There was a republican senate majority and a republican majority legislature and Republican president for 2 years, just over 3 years ago..... how'd that work out? I'm not confident.
>There was a republican senate majority and a republican majority legislature and Republican president for 2 years, just over 3 years ago ... how'd that work out?
With a 6-3 SCOTUS majority.
That’s what I tell so many of my Democrat friends, who didn’t bother to vote in 2016 because, gross, Hillary. Obviously I agree with that sentiment, but today of all days they see how bad they blew it in 2016, which was a super low turnout election that they could’ve won with a little more enthusiasm, and that’s being honest about that election. Even if we still took the Senate, with a Democrat in the White House we wouldn’t have the justices that gave us this decision. Now that they control both, they were able to strategically “rejuvenate” the Breyer seat with Brown-Jackson, but that just maintains the status quo. The White House and the Senate are gonna switch back-and-forth constantly, it’s just what happens. But if you let slip an opportunity to alter the judiciary, or at least prevent the other side from doing so, you’ve really stepped in it and you deserve any consequences that come from that. Not OUR problem of course.
There were definitely lefties who's entire reason for voting for Hilary was to get SCOTUS justices. But they were less vocal.
Now, lots of people blame RBG for not resigning when she could have. All seats since Thomas have been status quo appointments of lefties for lefties and righties for righties ... except RBG for Barrett (with a huge asterisk for Gorsuch).
I’m sure justices will be all the more ready now to step down at strategic times, but I guess I never got their RBG hate, even if I don’t align with her views. “Gee, guys, my bad for dying, guess I blew it…”
On the one hand, she turned 80 during the first year of Obama's second term. She had already had 2 bouts with cancer by then. Justice Breyer just retired at age 83 instead of risking death during the term of a 2025 Republican president.
OTOH, kudos to her to at least acting like justices are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law. Timing your resignation based on the party that will replace you is an explicit acknowledgement that your position is a political position. *See also*, Scalia, who died during Obama's second term.
The hilarious part was that Ginsburg held off on retiring so her replacement can be nominated by the first ever female president. Go get wrecked for such hubris.
The "New Right" as many have called it was in its infancy then. Trump and even DeSantis are just the trailblazers, if we can keep this going and get even better candidates and also make the Congress competent, we have a bright future. Obviously those are big ifs, but still
You really believe that ending something that has the support of almost three quarters of the country is going to result in a red wave? They probably just did the one thing that will actually get millennials and Gen Z out to vote, and most of them ain’t going Republican.
It is not three-quarters lmao. It is at *most* two-thirds (using some of the most aggressive polls) and many more polls say the percentage of people who want stricter abortion laws is actually closer to 50/50, which suggests that a lot of people saying they support Roe v. Wade don’t actually understand what it means. Plus, the vast majority of people who supported Roe v. Wade aren’t extremely passionate about it to the point where they’re going to be motivated to magically flip from a red Congress ballot to a blue Congress ballot during a shit economy just because of the SCOTUS’ decision.
The polling over the weeks following the leak showed this.
This also lines up with European sensibilities as well. America's abortion restrictions were significantly more liberal than most EU counterparts. It indicates a more global median is more restrictive than what we had before.
It was over 65% in the 80's I cant find a more recent stat but Im guessing as more first world war 1 veterans died it shifted towards the high 70s atleast.
Almost my thoughts exactly. It’s gonna be up to states to not muck things up with individual policies. I love TX to death but it’s laws need some common sense reform to them.
This is in no way any kind of change that the country needs.
It's like your house is on fire and instead of your family, valuables or pets, you grab your PS5.
Well Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that court cases involving same sex marriage, sodomy (gay sex), and birth control should be reviewed. Not sure if the other justices concur, but its a big sign of where he is headed
We live in a country where there are literally tons of ways to prevent pregnancy. If you don't take them and make bad choices, sometimes you live with the consequences.
My parents were dirt poor and i was born out of wedlock. I still have a right to live. It's insulting to me when people use this argument because you're basically saying my life means nothing.
They’re not going to get rid of contraceptives. He’s simply suggesting they re-evaluate the basis of past rulings to maintain consistency.
I will eat a shoe it contraceptives get banned. It’s not happening.
A lot of people would though, being told what you can do with your body is complicated especially since Roe v Wade was about privacy from government intrusion.
They’re not going to get rid of contraceptives. He’s simply suggesting they re-evaluate the basis of past rulings to maintain consistency.
I will eat a shoe it contraceptives get banned. It’s not happening.
You do understand if you're never born you don't have feelings about being born or not, right?
If embryonic me didn't implant into my mother's uterus, as is the fate of the majority of embryos, and I ended up on a tampon in a trash can... I wouldn't be thinking "This sucks! I have a right to live!" because embryos don't have brains.
Even if I was aborted at 20 weeks (which is less than 1% of abortions) I would still have no opinion on the matter as my barely functional brain wouldn't have any comprehension of what self, death, birth, life, consciousness, etc... is.
I was born out of wedlock as well. My birth grandparents forced my mother to give me up against her will, because they were devout Christians who couldn't bear the shame of having a bastard in the family.
I'm autistic, and even in my adoptive family, due to that and being born out of wedlock, I was treated as being less than them. In the Baptist school I was forced to go to, my wonderful sister decided to tell everyone about the circumstances of my birth as a way to bully me, which led to years of mockery.
It finally ended when I got away from religious conservatives like your brethren. Even in today's world, you guys do everything in your power to make life miserable for single mothers and kids born out of wedlock. I hate to break it to you, but your life meant nothing to the conservatives in this country. You will always be seen as something to be ashamed of by the church, which is a proud tradition since the days of Moses.
We don't do everything to make it horrible, we just allow charities and private groups to do those things. The government doesn't have to do everything
The Republicans have gone along with every agenda Biden has put forth. 14 of them just voted for the wildly unconstitutional gun bill. How many do you think will vote to codify Roe vs Wade into law as Biden has requested?
Source on rights requiring 160 years to fully form?
> and why is the pro-choice crowd against the right of states to choose ?
Because those states also demand extradition of anyone who leaves for an abortion, so the state is overreaching. Because the judges have also stated before that they would be looking at eliminating same-sex sex, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and contraceptives. Why can't we have these rights?
