Extreme right-wing partisan decisions made by the Republican Supreme Court

[sui generis]

It's amazing and wonderful and hopefully a harbinger of election results in November.  But, I have to note that Kansas is now in the place the entire US was just a few months ago.  With a constitution that says some stuff that a court interpreted to mean women get to be considered humans and have rights to control their bodies just like men.  And, like the right wing did with the US Supreme Court, they will do with the Kansas Supreme Court, I assume.  I don't think it will take them decades, either, to get the right number of extremist justices on that court to overturn that precedent and make sure women are put back in their place.

[seattlecyclone]

Wow, they made the ballot as easy to understand as possible too . . .

Consitutional Amendment...

A yes vote means no to abortion.  A no vote means yes to abortion.

...and "vote no to amend the constitution, vote yes to leave it the same" wouldn't be confusing?

[GuitarStv]

Wow, they made the ballot as easy to understand as possible too . . .

Consitutional Amendment...

A yes vote means no to abortion.  A no vote means yes to abortion.

...and "vote no to amend the constitution, vote yes to leave it the same" wouldn't be confusing?

It's not the yes/no part that's confusing.  It's the whole text taken in context (which is why I posted the it in it's entirety).  Here's how I would have written it:


Women should have a right to abortion
- Yes
- No


or alternately,

State legislature should be granted the ability to deny women abortion:
- Yes
- No


But my goal is to make the question understood.  The way that the ballot was written it seemed very clearly designed to cause confusion.

[talltexan]

Isn't it possible that the confusion works both ways, though? That there are many people who would like to yank away the right to abortion--and I must acknowledge that this includes many women--who might misread the question as well?

[Rubyvroom]

In raw numbers, 534K voted against outlawing abortion in a mid-term primary. In that same mid-term primary, there were 451K votes for republican candidates and 276K votes for democratic candidates (=727K votes). There were 909K total votes on the abortion amendment.

So 1) democrats weren't the only ones who axed this amendment and 2) some folks showed up ONLY to vote on abortion and couldn't be bothered to weigh in on a candidate. 

To put it in perspective, Biden only received 570K votes in 2020 in a presidential election (as compared to this No vote on an anti-abortion amendment of 534K in a mid-term primary).

I get that it's not like, a huge win for human rights, but the people in Kansas really held the line yesterday. This was a huge turnout.

[Master of None]

I'm from Kansas and happily went and voted yesterday. In fact, I took my 10 year old with me and we had an awesome discussion about voting, understanding the ballot, and how politics are campaigned. After we read through the Explanation of the Amendment and he said, What does that mean? And I looked at him and said, "Don't worry, it confuses me too!" Then he went on to say, but it says Value them both, isn't that good? We had a wonderful conversation about why The amendment was named that way and they it was trying to suggest that if your against it that you don't value life. He just said it was confusing, but he was super interested in the process and wants to go next time I vote. I feel like I taught my son more yesterday than the past few years! That's a core memory right there!

Note: Also super proud of my fellow Kansans showing up to the polls yesterday!

[GuitarStv]

Isn't it possible that the confusion works both ways, though? That there are many people who would like to yank away the right to abortion--and I must acknowledge that this includes many women--who might misread the question as well?

Sure.  I'd be equally upset if Democrats put forth a shitty ballot question on an important matter like this.  As mentioned, I believe that questions like this should be written in the simplest and easiest to understand form possible.  A ballot that isn't understood is useless.

In this case, Republicans are at fault.

[GuitarStv]

Pretty good explanation of how this right wing activist supreme court is gutting the voting rights act by reinterpreting decades of precedent:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-kill-voting-rights-act/

Fuck stare decisis.  The constitution is whatever six members of the Supreme Court say it is.

[sixwings]

They will also change how the fed govt can regulate wetlands.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/03/supreme-court-clean-water-act/

Who needs clean water? Not 'murica! They will drink whatever filth the corporations dump into the waterways because 'murica is free!

[Just Joe]

My relative's hot conservative topic right now is ESG - "environmental social and governance" from "Heritage Action for America!"

