• unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    Lost under Biden? The lost abortion rights had absolutely nothing to do with the Biden administration and everything to do with the judges the GOP appointed. You do realize that… …right?

    • cosecantphi [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      5 months ago

      No attempt to pack the court. No attempt to challenge the authority of the court. No attempt to sidestep the ruling or pressure the GOP and anti-abortion states via executive order. In the end it’s just another piece of evidence that the Democrats are either unwilling or incapable of fighting for our rights.

      • Lurker123 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        If we’re talking about strictly legal methods, Biden’s only option would be to pack the court to overrule Dobbs and reinstate Roe/Casey (or, ideally a stronger version). This would be done via a new federal law, and given that the dems only held 50 senate seats (which included people such and Manchin and Sinema), this was not something that could actually happen.

        I think Biden should have tried this, used the bully pulpit of the presidency to argue for it, and campaigned against the senators that stood in the way of this. That’s what I would expect a president who actually cared about this issue to do. But it would not have stopped SCOTUS’s rollback of the law.

        Biden could of course have instead triggered a constitutional crisis by directly threatening SCOTUS and forcing them to rule with a (potentially actual) gun to their head. But I’m not sure that’s what you had in mind?

        • SmokinStalin [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          43
          ·
          5 months ago

          You kinda making the point. He didnt even try. People here probably wouldnt be holding him so responsible for things if he had tried AT ALL to stop it even if he still failed.

          • Lurker123 [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ye if the point is that he failed to try and that’s why you don’t like him, fair enough, I definitely agree there. I was reading the OP as blaming him for the result, rather than the failure to try, which is what I was responding to.

            • SmokinStalin [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              The failure to try makes him complicit. While not directly responsible, he allowed it to happen by doing exactly nothing. Like you said. It’s clear he didn’t actually care.

        • SevenSkalls [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          5 months ago

          The Supreme Court ruled that the US President could break the law as long as it’s part of an official act during his presidency. That opened up his options quite a bit lol.

    • Crucible [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      5 months ago

      If they gave a shit they would have codified R v. W, or added more judges to the SC to ‘balance’ the stolen judges the GOP got in by Obama being happy to play ball with them. The Dems value the fundraising they can do when abortion rights are threatened more than your ‘rights’ themselves

    • Grapho@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      5 months ago

      You do realize that… …right?

      I yearn for the day libs learn to write without pulling from the same raggedy bag of cliches and redditisms

    • SmithrunHills [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      5 months ago

      had absolutely nothing to do with the Biden administration

      Yes I’m well aware of the fact that they did nothing about it. Your point being?

      • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        5 months ago

        To dumb it down: if someone kills someone and someone else sees it and doesn’t intervene, the person who saw it and didn’t intervene may not be the best person (options of intervening aside), but they’re still a far better person the the person who actually committed the murder.

        • SmokinStalin [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          ·
          5 months ago

          What if the person who does nothing is a cop whos literal job it was to stop it? Its one thing to try and fail. It’s another to sit on your ass and watch while planning on how you can use the murder to negotiate a raise.

        • Salem [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          5 months ago

          The passive person is considered an accomplice to murder, and usually they are charged with the same penalties of that murder in that manner.

          You’re being facetious and deceitful.

          The Democrats and Biden enabled and empowered Israel’s genocide, breaking several laws of financing and sponsoring such states’ actions; the Center for Constitutuional Rights filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration which the court acknowledged that a genocide was ongoing - that the Biden administration’s breaking of the law was evident - but decided to rule against the CCR based on political doctrine (i.e, the court refused to intervene because it was foreign policy matter to be settled by the executive/legislative, despite the illegality of the executive action.)

          The rule of law does not exist. The state is a means of mediating class conflict and socioeconomic changes. The state therefore selectively applies the law, indicating that it is power and political will that determines state policy rather than legalisms and procedure.

          To dumb it down: you’re not going back to brunch.

    • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      5 months ago

      You do realize that Trump and the GOP just do whatever they want and ignore the supreme Court via loopholes, executive orders, and actually legislating? Have you ever stopped to consider that if the Dems wanted to do that, they could too? So if abortion rights are so important, why didn’t they? If student loan forgiveness, or Gaza, or healthcare, or inflation were problems too, why didn’t the Dems use every trick in the book to accomplish these things? The GOP is doing it. The Dems could too, right? Why didn’t they? Why won’t they?

      Try examining what’s happening in the world and coming to your own conclusions instead of deepthroating election propaganda

    • Goferking0
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      What’s sad/disappointing is he fought harder for student loan forgiveness than keeping abortions rights, or other human rights lost under him or earlier under Trump. Which also isn’t saying much considering how poorly he did the forgiveness attempt.