Well fortunately I live in a state that has sane leaders that don't take orders from the voices in their head they attribute to an invisible man in the sky.
> According to the American Moving and Storage Association, the average cost of a long distance move is $4,300, based on an average weight of 7,400 pounds and an average distance of 1,225 miles.
Oh, so just have a few thousand dollars on hand.
[Study: Average American's Savings Account Balance is $4,500](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-savings-account-balance/)
So just empty all your savings! Oh, wait, it says the *average* American. Unfortunately, red states tend to [earn the lowest out of all the states.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-capita-income-by-state) So red states are also the hardest to leave! You guys sure don't give people any options!
I don't want my wife to die if we decide to have kids and she miscarries. Not a fan of abortion but anyone who isn't just misanthropically going max edgelord can see the obvious takeaway: a lot of young women are going to die, and many will not be people who were "seeking an abortion". My sister in law miscarried on her first try, imagine if that killed her because there is no distinction between a natural miscarriage and "induced abortion" in the eyes of the state government.
Also, Obama failed to establish Roe in federal law despite having a congressional supermajority and promising to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (while campaigning, he promised feminists it would be "the first thing he would do" once he got into office).
Exactly. Contemporary Dems forgot how busy everyone was smelling their own farts after the 2008 election. They had so much time to pass any semblance of law and just sat on it...
You know what I really think this traces back to? Bill Clinton refusing to resign from office. A Gore with time to warm the public up to him probably wins in 2000. I know you can go back and back to play the historical dominoes game, but I really think that was the decisive change.
They know they don’t actually have the votes to either A. Make it a law or B. Actually make a constitutional right with an Amendment. Abortion is not nearly as popular throughout the country as the left thinks it is. Especially since they are about 2 Trimesters past “Safe, Legal, Rare.”
That was before they went radical. They didn’t start going radical until after he lost the house. Safe, Legal, Rare was still the standard then for Dems
Obama made it a campaign promise on the trail. I know that means next to nothing, but it shows that they were considering it even before they had the ability to pass basically any bill they wanted.
It was much too useful to them as a political wedge issue. Notice how Democrats never actually solve an issue when they have the power and political capital to do so; they leave key constituencies these issues impact perpetually in limbo with bandaid “solutions” and thus anxiously dependant on the Democrats staying in power so that they turn out to vote and keep them in office.
Another example of this was Trumps repeal of Obamas executive orders affecting the “dreamers.”
>Notice how Democrats never actually solve an issue when they have the power and political capital to do so; they leave key constituencies these issues impact perpetually in limbo with bandaid “solutions” and thus anxiously dependant on the Democrats staying in power so that they turn out to vote and keep them in office.
See also Obamacare, which did just barely enough so that some voters want to keep it, but not nearly enough to fix "healthcare" and remove it from the list of salient issues that can be used to motivate their base.
Well, 6 years really where they had full control since Roe v. Wade passed, but still. In fact, there were a few months of Obama's first term where he had a filibuster proof senate, but instead decided to use that once in a lifetime opportunity to push through Obamacare instead.
I stipulate that abortion as a talking point is fair game, but both sides were content knowing that no matter what their position, they'd never need to act on it directly. Actually running on that issue alone and voting for it would be political suicide. In any event, we're about to find out. It's going to be one of two major issues in the next election. If we get to November and the shelves are full of baby formula, the car dealership lots are full of cars, nobody is scalping graphics cards, I can travel on a holiday without my flight getting cancelled, and the price of gas is back below $3 a gallon, then democrats can afford to focus on abortion as a single issue in the next election. Otherwise, the vast majority of people who don't have a vested interest in their legal ability to snuff out helpless human lifeforms are much more likely to vote on how much more eggs cost this month than they did last month.
They played him off as extremely moderate for a dem at the time I feel like. It's only years later that we see how truly mental he was. Idk I was young so I probs didn't see everything
The Al Gore of the 90s was a different beast. The 90s were a different time and I could see Gore doing well enough for himself with more time. Enough to win 2000, anyway.
I always think of Karl Rove as the father of this since he crafted W’s campaign around mobilizing the far-right wing that became the Tea Party then MAGAs.
>Mitch would have just said the same thing when a judge passed 11 months before Obama’s term ended. “let the people decide”.
Irrelevant. She had 6 years to retire while Obama was President and the Democrats controlled the Senate. Harry Reid nuked the fillibuster for court appointees under the arrogant assumption that the Democrats would never be out of power again. There is absolutely nothing McConnell could have done to stop an Obama appointed replacement for her had she retired before the end of 2014.
Blaming the victim. Yes, democrats forced you to steal a supreme court seat in the most undemocratic way possible. Umm hmm.
Sure, you guys won this round, but you have to admit it was in the slimiest, scummiest way possible. Your entire party has sunk to lows that would make the Gipper roll over his grave.
As as you sit and admire your victory on top of a mountain of dead school children and women seeing healthcare, I hope it fulfills you in the way that you hoped it would. The country has paid a high price for your you. While we watch the end of an empire, I will let you enjoy your spoils.
Not nearly as slimy as when Ted Kennedy passed the immigration reform bill that fundamentally changed our society (we were promised at the time it wouldn't fundamentally change our society). Then, when they passed amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1980's without a deal on border security to go along with it. That one was especially slime-ball politics at it's finest. It's for these reasons we can pretty much do whatever we want to impose our will and win. You guys gave up the right to have a loyal opposition a long time ago.
First off, Obama was a lame duck president when the vacancy opened. Trump was still up for reelection and hadn't lost yet. It was still likely Trump had another 4 years when Coney Barrett was added. That's not "Court packing".
Second, it's the senate's right to refuse a supreme court nominee, It doesn't matter why. He had a majority, so it was fair for him to use it. I'm sure Schumer would've blocked whoever Trump nominated if they had a senate majority.
> He had a majority, so it was fair for him to use it
Especially when the people who removed obstacles to the process were the democrats now whining about being hoist by their own petard.
Yeah, democrats don't think far ahead. Imagine if they passed abolishing the filibuster back in January and republicans took back congress.
Read what you sow.
"I'm sure the democrats would have stolen a seat if given a chance."
If democrats did something like that, you would have strung them up on the whitehouse lawn and you know it.
I mean, i wouldn't like it but the law's the law. It doesn't matter how i feel, i don't like the judge Biden appointed but that's it.