TL:DR - another crisis to milk the conservative voter of more money but also to push back on anything environmental. I guess CRT has run its course?

[talltexan]

I cannot help but think we're going to hear a lot more about CRT from the Michigan Governor's race. Probably Georgia also.

[LaineyAZ]

My relative's hot conservative topic right now is ESG - "environmental social and governance" from "Heritage Action for America!"

TL:DR - another crisis to milk the conservative voter of more money but also to push back on anything environmental. I guess CRT has run its course?

Yes, ESG has already been raised in the AZ state treasurer's debate this month.  The Republican candidate accused her Democratic challenger of wanting "ESG" in terms of where the state puts its investment funds.  I hadn't even heard of ESG until then. 

I can't keep up with the crazy, but it's infuriating that moderates and progressives have to continually play defense against the latest made-up unhinged accusations.  This stuff always manages to make the headlines and deflect, yet again, from the real issues that need addressing.

[talltexan]

Some of these things aren't made up, though. I'm constantly receiving text messages about DeSantis and Abbott bussing immigrants from my conservative friends. The immigration system we have genuinely needs reform.

[bacchi]

Some of these things aren't made up, though. I'm constantly receiving text messages about DeSantis and Abbott bussing immigrants from my conservative friends. The immigration system we have genuinely needs reform.

Yep, it's needed reform for decades. Neither Biden nor Trump nor Obama nor Bush have come up with a good solution. To paraphrase Reagan during a campaign speech, friendly nations shouldn't have 9-foot fences between them. That was the watered down version, too; his original comment was more bluntly pro-immigration.


As for the crazy attacks, I refer you to the Luntz's GOPAC memo. The plan is to "Go Negative Early"; "Don't Try to Educate"; "Never Back Off" using negative words like pathetic, radical, lies, and destroy. Unfortunately, these attacks work. Being the adult in the room saying "Please cite your source" makes you a loser in the eyes of a decent sized minority of voters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOPAC

[LaineyAZ]

I thought I read that at some parts of the debate between O'Rourke and Abbott for the Texas governorship, the time for response was 15 seconds.
15 seconds. 
No wonder we can't even begin to discuss serious topics in a meaningful way.

Although I guess we're going to find out if that works for the Democrats this year for Arizona elections - one pundit said the response to any Republican attack is "Abortion, abortion, abortion."  (see, 15 seconds ...)
The reversion to the pre-Civil war law here in AZ means abortion is completely illegal except in some instances for the mother's health.  Very, very unpopular and we'll see if that single issue will sink the Republican candidates.

[Gremlin]

Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip.  And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.

Sorry to necro an old post.  I'm not in the USA, but my wife had to provide permission when I got the snip.  Doctors here regard fertility measures as a joint decision when you are in a long-term relationship.  Seemed appropriate to me!

[JLee]

Thank goodness my husband is getting the snip.  And no doctor is going to ask my permission for him to control his fertility, unlike if I tried to go for sterilization.

Sorry to necro an old post.  I'm not in the USA, but my wife had to provide permission when I got the snip.  Doctors here regard fertility measures as a joint decision when you are in a long-term relationship.  Seemed appropriate to me!

My doctor did not want to give me a referral the first time I asked about it.  I asked again 2-3 years later and he asked if my girlfriend wanted kids.  Not exactly "permission" but it's not always as "oh well they don't ask men these questions" as some would imply.

[GuitarStv]

Fallout from the recent SC overturn of decades of precedent regarding gun regulation is continuing to pop up in the lower courts.

Because of the SC ruling, it's now considered unconstitutional to prevent people from filing serial numbers off their guns:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/supreme-court-ghost-guns-serial-number-clarence-thomas.html

Because of the SC ruling, it's now considered unconstitutional to prevent people under indictment for a violent offense from buying firearms:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328/gov.uscourts.txwd.1165328.82.0.pdf

[talltexan]

Jill Stein supporters are suddenly learning about the Supreme Court.