The Trump Convention

[Dugout DickStone]

The best way to lose wait is eat more and exercise less.

[steaksdime]

Why does it matter? He doesn't actually care about immigration either, but he's the easily the most vocal anti-immigrant president in my lifetime. He loves wedges and those are two deep wedge issues that he'll fight for his base on. He's a mercenary. His more observant supporters know this, most just want the fight.

A very substantial difference in these two things are he hasn't done anything to change abortion policy but he certainly has with immigration, he's completely destroyed what was left of the system.

I would take issue with this statement because Trump did appoint two SCOTUS judges who very well could be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade if the votes were there. He’s probably done more to change abortion policy than any other president in modern history. It might be the only way he’s behaved as a traditional Republican president. And apparently enough to even get educated folks in his camp (despite the whole kids in cages thing).

the reason never-trumpers failed to gain any traction is because most republicans agree with everything he does policy-wise. (the lone exception might be he's less willing to start wars)

And spending. 

But mostly yes.  That is why lots wish he'd stop being such a grifting Q moron who tweets all the time.  and go on a diet

Is he going to still care about those issues after he doesn't need them (their votes) anymore, after reelection?

×××the plan keeps coming up again×××

[steve dave]

I vote for someone who generally shares (or close to “shares”) my view on abortion. That’s generally a prerequisite. I get what you’re suggesting about Roe being decided and the impracticality of my stance, and I don’t really have a good answer.  I suppose it’s similar to people advocating against certain gun rights, despite the Supreme Court precedent.  Just a sticking point for me, and I get that people think it’s nuts.

My mom is a single issue abortion voter as well. And I think I've mentioned this before on here but I'd wager a greater per capita number of Kansans are single issue abortion voter's than anywhere in the US. I can respect you (and my mom, and others I know) taking that stance based on that issue whether I agree with it or not because at least you can back up why you are voting that way.

[Katpappy]

Guys, I know I mentioned this before but if Facebook is any kind of indicator of Trump support it is overwhelming.  I have yet to see any support for Biden or any democrats'. 

[bucket]

Why does it matter? He doesn't actually care about immigration either, but he's the easily the most vocal anti-immigrant president in my lifetime. He loves wedges and those are two deep wedge issues that he'll fight for his base on. He's a mercenary. His more observant supporters know this, most just want the fight.

A very substantial difference in these two things are he hasn't done anything to change abortion policy but he certainly has with immigration, he's completely destroyed what was left of the system.

I would take issue with this statement because Trump did appoint two SCOTUS judges who very well could be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade if the votes were there. He’s probably done more to change abortion policy than any other president in modern history. It might be the only way he’s behaved as a traditional Republican president. And apparently enough to even get educated folks in his camp (despite the whole kids in cages thing).

the reason never-trumpers failed to gain any traction is because most republicans agree with everything he does policy-wise. (the lone exception might be he's less willing to start wars)

And spending. 

lol Republicans never care about spending except when it's spending that might help poor minorities (and he is very much in step with that)

Well I am a republican and I care about spending.  But you are right, no president has ever spent like trump.

He cares about immigration. See the race discrimination associated with his properties and the Central Park Five. It's not tactical at all.

He favors policy. He's been calling into Fox for 12 years.

[steve dave]

Guys, I know I mentioned this before but if Facebook is any kind of indicator of Trump support it is overwhelming.  I have yet to see any support for Biden or any democrats'.

same katdaddy

[sys]

He cares about immigration. See the race discrimination associated with his properties and the Central Park Five. It's not tactical at all.

definitely.

[catastrophe]

Single issue abortion voters made a lot more sense until they started voting for people in favor of separating children from their parents in cages.

[steve dave]

Single issue abortion voters made a lot more sense until they started voting for people in favor of separating children from their parents in cages.

I agree with this but I’d wager dlew is on your side here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chum1]

Like, what if you can't even be a single issue abortion voter any longer because you failed to vote against autocracy when you had the chance? Maybe rolling the dice that your future dictators will ban abortion is just a chance you're willing to take.