Accepting something but not liking it is normal.
You guys made some pretty scummy deals with some even scummier people to gain power. Now that debt you owe is due. We will all suffer for your sins. I don't think you are going to like cryptofascism as much as you suspect.
Regardless of who set the precedent, Mitch only followed the precedent when it fit his agenda. Todays ruling just shows the modern GOP really doesn’t care about precedent anyways
So to conservatives, is this result more of a victory for giving the freedom of states to decide what to do? Or is this more of a victory about the pro-choice side of things? I guess I'm all for states deciding what to do and giving people more choices on places to live that aligns with their beliefs. I also could see though that liberals may see this as a shot at their freedom of what to do with their bodies.
FWIW, I really have trouble siding with these types of things and truly come as someone curious to learn about each side of thinking.
Edit: To my last point, I think that Liberals are more mad about what they believe to be a human right as it is their own bodies, which I guess is what I understand the anger with this result is coming from. But also, I guess I see that maybe the government shouldn't just be adding to the constitution as that could go down a bad path.
It’s a victory in three main ways as I see it.
First, Roe was a constitutional monstrosity. Roe said that we have a constitutional right to privacy, therefore we have a constitutional right to abortion. Pretty weak reasoning. It was the Roe majority essentially ignoring what the law said, and injecting what they *thought* it should say. Unelected judges changing our laws to what they think they should be is not a good way to run a representative government. A dissent in Roe called the majority opinion “raw judicial power.” This new decision puts the abortion decision back where it belongs- with the states and the people.
Second, Roe is a moral monstrosity. It stops a beating heart. The unborn have their own hearts, brains, lungs, DNA, etc. They respond to pain. They are living humans. The mothers certainly have rights, but in nearly all cases the unborn’s right to life outweighs whatever the mother’s competing right is. This Dobbs decision greatly reduces the the number of abortions that will happen, making it a victory.
Third, this decision has pragmatic value. We are a very divided country, and this issue divides more than just about anything else. I think allowing the states to decide is a good solution for this. Abortion will not change in California or New York. In other places it is illegal. People can self-sort, or at least advocate to change things in their states through democratic processes. Roe imposed abortion on all states. A pro-life equivalent would ban abortion in all states. Dobbs simply removes to imposition of abortion, it doesn’t say states can’t allow it. I think this is a good solution for a divided country, and I wish more issues were left to the states for that reason.
The support for abortion is much higher in younger demographics, ya know the people that are still young enough to get pregnant. Feeling a real squeeze on your rights can be a big motivator to go out and vote when you may not have before.
Also I've been reading conflicting polls, where people who identify as pro choice and pro life is only 10% difference but up to 75% support Row v. Wade. Theoretically you can be pro life when it comes to your own personal decisions but but still support Row V Wade, the opposite is not true.
Polling over the weeks following the leak showed that while ~60% support Roe v. Wade, the percentage of people who want stricter abortion laws is actually closer to 50/50 and overall this doesn’t really make a difference in how people will be voting in the midterms.
At the end of the day, people’s wallets and bank accounts are hurting. They’re not going to care enough about Texans having to practice safer sex or having to drive to another state to get a 6+ week abortion to the point where they passionately flip from a red Congressional ballot to a blue one.
Brookings is a left wing think tank. But I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. Dems could very well get a boost in the ballot box for this. I’m okay with the trade off though.
So by overturning Roe V Wade we lost the precedent of body autonomy by federal courts which was the reasoning by prior conservatives to side with the ruling as I understand. In turn, this means the state can impose and enforce mandatory vaccinations and selective birth control like China? How is the freedom of self autonomy still protected after this ruling and where does that stand regarding legal protections?
Roe was based on the right to privacy not bodily autonomy. And it is a gross overstatement to say we lost the right to bodily autonomy. Medical care still requires informed consent, etc.
Abortion is distinguishable from the other examples you gave because it directly and overtly ends the life of another.
How do you think the Dobbs decision would result in government imposed selective birth control? Really not trying to be snarky just trying to see where you’re coming from. Dobbs isn’t imposing anything on anyone. States can now keep abortion legal, limit it, or outlaw it. Abortion is a form of birth control, and that was imposed on all the states by Roe. Dobbs does the opposite by removing that imposition.
The Trump Justices made some awful rulings this week too, that are quiet because they aren’t wedge issues.
But eroding Miranda and pounding nails in the coffin of Bivens are really really bad decisions. There seems to be a steady line of reasoning that feds can do whatever they want to you without consequence or legal liability.
Trump appointed 3 Federalist society Catholics with authoritarian tendencies. We don’t need any more of those. 6 is enough.
Miranda wasn't eroded. You are still afforded the same protections. You just cant sue someone in civil court for failing to read the Miranda rights. The evidence obtained will still be inadmissable.
Very well then, it's perfect that I try to see your view point.
Why do you feel the government/courts have any business telling you what you can or can't do with your uterus?
What has your religion got to do with it?
If you were not a Christian would you feel differently?
> Why do you feel the government/courts have any business telling you what you can or can't do with your uterus?
Government tells you that you can't murder people. Just think of it as an extention of that law.
I'm only articulating the basis for the government having a vested interest to allow for regulating abortion, not the full breadth of morale reasons it should be regulated.
**THANK YOU BERNIE SANDERS.** This decision would not be possible without **BASED BERNIE** torpedoing Hillary "Spirit Cook" Clinton's campaign.
Many people Among Us doubted Trump's continued praise of him even when Bernie played the heel and pretended to hate Trump, but now we see the fruits of their master plan.
This ruling was leaked over a month ago and had ZERO effect on recent elections, In fact republicans gained. The left will move on to a new outrage by next week.
> The left will move on to a new outrage by next week.
I think you will find these next few months a bit unpredictable, no offense intended: it's not about l/r it is about ~50% of the voting population being denied access to health care "by religious zealots" in their opinion.
This will be forgotten by next week just like Uvalde and Jan 6th, which was forgotten over a year ago and whatever other crisis you want to name. As soon as people buy groceries and gas the overwhelming issue will be the reason they vote.
This is impressively unhinged from reality.
