Will Trump be able to get a justice to replace RBG before the next inaguaration?

[Sun_Worshiper]

LOL, the same could have been said about the passage of Obamacare.  An unpopular congress passes an unpopular bill in an unpopular context (a few months before the midterms), instead of blah blah blah.  People got over it and learned to like the damn thing. 

And the real similarity is in what happens next.  Democrats got "shellacked" in the election, then Republicans failed in their turn, then Democrats got elected again.  Republicans will get shellacked in this election, then Democrats will fail, then Republicans will be back in office.

Weird comparison, but ok...

Remind me what the "blah blah blah" was in 2010 that compares to stimulus during a pandemic induced recession?

Also, Obamacare was signed into law March 2010, several months before a midterm election, not weeks ahead of a Presidential election that the incumbent is likely to lose by a large margin. 

[dismalist]

After sampling a lot more, my amateur communications cum social psychology knowledge leaves me to believe Ms. Amy was so credible and even compassionate that  no one could be against her on substance. While one or two [women] tried to nail her, Ms. Amy was essentially non-Borked.

She will pass on a party line vote, maybe even including the east and west northernmost states.

Finis opera.

[kaysixteen]

That's almost certainly true.  It still doesn't obviate the stench of the extreme hypocrisy McConnell and co. showed in ramming this down the country's throats in 100% contravention of their own Garland-era rules change.   If she is seated, and the Democrats run the table in the upcoming election, the SCOTUS GOP supermajority had best realize that the Democrats will do many things, perhaps (but not necessarily including) packing the court, to have their day, in a way that might marginalize the GOP forever, esp if Barrett is the deciding vote for nuking the ACA, and overreaching what the country will accept now wrt Roe (on this latter issue, I, a pro-lifer whose early adult years saw me supporting the GOP increasingly only because of abortion, grow  tired of the broken promises-- I still contend that the GOP establishment is and has been for decades using pro-lifers on this issue, and probably will not be stopping now).

[ciao_yall]

That's almost certainly true.  It still doesn't obviate the stench of the extreme hypocrisy McConnell and co. showed in ramming this down the country's throats in 100% contravention of their own Garland-era rules change.   If she is seated, and the Democrats run the table in the upcoming election, the SCOTUS GOP supermajority had best realize that the Democrats will do many things, perhaps (but not necessarily including) packing the court, to have their day, in a way that might marginalize the GOP forever, esp if Barrett is the deciding vote for nuking the ACA, and overreaching what the country will accept now wrt Roe (on this latter issue, I, a pro-lifer whose early adult years saw me supporting the GOP increasingly only because of abortion, grow  tired of the broken promises-- I still contend that the GOP establishment is and has been for decades using pro-lifers on this issue, and probably will not be stopping now).

The "Trojan Fetus" strategy.

[writingprof]

So strongly do I feel about the issue that I am happy to vote for Republicans purely on the basis of their anti-abortion rhetoric.  As a side note, I encourage those of you on the left to consider whether Democrats use racial-"justice" issues similarly, and whether you are equally gullible to fall for that.

[dismalist]

Because hardly any of us agree on all issues and some of us hold strong views on issues important to us, it is too much to ask of any institution to make it right for the many. How do you get people who disagree with each other vehemently to live together peacefully? Certainly not majoritarian democracy. However, federalism will work if it is allowed to.

Let us not for get that Justice Ginsburg was highly critical of Roe vs. Wade as a judicial decision. One reason she gave, not her only reason, was that some States had already legalized termination of pregnancy in first trimester, and more States were reasonably expected to do so.

Had that process been allowed to run its course controversy would largely have ceased within a few additional years.

[Note that while R v W has large symbolic meaning, it is no longer operative. Casey is operative. Now that's an idiotic decision, tellingly brokered by Sandra Day O'Connor, more a politician than a judge.]

[Hegemony]

I am curious about why folks like Writingprof vote Republican for their at least nominal anti-abortion position, but disregard the reality of the refugee children in cages, which has been well documented.  I can think of some ways that people might dismiss the children in cages, but I'm not sure which position is the influential one —

• Those children are not Americans and therefore I don't care about their suffering.
• Those children are not Americans and they don't suffer the way American children would, so their situation doesn't matter. (This is the genuine position of someone I know — "those people" don't have feelings like we do; they're basically just animals and don't have any responses we need to care about.)
• Those children's parents shouldn't have been trying to get into the country (the fact that it is legal is irrelevant; it shouldn't be legal), and the suffering of their children, as well as their own suffering, is an appropriate punishment for their immoral behavior.
• It is all made up by the media, who are dishonest frauds, and none of it is happening.  And if it were happening, I would be in favor of it anyway.
• All those children who may never see their parents again are at least alive, or all except the few who died in custody, so their suffering is negligible compared to rhetoric meant to stop fetuses being born.  Abortions will be performed illegally if the Republicans can get the law overturned, but probably fewer of them, and the women who die from the illegal abortions (as happened not infrequently before Roe vs. Wade) will not be innocent anyway and it will be a good deterrent against the others, just as having their children caged should be a good deterrent for refugees.

Or maybe all of the above?

[mahagonny]

Here's what envision in the mind of the person hegemony asks
A person who believes for certain that abortion is murder chooses republican because of the sheer numbers of abortions as opposed to the numbers of refugee children in cages. You don't have to delve into bizarre theories like 'those kids aren't really suffering.'
If you believe both sides commit atrocities, you would be forced to go with the side that does it with less efficiency. As a practical matter.
If you're going to talk pure ideology you might believe the reason abortions go on even when they are illegal is that we as a society have neglected to teach our children that it is wrong. Again, the left would be the problem.