[puniraptor]

Or if nobody is even left alive to have abortions

[steve dave]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve dave]

Single issue abortion voters made a lot more sense until they started voting for people in favor of separating children from their parents in cages.

https://twitter.com/RVAT2020/status/1300146271571894272

[MakeItRain]

Why does it matter? He doesn't actually care about immigration either, but he's the easily the most vocal anti-immigrant president in my lifetime. He loves wedges and those are two deep wedge issues that he'll fight for his base on. He's a mercenary. His more observant supporters know this, most just want the fight.

A very substantial difference in these two things are he hasn't done anything to change abortion policy but he certainly has with immigration, he's completely destroyed what was left of the system.

I would take issue with this statement because Trump did appoint two SCOTUS judges who very well could be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade if the votes were there. He’s probably done more to change abortion policy than any other president in modern history.

No they won't, they aren't going to overturn a supreme court ruling, because it literally can't be done. Like I said he can appoint judges who can blow holes in Roe v. Wade but it can't be overturned. Also worth noting that Gorsuch has already ruled against Trump. I'm also interested in what you have that justifies the bolded sentence, it sounds like something I'd hear at one of his rallies. Other than diverting some federal funds, I don't think he's done crap but flap his dentured gums, following the usual pattern for him.

[Phil Titola]

I don't get being a single issue voter when the issue isn't something that's ever going to change.

[MakeItRain]

I don't get being a single issue voter when the issue isn't something that's ever going to change.

They've been convinced that it can and will, there are moderates and libs who think the same thing. Pubs raise money off of hope of it and dems raise money off of fear of it. Similar to the gun nuts think that Obama took guns away. The most sweeping gun reform law o.a.t. was from a Republican president that got shot.

[Trim]

No they won't, they aren't going to overturn a supreme court ruling, because it literally can't be done. Like I said he can appoint judges who can blow holes in Roe v. Wade but it can't be overturned.

What's your basis for this?

[MakeItRain]

No they won't, they aren't going to overturn a supreme court ruling, because it literally can't be done. Like I said he can appoint judges who can blow holes in Roe v. Wade but it can't be overturned.

What's your basis for this?

While I said "literally can't be done" they use the language "virtually final." 100% vs. 95%. Potato potahtoe'y

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20rules,legislative%20action%20can%20be%20taken.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

[DQ12]

MIR --

I think it's remarkably similar to the 2A discourse.  While these big iconic decisions have come down from the Supreme Court articulating the rights and certain bounds to the rights, there are still gaps with respect to particular interpretations of the rights.  Overruling Roe or Heller would obviously be seismic shifts, but there are plenty of battles (that are fought pretty often) short of actually overruling the seminal cases. 

[Trim]

No they won't, they aren't going to overturn a supreme court ruling, because it literally can't be done. Like I said he can appoint judges who can blow holes in Roe v. Wade but it can't be overturned.

What's your basis for this?

While I said "literally can't be done" they use the language "virtually final." 100% vs. 95%. Potato potahtoe'y

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20rules,legislative%20action%20can%20be%20taken.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

That line you excerpted means that for a Supreme Court ruling on a constitutional issue to be "un-final'd," there'd have to be a constitutional amendment (rare), or a new ruling of the Court(not as uncommon as you'd think). 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/supreme-court-cases-overturned-history-constitution-trnd/index.html

The latter is the problem at hand, where should trump get to make more appointments, those new probably weird judges could cause for a different result should a case present itself that could/would overrule Roe v Wade.  And we should be especially used to uncommon things these days.

I think I've said before how I absolutely loathed con law.  My takeaway was that those judges do whatever they want and supply a basis for it.  If there are enough anti-abortion'rs on the Supreme Court and a fitting case comes their way, they absolutely could and would overturn Roe v Wade.

But yes, even short of that, there are other ways to neuter existing Roe v Wade.