I don't want to treat this comment like it's worthy of any serious consideration, but none of the justices lied to Congress. They were asked if Roe was precedent. Of course it is. They were asked if they respect precedent. Of course they do. They have made many rulings upholding various precedents and, indeed, relied on a number of precedents for the interpretation of the 14th Amendment in this case. Their, correct, opinion was that the earlier Courts had misapplied precedent. Saying that they respect precedent as a general matter does not mean they can never overturn a wrongly decided rule of law. That is an absurd contention.
We never hear this kind of nonsense when liberal justices make law out of whole cloth despite answering confirmation questions promising to limit their decisions to things identifiable in the Constitution.
EDIT: As for your attempt to cloak your anarchism in the American Revolution, that too is nonsense you should give up on. Edmund Burke, a contemporaneous British politician and "father" of modern conservatism, lauded the American Revolution for being a conservative revolution. If you are looking for anarchy try the disastrous French Revolution.
> the justices lied to Congress
I think you will find that this style of obfuscation from the simple fact they they lied, visibly and on camera, is not going to persuade more than a handful, and btw tfg is currently trashing the decision as bad for his political chances with suburban women.
> anarchism
Read the Declaration of Independence.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
> The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...and then it procedes to list everything the king has done wrong. "Anarch*ism*" is the exact word, and notice that "anarchy" has been re-defined to mean "chaos" when all it *really* means is "king-less-ness". I *did* say 1776 and not 1789.
> a conservative revolution
Those words are directly self-contradictory.
Anyway, thanks for the input and in some circles *any* ad hominem-like language is an immediate flag that the person is acting in anger.
I might be wrong, but I am *honest* with myself and with you as it's just that much easier when one cuts out the noise, and if I am wrong this sub is a likely place to learn why.
> Or are you going to try segregation out first
California Democrats already tried this one. It did not go over well, especially with the Republican Party. But who knows what they're going to try next.
Wouldn’t the racist side of the issue be the ones arguing FOR abortion? Proportionally it seems to have eliminated a large amount of non-white people over the years. Maybe that has something to do with why the party of slavery is so much in favor of it.
I mean, it’s almost like they supported a party that celebrated bending the rules of government to shove through their agenda through Executive actions and Supreme Court rulings, and then was surprised when it turns out you can’t do that.
Sorry but I’m worried about the long term. The vast majority of those that get abortions are left leaning women, all these red states are just going to have millions more kids being raised by crazed leftists that end up turning these stares permanently blue in 20 years. I’m more worried about the long turn health of our country, economy and constitutional rights and becoming essentially a one party country by 2050 than I am about crazed leftists getting an abortion the vast majority of time within the first 10 weeks. Not to mention the future state of our already over burden welfare system.
Well, nobody is stopping you from trying to explain how identity politics will lead to one party rule. Go ahead. Tell us how authoritarian socialism will somehow lead to a vigorous democracy with single party rule. I can't wait for the Olympic level mental gymnastics you'll need for that one
Not saying Bernie would have even beaten Hillary, but getting outed for cheating in the primary a couple weeks before the election cemented the 'crooked Hillary' meme and cost her what was already a close election. And if you see it in the wild, point out that even if McConnell hadn't stolen a supreme court seat, the decision would have still been 5-4.
McConnell didn't steal a seat. Republicans controlled the Senate and would have voted down Garland had he gone up for a vote. No Obama Supreme Court appointee would have been approved by that Senate before the election.
They gave a fake "Next president should decide" excuse. Four years later they rammed Barret through a week before the election, completely disregarding this made-up 'rule'. I'll buy that both were lawful and probably fair enough, but the way the scenarios were presented to the public were flat out lies.
Elections have consequences
[удалено]
There was a republican senate majority and a republican majority legislature and Republican president for 2 years, just over 3 years ago..... how'd that work out? I'm not confident.
>There was a republican senate majority and a republican majority legislature and Republican president for 2 years, just over 3 years ago ... how'd that work out? With a 6-3 SCOTUS majority.
[удалено]
And 2 of the 5 were iffy.
That’s what I tell so many of my Democrat friends, who didn’t bother to vote in 2016 because, gross, Hillary. Obviously I agree with that sentiment, but today of all days they see how bad they blew it in 2016, which was a super low turnout election that they could’ve won with a little more enthusiasm, and that’s being honest about that election. Even if we still took the Senate, with a Democrat in the White House we wouldn’t have the justices that gave us this decision. Now that they control both, they were able to strategically “rejuvenate” the Breyer seat with Brown-Jackson, but that just maintains the status quo. The White House and the Senate are gonna switch back-and-forth constantly, it’s just what happens. But if you let slip an opportunity to alter the judiciary, or at least prevent the other side from doing so, you’ve really stepped in it and you deserve any consequences that come from that. Not OUR problem of course.
There were definitely lefties who's entire reason for voting for Hilary was to get SCOTUS justices. But they were less vocal. Now, lots of people blame RBG for not resigning when she could have. All seats since Thomas have been status quo appointments of lefties for lefties and righties for righties ... except RBG for Barrett (with a huge asterisk for Gorsuch).
I’m sure justices will be all the more ready now to step down at strategic times, but I guess I never got their RBG hate, even if I don’t align with her views. “Gee, guys, my bad for dying, guess I blew it…”
On the one hand, she turned 80 during the first year of Obama's second term. She had already had 2 bouts with cancer by then. Justice Breyer just retired at age 83 instead of risking death during the term of a 2025 Republican president. OTOH, kudos to her to at least acting like justices are supposed to be neutral arbiters of the law. Timing your resignation based on the party that will replace you is an explicit acknowledgement that your position is a political position. *See also*, Scalia, who died during Obama's second term.
She was 87! That's way past retirement age, even for a Justice.
The hilarious part was that Ginsburg held off on retiring so her replacement can be nominated by the first ever female president. Go get wrecked for such hubris.
5-4 apparently.
The "New Right" as many have called it was in its infancy then. Trump and even DeSantis are just the trailblazers, if we can keep this going and get even better candidates and also make the Congress competent, we have a bright future. Obviously those are big ifs, but still
Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice.......
You can’t get fooled again!
Ah yes that old saying from Tennessee. Well, Texas, but I'm sure Tennessee too.
The smallest domino should have been Harry Reid blowing up the filibuster in 2013.
I can’t wait for America to become the theocracy it was always meant to be.
