Thursday, December 02, 2021

A news update from the Republic of Gilead


It's just to the west of Dystopia.


Tackling only the last item in this post.

As the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority seems poised to uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, more than twice as many Americans (55 percent) say they want the court to reaffirm its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision as say they want it overturned (24 percent), according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.

Yet when asked about the specifics of the Mississippi case, respondents are far more divided -- a sign that America’s views on abortion are not quite as clear-cut and polarized as many assume.

The survey of 1,696 U.S. adults, which was conducted from Nov. 17 to 19, found that equal numbers favor (39 percent) and oppose (38 percent) the Mississippi law when it is described as something “that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, or about three and a half months.” (Roe v. Wade currently prohibits states from outlawing the procedure before about 23 weeks.) A significant share of Democrats (19 percent), Black Americans (25 percent) and Hispanic Americans (29 percent) also say they support a 15-week ban. Another 23 percent of overall Americans are unsure.


During oral arguments Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts emerged as the leading voice on the right for a narrow decision that would allow other states to ban abortions before 15 weeks but not fully overturn Roe.

“The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks,” Roberts said.

But Justice Samuel Alito disagreed, arguing that “the only real options we have” are to reaffirm Roe in its entirety or to overrule it -- a view that at least two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, are thought to share.

Who's to blame here?


"Vote Blue No Matter Who!"


There are ways the Democrats could save abortion and save democracy and sweep back the country’s inexorable trend toward theocratic fascism, but they all involve using power in a way that, so far, no leader from the party has been willing or able to do.

You’ve probably heard of several of these: eliminating the filibuster, packing the court, or even simply using the executive branch to ignore the right’s new grasp over judicial review, which was never in the Constitution in the first place and we can all see has clearly gotten out of hand. Even within the flawed system of the Senate and current legislature, Democrats could be making a concerted push for D.C. statehood or Puerto Rico statehood or both, giving them a better chance to secure majorities so that every single bill doesn’t rest on people like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Democrats could even pass a law ensuring a woman’s right to an abortion (imagine that) right now, technically, if they chucked the filibuster and convinced Manchin and Bob Casey to support the bill that passed the House in September.

They can’t do this, of course, because Manchin and Casey probably won’t budge on abortion and Manchin and Sinema won’t budge on the filibuster. All of these people are Democrats. So while it’s potentially true that if we just elected “more Democrats,” these few ideological aberrations might be less of a problem, but the question becomes how many? How many do we have to elect? And what if we keep voting for Democrats, somehow flip a few more red states to purple, but the only way we do so is if we elect another Joe Manchin? What then? What do we need to secure these things -- 60 votes in the Senate? Obama had 59 in 2009 and barely got the Affordable Care Act passed. Political priorities have changed a bit in the past 12 years, but is there any guarantee that we’d get anything done with 59 or 60 now? Not really. And where are those seats supposed to come from?

Democrats aren't going to save Roe.  They could have long ago if they wanted, but then they couldn't raise money off the issue.

Donating to, voting for, or electing more Democrats isn't going to save Roe, or pass Medicare for All, or raise the minimum wage, or cut subsidies to fossil fuels, or anything else that needs to be done NOW and not later.

Democrats can't even save themselves from an electoral wipeout in 2022.  What makes you think they're going to do anything for you?
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Giving Tuesday Wrangle


No boycotts and no strikes today.  Give what you can to those who ask, and to those who need help but are too shy to ask.  It's better than involuntarily donating to corporations.


More of the latest state politics.


JoJo has been one of my favorites for a very long time.  She really gets it, and has the scars from jackasses like Bill White and many other shitlibs to prove it.  All power to her.


Does the Pope shit in the woods?  Of course he does.  I'm not interested in local school board elections, but if that's your jam, now is the time to make your vote, voice, and objections loud to the Q-Crew schoolhouse bullies working hard to Dominionize your kids and grandkids.


I post Dr. Jones' tweets here on the occasions when he manages to keep his red partisanship out of his analysis.  Which is about half the time he tweets.  When he fails in that he embarrasses himself, as Braddock shows here.

Making the effort to challenge one's thinking -- to break out of the silo, so to speak -- requires rigorous self-inspection.  I appreciate when others do the work and create the breakthroughs.  Here's an example of that not happening.


The problem here is the word 'siphon'.

As I have blogged many times in the past, votes are not zero sum.  Votes are earned.  The confusion arises due to Gohmert's intention for his bid.  It was the same as Matt Krause's before he dropped out: capitalize on the scandals of Ken Paxton by offering oneself as the Qonservative alternative to Pee Bush and Eva Guzman.  (The sticky point is obviously trying to understand whatever passes for logic in the TXGOP primary voter's mind in choosing between Paxton and Gohmert.)  Paxton would make the runoff easily -- polling suggests without a runoff -- if it weren't for Gohmert now in.  Bush's chances improve as a runoff entrant.  So if I'm laying odds today, about 90 days from the spring election date, I'm favoring K-Pax and Baby Bush as the top two.  But a lot is going to happen between now and then, not the least of which is the possibility that Tejano Republicans carry more clout than anybody has been able to measure so far.


Yes, Beto needs their counterparts to save him and the rest of Team Donkey down the ballot.  So the RGV is ground zero for March and November.  I don't think it's going to happen for him, but stranger things have.


Still pisses me off that Ms. Crockett Bigfooted into this primary and has squashed Jessica Mason, the actual progressive.  I don't really see the suddenly-presumptive nominee as anything more than another all-talk no-action Squad member.  In similar fashion, Donna Imam beat Julie Oliver to the punch, jumping in to face Lloyd Doggett in the TX-37 primary.


Moving on to the criminal and social justice links.


Even as Abbott has again mobilized Texas Guard troops to the southern border, polls show support for his immigration moves ticking upwards.


There's your cray-cray read of the day.  I'm heading on to the climate news.


The New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung reports that opponents to a new quarry to be dug over the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone are fighting the company, Vulcan Construction Materials, in court and in the community.


Closing today with some holiday lights and music options.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)