[MakeItRain]

No they won't, they aren't going to overturn a supreme court ruling, because it literally can't be done. Like I said he can appoint judges who can blow holes in Roe v. Wade but it can't be overturned.

What's your basis for this?

While I said "literally can't be done" they use the language "virtually final." 100% vs. 95%. Potato potahtoe'y

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20rules,legislative%20action%20can%20be%20taken.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

That line you excerpted means that for a Supreme Court ruling on a constitutional issue to be "un-final'd," there'd have to be a constitutional amendment (rare), or a new ruling of the Court(not as uncommon as you'd think). 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/supreme-court-cases-overturned-history-constitution-trnd/index.html

The latter is the problem at hand, where should trump get to make more appointments, those new probably weird judges could cause for a different result should a case present itself that could/would overrule Roe v Wade.  And we should be especially used to uncommon things these days.

I think I've said before how I absolutely loathed con law.  My takeaway was that those judges do whatever they want and supply a basis for it.  If there are enough anti-abortion'rs on the Supreme Court and a fitting case comes their way, they absolutely could and would overturn Roe v Wade.

But yes, even short of that, there are other ways to neuter existing Roe v Wade.

Isn't the absolute biggest issue with "neutering" Roe v. Wage is that abortion rights are largely a states issue? SC abortion rulings aren't mandates but just laying out what limits states are allowed to restrict.

[Trim]

Isn't the absolute biggest issue with "neutering" Roe v. Wage is that abortion rights are largely a states issue? SC abortion rulings aren't mandates but just laying out what limits states are allowed to restrict.

When it comes to the future of Roe v. Wade, states rights and the power of the state to interpret federal law are key considerations. There has already been a precedent, decided in 1992, that grants states power over abortion decisions that were not originally in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.

The Casey decision overturned two previous rulings that upheld Roe's original conclusion that states could not regulate abortions within the first trimester. Instead, the new decision defined a period of "fetal viability" in which states could regulate abortions and said states could regulate abortions earlier as long as the rules did not impose an "undue burden" on the woman.

Recent laws that could be seen as a challenge to Roe v. Wade, including Georgia's heartbeat bill, could use this vague language to escape any claims that they go against current precedents provided by the Supreme Court.

"Most likely, a state law would come about that imposes some significant restrictions on the right to an abortion, and it gets challenged," Owens says. "The challenge would be that the state violates Roe, and if the court were to rule in favor of the state, they would essentially be saying Roe was wrongly decided."

This is why, Owens says, interpretation and implementation are so important when considering Supreme Court precedents. Rarely do Supreme Court decisions legalize or criminalize something outright; they present constitutional and statutory regulations in which states have to operate.

In the case of Roe v. Wade, overturning the decision wouldn't criminalize abortion -- but it would allow states to.

"It would return to the states and the state legislatures," Owens says. "A lot of people think the Supreme Court decides something and that settles the issue. But while the Court has the first word, it may not have the last."

Right, we know it’s more common for states to work around Roe v Wade, but when they fly too close to the sun, that’s when there’ll be a case in which the SC at that time could overturn itself. And on this issue, that would mean states can do whatever they want.

My point is that if an existing SC wants to do something different than an old SC did, it can.

[cfbandyman]

Single issue abortion voters made a lot more sense until they started voting for people in favor of separating children from their parents in cages.

That, and my also giant issue I have with them is a two folded argument of 1) They (generalizing of course) tend to not only be anti abortion, but anti contraceptive and sex education (ie anything that can be construed as promoting promiscuity) . Those two things are literally the two biggest tools in the kit to stop abortion (or at least significantly reduce it, and btw have. Look at abortion rates of South America vs Europe, it's night and day, and Europe is apparently full of godless heathens). The fact they can't ever get over that hump tells me they will never get what they want because you simply can't be that draconian and puritanical about it.

Secondly, many of them also literally also don't care about education, social services, health care, etc , plenty of things that would be "pro life" for those who are already alive. They are pro life but only if it fits what they think God wants. Not what is either a) practical to society or b) logically follow what their rhetoric means.