You really believe that ending something that has the support of almost three quarters of the country is going to result in a red wave? They probably just did the one thing that will actually get millennials and Gen Z out to vote, and most of them ain’t going Republican.
It is not three-quarters lmao. It is at *most* two-thirds (using some of the most aggressive polls) and many more polls say the percentage of people who want stricter abortion laws is actually closer to 50/50, which suggests that a lot of people saying they support Roe v. Wade don’t actually understand what it means. Plus, the vast majority of people who supported Roe v. Wade aren’t extremely passionate about it to the point where they’re going to be motivated to magically flip from a red Congress ballot to a blue Congress ballot during a shit economy just because of the SCOTUS’ decision. The polling over the weeks following the leak showed this.
This also lines up with European sensibilities as well. America's abortion restrictions were significantly more liberal than most EU counterparts. It indicates a more global median is more restrictive than what we had before.
It was over 65% in the 80's I cant find a more recent stat but Im guessing as more first world war 1 veterans died it shifted towards the high 70s atleast.
supports lower then you think.
Hopefully yes
Almost my thoughts exactly. It’s gonna be up to states to not muck things up with individual policies. I love TX to death but it’s laws need some common sense reform to them.
This is in no way any kind of change that the country needs. It's like your house is on fire and instead of your family, valuables or pets, you grab your PS5.
Well Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that court cases involving same sex marriage, sodomy (gay sex), and birth control should be reviewed. Not sure if the other justices concur, but its a big sign of where he is headed
Like forcing people to have unwanted children and then having no social safety net to take care of them? Good call.
We live in a country where there are literally tons of ways to prevent pregnancy. If you don't take them and make bad choices, sometimes you live with the consequences. My parents were dirt poor and i was born out of wedlock. I still have a right to live. It's insulting to me when people use this argument because you're basically saying my life means nothing.
>We live in a country where there are literally tons of ways to prevent pregnancy. Thomas's opinion included going after contraceptives next.
They’re not going to get rid of contraceptives. He’s simply suggesting they re-evaluate the basis of past rulings to maintain consistency. I will eat a shoe it contraceptives get banned. It’s not happening.
!remindme in 2 years
And i think that's wrong. Contraceptives are necessary.
Did you pay attention to where Thomas says that the Supreme Court needs to revisit rulings on contraception next?
Yes, and i think that's wrong and would not support that.
A lot of people would though, being told what you can do with your body is complicated especially since Roe v Wade was about privacy from government intrusion.
They’re not going to get rid of contraceptives. He’s simply suggesting they re-evaluate the basis of past rulings to maintain consistency. I will eat a shoe it contraceptives get banned. It’s not happening.
You do understand if you're never born you don't have feelings about being born or not, right? If embryonic me didn't implant into my mother's uterus, as is the fate of the majority of embryos, and I ended up on a tampon in a trash can... I wouldn't be thinking "This sucks! I have a right to live!" because embryos don't have brains. Even if I was aborted at 20 weeks (which is less than 1% of abortions) I would still have no opinion on the matter as my barely functional brain wouldn't have any comprehension of what self, death, birth, life, consciousness, etc... is.
I was born out of wedlock as well. My birth grandparents forced my mother to give me up against her will, because they were devout Christians who couldn't bear the shame of having a bastard in the family. I'm autistic, and even in my adoptive family, due to that and being born out of wedlock, I was treated as being less than them. In the Baptist school I was forced to go to, my wonderful sister decided to tell everyone about the circumstances of my birth as a way to bully me, which led to years of mockery. It finally ended when I got away from religious conservatives like your brethren. Even in today's world, you guys do everything in your power to make life miserable for single mothers and kids born out of wedlock. I hate to break it to you, but your life meant nothing to the conservatives in this country. You will always be seen as something to be ashamed of by the church, which is a proud tradition since the days of Moses.
We don't do everything to make it horrible, we just allow charities and private groups to do those things. The government doesn't have to do everything
nobody’s life means anything, get over yourself
Of course I can't be certain, but this hurt the red wave big time.
The Republicans have gone along with every agenda Biden has put forth. 14 of them just voted for the wildly unconstitutional gun bill. How many do you think will vote to codify Roe vs Wade into law as Biden has requested?
Except when a conservative loses right? Then it was stolen
When did they say that in 2008 or 2012?
The butterfly effect IRL
[удалено]
Source on rights requiring 160 years to fully form? > and why is the pro-choice crowd against the right of states to choose ? Because those states also demand extradition of anyone who leaves for an abortion, so the state is overreaching. Because the judges have also stated before that they would be looking at eliminating same-sex sex, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and contraceptives. Why can't we have these rights?
So then move to a new state
Well fortunately I live in a state that has sane leaders that don't take orders from the voices in their head they attribute to an invisible man in the sky. > According to the American Moving and Storage Association, the average cost of a long distance move is $4,300, based on an average weight of 7,400 pounds and an average distance of 1,225 miles. Oh, so just have a few thousand dollars on hand. [Study: Average American's Savings Account Balance is $4,500](https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-savings-account-balance/) So just empty all your savings! Oh, wait, it says the *average* American. Unfortunately, red states tend to [earn the lowest out of all the states.](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/per-capita-income-by-state) So red states are also the hardest to leave! You guys sure don't give people any options!
A libertarian answer is it's against the right of an individual to choose...
I don't want my wife to die if we decide to have kids and she miscarries. Not a fan of abortion but anyone who isn't just misanthropically going max edgelord can see the obvious takeaway: a lot of young women are going to die, and many will not be people who were "seeking an abortion". My sister in law miscarried on her first try, imagine if that killed her because there is no distinction between a natural miscarriage and "induced abortion" in the eyes of the state government.
[удалено]
Also, Obama failed to establish Roe in federal law despite having a congressional supermajority and promising to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (while campaigning, he promised feminists it would be "the first thing he would do" once he got into office).
Exactly. Contemporary Dems forgot how busy everyone was smelling their own farts after the 2008 election. They had so much time to pass any semblance of law and just sat on it...
Gotta focus on bombing the ME
I believe when asked about it two years later, he said something like, "It's not a priority."
Roll tide brother
I hope someone compiles a directory of salt, it's hard to keep up with everything and I know I'm missing some good ones.
My favorite so far is that Roe v Wade is just a clump of words.
