular vote, Republican senators would be representing 50 million fewer people than their counterparts and House Dems would have also racked up millions more total votes in their elections.

 Republicans can cry "them's the rules" all they want but they're fooling themselves if they think minority power will function over time.
Click to expand...
We’re one Supreme Court decision away from state legislatures setting up Electoral College-style election systems at the state level, ditching one-person one-vote elections to gerrymandered statewide outcomes.  Then states like Alabama would never have to risk something like a Doug Jones over Roy Moore outcome because a candidate like Jones would never be able to carry enough rural districts to win.

 
Coach Beard said:
We’re one Supreme Court decision away from state legislatures setting up Electoral College-style election systems at the state level, ditching one-person one-vote elections to gerrymandered statewide outcomes.  Then states like Alabama would never have to risk something like a Doug Jones over Roy Moore outcome because a candidate like Jones would never be able to carry enough rural districts to win.
Click to expand...
While support for new election systems like RCV and proportional representation continues to grow with voters, Republicans are heading in the opposite direction. It's like they've looked at our current system and concluded "You know what? This isn't unrepresentative enough! "

 A scary thought, too, is that the Chief Justice of this particular court may be even worse than the Trump appointees when it comes to voting rights.

 
My thoughts are they have no credibility as they whine and make excuses for literally everything that doesn’t go their may. Just another day.  :shrug:

 
Coach Beard said:
We’re one Supreme Court decision away from state legislatures setting up Electoral College-style election systems at the state level, ditching one-person one-vote elections to gerrymandered statewide outcomes.  Then states like Alabama would never have to risk something like a Doug Jones over Roy Moore outcome because a candidate like Jones would never be able to carry enough rural districts to win.
Click to expand...
We had a Republican candidate for governor here in Colorado who wanted to do this.

 
roadkill1292 said:
While support for new election systems like RCV and proportional representation continues to grow with voters, Republicans are heading in the opposite direction. It's like they've looked at our current system and concluded "You know what? This isn't unrepresentative enough! "

 A scary thought, too, is that the Chief Justice of this particular court may be even worse than the Trump appointees when it comes to voting rights.
Click to expand...
It’s too bad RCV hasn’t gotten traction nationwide here.  It’s one of those things that’s a tough sell but once voters have it for one election cycle they seem to really like it and want it going forward.  I’d like to see the parties use RCV for primaries. Combines the positives of caucuses and ballots, final result is a much better reflection of where voters really are.  I doubt Biden wins an RCV primary season in 2020, and unlikely Trump gets the early momentum he got in 2016 with RCV.  

And I hear you about Roberts.  He’s put in a lot of work gutting the Voting Rights Act and making the current push to end democracy possible.  I don’t think it’s a coincidence that three SCOTUS justices worked the Bush side of Bush v Gore.

 
Mile High said:
We had a Republican candidate for governor here in Colorado who wanted to do this.
Click to expand...
Colorado is a great example of a state that could be gerrymandered red with EC-style statewide elections and a little creative map-drawing technique.  

IIRC, Colorado is also a state that has robust early voting and voting-by-mail systems, and when those are popular turnout trends up, so that would also sounds some alarms among Republicans.

 
doesn't it really boil down to each side will do whatever they can to get their way ? the nation doesn't come first anymore - what comes first is getting agenda passed because the other side? they're just wrong and they need to be silenced and forced by laws and rulings to do what my side/your side wants

isn't that where we are ?

 
Westerberg said:
But then we’re impulsive,  “petulant children”…

We need to start playing just as dirty as they have. It’s the only way to get things done in the current landscape. This going high when they go low thing has been a failure. 
Click to expand...
I said it before. The Democrats need to quit jumping over the bar the Republicans just run under.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Will Roe vs Wade be overturned? Make your prediction.
2 3
Replies
139
Views
3K
Rich Conway
R
A
  • Poll
The Supreme Court to hear coach's right to pray on the 50-yard line
6 7 8
Replies
386
Views
7K
bigbottom
bigbottom
squistion
Protests Over SCOTUS Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade Thread
2 3 4
Replies
163
Views
4K
GoBirds
GoBirds

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top