[apl68]

Actually there are a lot of serious pro-life supporters who also try to support refugees.  Mahogonny is correct that there are others who consider abortion the greater of two evils because of the sheer number who are killed by it.  The genocide going on in their own country seems a more urgent cause than the refugees fleeing genocide abroad.

Trying to vote pro-life in this country often puts voters in a harsh bind.  Our political class is overwhelmingly in favor of abortion.  But some cynically support pro-life causes (or at least profess to) as a vote-getter.  Many pro-life voters feel compelled to vote for the cynics because the issue is so urgent for them.  They're prepared to sacrifice ideological purity on other issues in their voting to support something that is of the greatest importance to them. 

If people only voted for candidates who think just like they do, and hold just the right ideas on each and every policy, their party would never win an election, and none of the policies they support would ever be enacted.  Sometimes--often--voters have to give up some things they'd like to see to try to get other things.  Something the left is trying to remind themselves of right now, as they prepare to vote for a presidential candidate that most of them seem at best lukewarm about.

[kaysixteen]

If SCOTUS really does eviscerate Roe (something I am still dubious about), then we pro-lifers do have to answer two related questions, at least one of which makes pro-life-asserting politicians run and stammer like morons, whilst the other is usually never brought up at all"

1) if abortion is illegal, what punishment should be imposed on abortionists and women who hire them?

2) regardless of what punishment is to be imposed, how much law enforcement attention should be put forth to catch and then prosecute those guilty of having/ performing an illegal abortion (things like investigations of miscarriages, etc, come to mind).

[financeguy]

I'm pro choice philosophically although I'd never lift a finger for the cause. The reason is that there are very few libertarian leaning women, therefore I am not going to fight for the protections of a group on their needle moving issue when they aren't willing to give me the same consideration on far less consequential issues of freedom and state intervention in my life. Bottom line for me is that if you're a woman who isn't "pro choice" across the board then you deserve having the state legislate your reproductive decisions. I'll make my political decisions independent of that issue.

Also, constantly telling men they "shouldn't have an opinion" one way or the other just solidifies my indifference toward the cause. As usual, the left proves their skill in alienating a potential ally. You're 51% of the population and could theoretically vote in any agenda under the sun. Not my problem.

[writingprof]

• All those children who may never see their parents again are at least alive, or all except the few who died in custody, so their suffering is negligible compared to rhetoric meant to stop fetuses being born. 

This bullet point dissolves into inanity after the words "compared to."  What you mean to say, but can't quite bring yourself to utter, is that some voters may find the suffering of migrant children to be negligible compared to the suffering of children executed in the American holocaust that is abortion.

That's my position; I can't speak for others.

[mahagonny]

Barrett is now referred to as a 'right wing supremacist.' What does that even mean? They left out 'racist.' How does a racist white couple adopt Haitian children? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/17/dianne-feinstein-lindsey-graham-hug
Ibram Kendi has some theory about how she adopted them in order to pose as a non-racist or some such. I can't wrap my brain around what that guy's saying.
If abortion were illegal, which probably won't happen anyway, the black population would grow in proportion.
I'm confused that there isn't more push back against these fringe ideas. They're becoming mainstream. Or at least the media would make you think that.
Barrett's associates at Notre Dame ask her to delay process. I can see why they would. there has to be some semblance of symmetry in the process when they are nominated this late in the term. And they are careful to note that none of the controversy is her fault.
https://www.businessinsider.com/barretts-colleagues-university-of-notre-dame-ask-her-delay-nomination-2020-10

Obviously, to me, writingprof is one of those voters who would like abortion illegal because he feels a moral imperative to vote that way. Not hard for me to believe he's sincere. Do I agree? Don't ask me!

Also, constantly telling men they "shouldn't have an opinion" one way or the other just solidifies my indifference toward the cause. As usual, the left proves their skill in alienating a potential ally. You're 51% of the population and could theoretically vote in any agenda under the sun. Not my problem.

In a way it's a relief to say 'let the women decide.'

[marshwiggle]

• All those children who may never see their parents again are at least alive, or all except the few who died in custody, so their suffering is negligible compared to rhetoric meant to stop fetuses being born. 

This bullet point dissolves into inanity after the words "compared to."  What you mean to say, but can't quite bring yourself to utter, is that some voters may find the suffering of migrant children to be negligible compared to the suffering of children executed in the American holocaust that is abortion.

That's clear in the poster's use of "fetuses" vs "children". The inconvenient fact that fetuses become children in the normal course of events can be overlooked.

[writingprof]

• All those children who may never see their parents again are at least alive, or all except the few who died in custody, so their suffering is negligible compared to rhetoric meant to stop fetuses being born. 

This bullet point dissolves into inanity after the words "compared to."  What you mean to say, but can't quite bring yourself to utter, is that some voters may find the suffering of migrant children to be negligible compared to the suffering of children executed in the American holocaust that is abortion.

That's clear in the poster's use of "fetuses" vs "children". The inconvenient fact that fetuses become children in the normal course of events can be overlooked.

Either abortion means nothing or we have murdered 50 million children since 1973.  I see no middle ground and actually have grudging respect for those abortion advocates who ask, not always rhetorically, "Why should we want fewer abortions?"  Given their assumptions, those people are exactly right!  If abortion is meaningless, we shouldn't care about the number.  If it's meaningful, the number must be zero, or as close to zero as we can make it.