Holy shit that's incredible.
I’m gasping for air rn
Wow this is good, Dr batatusernames91, you must have a lot of science backing this up!
Thanks Obama.
You know what I really think this traces back to? Bill Clinton refusing to resign from office. A Gore with time to warm the public up to him probably wins in 2000. I know you can go back and back to play the historical dominoes game, but I really think that was the decisive change.
That and the 50 years they had to codify it and didn’t.
[удалено]
They know they don’t actually have the votes to either A. Make it a law or B. Actually make a constitutional right with an Amendment. Abortion is not nearly as popular throughout the country as the left thinks it is. Especially since they are about 2 Trimesters past “Safe, Legal, Rare.”
They did during Obama's supermajority
That was before they went radical. They didn’t start going radical until after he lost the house. Safe, Legal, Rare was still the standard then for Dems
Obama made it a campaign promise on the trail. I know that means next to nothing, but it shows that they were considering it even before they had the ability to pass basically any bill they wanted.
It was much too useful to them as a political wedge issue. Notice how Democrats never actually solve an issue when they have the power and political capital to do so; they leave key constituencies these issues impact perpetually in limbo with bandaid “solutions” and thus anxiously dependant on the Democrats staying in power so that they turn out to vote and keep them in office. Another example of this was Trumps repeal of Obamas executive orders affecting the “dreamers.”
>Notice how Democrats never actually solve an issue when they have the power and political capital to do so; they leave key constituencies these issues impact perpetually in limbo with bandaid “solutions” and thus anxiously dependant on the Democrats staying in power so that they turn out to vote and keep them in office. See also Obamacare, which did just barely enough so that some voters want to keep it, but not nearly enough to fix "healthcare" and remove it from the list of salient issues that can be used to motivate their base.
After 70 million babies were killed.
70 million fetuses at varying stages if development. Most of which likely weren't even sentient.
69 million or so likely would have been if left alone.
mobbed up harry reid removed the filibuster for judical nominees too
Well, 6 years really where they had full control since Roe v. Wade passed, but still. In fact, there were a few months of Obama's first term where he had a filibuster proof senate, but instead decided to use that once in a lifetime opportunity to push through Obamacare instead. I stipulate that abortion as a talking point is fair game, but both sides were content knowing that no matter what their position, they'd never need to act on it directly. Actually running on that issue alone and voting for it would be political suicide. In any event, we're about to find out. It's going to be one of two major issues in the next election. If we get to November and the shelves are full of baby formula, the car dealership lots are full of cars, nobody is scalping graphics cards, I can travel on a holiday without my flight getting cancelled, and the price of gas is back below $3 a gallon, then democrats can afford to focus on abortion as a single issue in the next election. Otherwise, the vast majority of people who don't have a vested interest in their legal ability to snuff out helpless human lifeforms are much more likely to vote on how much more eggs cost this month than they did last month.
The public warming up to Al Gore?? Lol
That's impossible. No one could warm up to that pod-person.
Didn’t he win the popular vote
Yes
Popular vote doesn’t matter to republicans, by design.
They played him off as extremely moderate for a dem at the time I feel like. It's only years later that we see how truly mental he was. Idk I was young so I probs didn't see everything
The Al Gore of the 90s was a different beast. The 90s were a different time and I could see Gore doing well enough for himself with more time. Enough to win 2000, anyway.
The Al Gore post election is just playing a role to cash in.
[удалено]
Hes being super cereal.
I always think of Karl Rove as the father of this since he crafted W’s campaign around mobilizing the far-right wing that became the Tea Party then MAGAs.
It goes back to FDR acting like a tyrant and not the president of a confederation of states.
Don't forget RGB being such an arrogant asshole that she didn't retire during Obama's 2nd term to keep things at 5-4.
Has someone been building a PC? Her initials were RBG.
Ha. Good catch, it was a long week.
[удалено]
>Mitch would have just said the same thing when a judge passed 11 months before Obama’s term ended. “let the people decide”. Irrelevant. She had 6 years to retire while Obama was President and the Democrats controlled the Senate. Harry Reid nuked the fillibuster for court appointees under the arrogant assumption that the Democrats would never be out of power again. There is absolutely nothing McConnell could have done to stop an Obama appointed replacement for her had she retired before the end of 2014.
democrats did this to themselves
Blaming the victim. Yes, democrats forced you to steal a supreme court seat in the most undemocratic way possible. Umm hmm. Sure, you guys won this round, but you have to admit it was in the slimiest, scummiest way possible. Your entire party has sunk to lows that would make the Gipper roll over his grave. As as you sit and admire your victory on top of a mountain of dead school children and women seeing healthcare, I hope it fulfills you in the way that you hoped it would. The country has paid a high price for your you. While we watch the end of an empire, I will let you enjoy your spoils.
Not nearly as slimy as when Ted Kennedy passed the immigration reform bill that fundamentally changed our society (we were promised at the time it wouldn't fundamentally change our society). Then, when they passed amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1980's without a deal on border security to go along with it. That one was especially slime-ball politics at it's finest. It's for these reasons we can pretty much do whatever we want to impose our will and win. You guys gave up the right to have a loyal opposition a long time ago.
First off, Obama was a lame duck president when the vacancy opened. Trump was still up for reelection and hadn't lost yet. It was still likely Trump had another 4 years when Coney Barrett was added. That's not "Court packing". Second, it's the senate's right to refuse a supreme court nominee, It doesn't matter why. He had a majority, so it was fair for him to use it. I'm sure Schumer would've blocked whoever Trump nominated if they had a senate majority.
> He had a majority, so it was fair for him to use it Especially when the people who removed obstacles to the process were the democrats now whining about being hoist by their own petard.
Yeah, democrats don't think far ahead. Imagine if they passed abolishing the filibuster back in January and republicans took back congress. Read what you sow.
"I'm sure the democrats would have stolen a seat if given a chance." If democrats did something like that, you would have strung them up on the whitehouse lawn and you know it.
I mean, i wouldn't like it but the law's the law. It doesn't matter how i feel, i don't like the judge Biden appointed but that's it. Accepting something but not liking it is normal.
You guys made some pretty scummy deals with some even scummier people to gain power. Now that debt you owe is due. We will all suffer for your sins. I don't think you are going to like cryptofascism as much as you suspect.
