Clarence Thomas speaks
-
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
Sure if they had the votes. Likewise a GOP government could outlaw it throughout the land if they had the votes.
They'd need a majority of votes in both chambers of the congress? Or something more?
Don't the democrats have the majority in both chambers? Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Don't the democrats have the majority in both chambers?
Yes, but...
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Several other countries have a similar rule.
-
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Don't the democrats have the majority in both chambers?
Yes, but...
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Several other countries have a similar rule.
@George-K said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Is that always the case - that is, basically no law can be passed without having 60 votes?
If I were the opposition, I'd use the filibuster all the time if it is so easy.
Or are there any disadvantages to using that instrument?
-
@George-K said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Why is this so difficult, then? Or would they need some kind of supermajority?
A "filibuster" can be used to prevent a bill from coming to the floor of the Senate or even a vote.
It takes a supermajority, 60 votes to overcome that process. It's a Senate rule that has no basis in law or the constitution, simply a rule of how business is done. It became a rule in 1806, but not used until 1837.
Is that always the case - that is, basically no law can be passed without having 60 votes?
If I were the opposition, I'd use the filibuster all the time if it is so easy.
Or are there any disadvantages to using that instrument?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Is that always the case - that is, basically no law can be passed without having 60 votes?
Not really. It's more of a political tool. Most laws are passed with fewer than 60 votes, I believe. But, when the minority digs in its heels, it can stop something which is considered important.
Or are there any disadvantages to using that instrument?
The disadvantage is that when one side does it frequently, the other one will as well.
About 10 years ago, the filibuster for judicial appointments was removed by the then-Democrat majority via a change in the rule. When the GOP regained control, the elimination of the filibuster enabled the GOP to nominate and appoint many judges, including those to the Supreme Court.
-
If I understand correctly, the "60 votes required to end filibuster" rule can be removed with having just 51 votes.
Given that this is a highly controversial topic, couldn't the Democrats first vote to abandon the filibuster rule, and then pass the law they want?
-
If I understand correctly, the "60 votes required to end filibuster" rule can be removed with having just 51 votes.
Given that this is a highly controversial topic, couldn't the Democrats first vote to abandon the filibuster rule, and then pass the law they want?
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
If I understand correctly, the "60 votes required to end filibuster" rule can be removed with having just 51 votes.
Given that this is a highly controversial topic, couldn't the Democrats first vote to abandon the filibuster rule, and then pass the law they want?
Yes, which is exactly what happened with the abolition of the filibuster against judicial nominees. However, that came to bite them in the ass when the GOP took control. I don't think it's as controversial as all that. Several Democratic senators (Manchin and Sinema) have expressed no desire to change the rule because, well, "sauce, goose, gander."
-
@Jolly said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Wouldn't it fall under the 10th Amendment and still be a state matter?
They could sneak it through using the commerce clause.
There are already national laws limiting abortion that have been upheld by Scotus (‘partial birth’)
-
@Jolly said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Wouldn't it fall under the 10th Amendment and still be a state matter?
They could sneak it through using the commerce clause.
There are already national laws limiting abortion that have been upheld by Scotus (‘partial birth’)
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
There are already national laws limiting abortion that have been upheld by Scotus (‘partial birth’)
"Partial birth" is a very strict definition according to the statute:
An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.
In other words, it prohibits killing of the fetus if any part of the fetus is outside the vaginal vault.
39 week abortions, and third trimester abortions are not banned, if I'm reading this correctly.
And, of course, there are ways to get around it. For example if you have an IUFD (intra-uterine fetal demise):
In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fetal demise before beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle.
-
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Actually it’s not.
The rich irony of his words does not exist without his responsibility for his wife’s opinions.
@Horace said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Actually it’s not.
The rich irony of his words does not exist without his responsibility for his wife’s opinions.
I disagree. It’s doubly ironic if he harbors the same views, but even if he’s spent the last 18 months trying to rip the election tin foil off of her head it’s still ironic for him to publicly chastise society for something he can’t eradicate from his own house.
Kind of like someone moralizing about kids and screen time when their kid spends 20 hours a day playing video games.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
That is the goal of many of the Democratic members of congress. It won't get past the Senate, however, particularly if 1) Manchin (a pro-life Democrat) opposes it and 2) it is subject to a filibuster.
@George-K said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@Klaus said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
This is sort of the point of the ruling, the majority’s view is that the original sin was the court removing it from the democratic process back in 1973.
If that is so, couldn't the Biden administration just re-establish the "Roe" rules via a law?
That is the goal of many of the Democratic members of congress. It won't get past the Senate, however, particularly if 1) Manchin (a pro-life Democrat) opposes it and 2) it is subject to a filibuster.
Casey from PA is Pro-Life, too.
-
@Horace said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Actually it’s not.
The rich irony of his words does not exist without his responsibility for his wife’s opinions.
I disagree. It’s doubly ironic if he harbors the same views, but even if he’s spent the last 18 months trying to rip the election tin foil off of her head it’s still ironic for him to publicly chastise society for something he can’t eradicate from his own house.
Kind of like someone moralizing about kids and screen time when their kid spends 20 hours a day playing video games.
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@Horace said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
Actually it’s not.
The rich irony of his words does not exist without his responsibility for his wife’s opinions.
I disagree. It’s doubly ironic if he harbors the same views, but even if he’s spent the last 18 months trying to rip the election tin foil off of her head it’s still ironic for him to publicly chastise society for something he can’t eradicate from his own house.
So he is not responsible for his wife's opinions, but he is responsible for changing her opinions if they differ from his own. If he fails to do that, he cannot express his own opinions publicly without being giggled at by the other tribe. Got it.
-
It’s not expressing opinions so much as moralizing. So it comes off as hypocritical.
So maybe phrase it as he shouldn’t moralize to the country about the problems he can’t eliminate in his own home.
-
It’s not expressing opinions so much as moralizing. So it comes off as hypocritical.
So maybe phrase it as he shouldn’t moralize to the country about the problems he can’t eliminate in his own home.
@jon-nyc said in Clarence Thomas speaks:
It’s not expressing opinions so much as moralizing. So it comes off as hypocritical.
So maybe phrase it as he shouldn’t moralize to the country about the problems he can’t eliminate in his own home.
It was a fine sentiment and it's good that he said it. There may be a microcosm of the issue in his own home, but the macro played out across America from 2016 to 2020.