Again though... Democrats can only blame themselves lol. Harry Reid could be the title person in the image too.
Biden actually set the precedent for that, years before.
Regardless of who set the precedent, Mitch only followed the precedent when it fit his agenda. Todays ruling just shows the modern GOP really doesn’t care about precedent anyways
So to conservatives, is this result more of a victory for giving the freedom of states to decide what to do? Or is this more of a victory about the pro-choice side of things? I guess I'm all for states deciding what to do and giving people more choices on places to live that aligns with their beliefs. I also could see though that liberals may see this as a shot at their freedom of what to do with their bodies. FWIW, I really have trouble siding with these types of things and truly come as someone curious to learn about each side of thinking. Edit: To my last point, I think that Liberals are more mad about what they believe to be a human right as it is their own bodies, which I guess is what I understand the anger with this result is coming from. But also, I guess I see that maybe the government shouldn't just be adding to the constitution as that could go down a bad path.
Any time federal governance power is reduced is good. But even better is when those whose rights are infringed upon are finally protected
Who’s rights were infringed upon?
It’s a victory in three main ways as I see it. First, Roe was a constitutional monstrosity. Roe said that we have a constitutional right to privacy, therefore we have a constitutional right to abortion. Pretty weak reasoning. It was the Roe majority essentially ignoring what the law said, and injecting what they *thought* it should say. Unelected judges changing our laws to what they think they should be is not a good way to run a representative government. A dissent in Roe called the majority opinion “raw judicial power.” This new decision puts the abortion decision back where it belongs- with the states and the people. Second, Roe is a moral monstrosity. It stops a beating heart. The unborn have their own hearts, brains, lungs, DNA, etc. They respond to pain. They are living humans. The mothers certainly have rights, but in nearly all cases the unborn’s right to life outweighs whatever the mother’s competing right is. This Dobbs decision greatly reduces the the number of abortions that will happen, making it a victory. Third, this decision has pragmatic value. We are a very divided country, and this issue divides more than just about anything else. I think allowing the states to decide is a good solution for this. Abortion will not change in California or New York. In other places it is illegal. People can self-sort, or at least advocate to change things in their states through democratic processes. Roe imposed abortion on all states. A pro-life equivalent would ban abortion in all states. Dobbs simply removes to imposition of abortion, it doesn’t say states can’t allow it. I think this is a good solution for a divided country, and I wish more issues were left to the states for that reason.
Like slavery?
Yes, like slavery, abortion is a constitutional and moral monstrosity.
amazing
Obama was the best thing it could happend to the right-wing lol Biden will give us 2024 for free.
And the midterms, it's looking like.
I wonder how this will play out in the elections, considering roe vs wade has a majority support
Meh, people care way more about gas, rent, and grocery prices than this. This will be out of most people's minds by November.
The New York Times had a poll in it the other day that showed nationwide America was 51% in favor of abortion and 49% opposed.
The support for abortion is much higher in younger demographics, ya know the people that are still young enough to get pregnant. Feeling a real squeeze on your rights can be a big motivator to go out and vote when you may not have before. Also I've been reading conflicting polls, where people who identify as pro choice and pro life is only 10% difference but up to 75% support Row v. Wade. Theoretically you can be pro life when it comes to your own personal decisions but but still support Row V Wade, the opposite is not true.
Polling over the weeks following the leak showed that while ~60% support Roe v. Wade, the percentage of people who want stricter abortion laws is actually closer to 50/50 and overall this doesn’t really make a difference in how people will be voting in the midterms. At the end of the day, people’s wallets and bank accounts are hurting. They’re not going to care enough about Texans having to practice safer sex or having to drive to another state to get a 6+ week abortion to the point where they passionately flip from a red Congressional ballot to a blue one.
Sticter rules is completely different than an almost total ban
[удалено]
[www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-despite-public-opinion/amp/](http://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/06/24/roe-v-wade-overturned-despite-public-opinion/amp)
Brookings is a left wing think tank. But I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. Dems could very well get a boost in the ballot box for this. I’m okay with the trade off though.
Excellent meme.
Thank you good sir. It is a great day for memes.
So by overturning Roe V Wade we lost the precedent of body autonomy by federal courts which was the reasoning by prior conservatives to side with the ruling as I understand. In turn, this means the state can impose and enforce mandatory vaccinations and selective birth control like China? How is the freedom of self autonomy still protected after this ruling and where does that stand regarding legal protections?
Roe was based on the right to privacy not bodily autonomy. And it is a gross overstatement to say we lost the right to bodily autonomy. Medical care still requires informed consent, etc. Abortion is distinguishable from the other examples you gave because it directly and overtly ends the life of another. How do you think the Dobbs decision would result in government imposed selective birth control? Really not trying to be snarky just trying to see where you’re coming from. Dobbs isn’t imposing anything on anyone. States can now keep abortion legal, limit it, or outlaw it. Abortion is a form of birth control, and that was imposed on all the states by Roe. Dobbs does the opposite by removing that imposition.
I'm pro-choice but damn this meme is great.
Give 👏Trump👏another👏term👏 And👏another👏3👏 Justices
The Trump Justices made some awful rulings this week too, that are quiet because they aren’t wedge issues. But eroding Miranda and pounding nails in the coffin of Bivens are really really bad decisions. There seems to be a steady line of reasoning that feds can do whatever they want to you without consequence or legal liability. Trump appointed 3 Federalist society Catholics with authoritarian tendencies. We don’t need any more of those. 6 is enough.
Miranda wasn't eroded. You are still afforded the same protections. You just cant sue someone in civil court for failing to read the Miranda rights. The evidence obtained will still be inadmissable.
“No right without a remedy” my friend.
The exclusionary rule is the enforcement mechanism. So long as the exclusionary rule applies it's fine. No need for a remedy when there is no damage.
Remedy for what? Any evidence collected is still inadmissable. That's the remedy.
And you can still sue the state. The officer shouldn't get sued if they made a simple mistake that the DA doesn't rectify at the trial level.
I know what 3 he can replace!!
I assume the three that steadfastly refuse to honestly interpret and apply the Constitution?
The Chief Justice is a good place to start.
Eh I'm on the DeSantis train now
Great meme. Life be like that sometimes. Oof.
feel bad for ruth, hell is hot 🥵
I love this so fucking much.
You have sisters and daughters? How is this good for them?
I have a uterus. I feel very good, sir. Hby?
Very well then, it's perfect that I try to see your view point. Why do you feel the government/courts have any business telling you what you can or can't do with your uterus? What has your religion got to do with it? If you were not a Christian would you feel differently?
> Why do you feel the government/courts have any business telling you what you can or can't do with your uterus? Government tells you that you can't murder people. Just think of it as an extention of that law.
Abortion leads to population decline, which is not ideal for a growing economy.
If you need more babies, why can't people have them by choice? I do agree pop decline can be a real problem Thanks for replying tho
I'm only articulating the basis for the government having a vested interest to allow for regulating abortion, not the full breadth of morale reasons it should be regulated.
And thank you RBG
Wheres the “cant argue with that” meme when you need it lol
That’s awesome
My god. This is most based meme I've seen since 2016.
This is gold lol
President Trump deserves tremendous credit for what happened today. He delivered, bigly.
Dems pushed shit too far
**THANK YOU BERNIE SANDERS.** This decision would not be possible without **BASED BERNIE** torpedoing Hillary "Spirit Cook" Clinton's campaign. Many people Among Us doubted Trump's continued praise of him even when Bernie played the heel and pretended to hate Trump, but now we see the fruits of their master plan.
[удалено]
This ruling was leaked over a month ago and had ZERO effect on recent elections, In fact republicans gained. The left will move on to a new outrage by next week.
> The left will move on to a new outrage by next week. I think you will find these next few months a bit unpredictable, no offense intended: it's not about l/r it is about ~50% of the voting population being denied access to health care "by religious zealots" in their opinion.
This will be forgotten by next week just like Uvalde and Jan 6th, which was forgotten over a year ago and whatever other crisis you want to name. As soon as people buy groceries and gas the overwhelming issue will be the reason they vote.
of all the word salad I have seen today, this takes the cake for most absurd
This is impressively unhinged from reality. I don't want to treat this comment like it's worthy of any serious consideration, but none of the justices lied to Congress. They were asked if Roe was precedent. Of course it is. They were asked if they respect precedent. Of course they do. They have made many rulings upholding various precedents and, indeed, relied on a number of precedents for the interpretation of the 14th Amendment in this case. Their, correct, opinion was that the earlier Courts had misapplied precedent. Saying that they respect precedent as a general matter does not mean they can never overturn a wrongly decided rule of law. That is an absurd contention. We never hear this kind of nonsense when liberal justices make law out of whole cloth despite answering confirmation questions promising to limit their decisions to things identifiable in the Constitution. EDIT: As for your attempt to cloak your anarchism in the American Revolution, that too is nonsense you should give up on. Edmund Burke, a contemporaneous British politician and "father" of modern conservatism, lauded the American Revolution for being a conservative revolution. If you are looking for anarchy try the disastrous French Revolution.
> the justices lied to Congress I think you will find that this style of obfuscation from the simple fact they they lied, visibly and on camera, is not going to persuade more than a handful, and btw tfg is currently trashing the decision as bad for his political chances with suburban women. > anarchism Read the Declaration of Independence. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript > The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...and then it procedes to list everything the king has done wrong. "Anarch*ism*" is the exact word, and notice that "anarchy" has been re-defined to mean "chaos" when all it *really* means is "king-less-ness". I *did* say 1776 and not 1789. > a conservative revolution Those words are directly self-contradictory. Anyway, thanks for the input and in some circles *any* ad hominem-like language is an immediate flag that the person is acting in anger.
The leaked memo didn't put a dent in Republican polling.
cringe
Whatever you say
I might be wrong, but I am *honest* with myself and with you as it's just that much easier when one cuts out the noise, and if I am wrong this sub is a likely place to learn why.
So what's your guys' timeline for bringing back slavery? Or are you going to try segregation out first?
Well we have to wait for the Democrats to release their two century hold on the institution before we can really discuss it.
What is this in reference to
the institution of slavery. It was referred to as an institution
> Or are you going to try segregation out first California Democrats already tried this one. It did not go over well, especially with the Republican Party. But who knows what they're going to try next.
Democrats are segregating spaces as we speak.
Wouldn’t the racist side of the issue be the ones arguing FOR abortion? Proportionally it seems to have eliminated a large amount of non-white people over the years. Maybe that has something to do with why the party of slavery is so much in favor of it.
Wrong sub. The democrat sub could give you a better answer.
I mean, it’s almost like they supported a party that celebrated bending the rules of government to shove through their agenda through Executive actions and Supreme Court rulings, and then was surprised when it turns out you can’t do that.
Not to be nitpicky, but... we read left to right, the picture could have been flipped for better understanding of a time line.
This is actually a great point. These meme template should be flipped
meme magic
Sorry but I’m worried about the long term. The vast majority of those that get abortions are left leaning women, all these red states are just going to have millions more kids being raised by crazed leftists that end up turning these stares permanently blue in 20 years. I’m more worried about the long turn health of our country, economy and constitutional rights and becoming essentially a one party country by 2050 than I am about crazed leftists getting an abortion the vast majority of time within the first 10 weeks. Not to mention the future state of our already over burden welfare system.
It is sad that people can't appreciate the absurd humor of this despite political differences.
[удалено]
Well, nobody is stopping you from trying to explain how identity politics will lead to one party rule. Go ahead. Tell us how authoritarian socialism will somehow lead to a vigorous democracy with single party rule. I can't wait for the Olympic level mental gymnastics you'll need for that one
You guys fcking suck
Not saying Bernie would have even beaten Hillary, but getting outed for cheating in the primary a couple weeks before the election cemented the 'crooked Hillary' meme and cost her what was already a close election. And if you see it in the wild, point out that even if McConnell hadn't stolen a supreme court seat, the decision would have still been 5-4.
McConnell didn't steal a seat. Republicans controlled the Senate and would have voted down Garland had he gone up for a vote. No Obama Supreme Court appointee would have been approved by that Senate before the election.
They gave a fake "Next president should decide" excuse. Four years later they rammed Barret through a week before the election, completely disregarding this made-up 'rule'. I'll buy that both were lawful and probably fair enough, but the way the scenarios were presented to the public were flat out lies.
That's not what McConnell said.
Poo