Supreme Court decisions on abortion and guns could shake up 2022 election

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  3 weeks ago  •  37 comments

By:   Sahil Kapur (MSN)

Supreme Court decisions on abortion and guns could shake up 2022 election
Democrats say gutting Roe v. Wade and rejecting gun limits would awaken their base, which tends to snooze during midterm races when they have the White House.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



WASHINGTON — The most conservative Supreme Court in nearly a century could deliver two major decisions on abortion and gun rights that pack a political punch just months before next year's elections.

© Provided by NBC News

Democrats are bracing for the court's 6-3 conservative majority to deliver potentially blockbuster defeats but are already preparing to try to turn the losses into victories at the ballot box. Democrats are betting on polling trends that show Americans support Roe v. Wade and tougher gun laws, especially in the vital and fluid suburbs.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, the campaign chair tasked with defending Democrats' House majority, said Republicans "may live to regret it" if the Supreme Court majority they built reverses Roe.

"Anybody who understands how important reproductive freedom is would be outraged by overturning 50 years of settled law. It would be terrible for the country. And I think there would be a price to pay," the New York Democrat told NBC News. "People who contribute to that should be held accountable."

Historical trends favor Republicans in the battle for the House and Senate in the 2022 elections. The last two presidents suffered heavy losses for their party in the first midterm election. Democrats, who rely on a base of younger and nonwhite voters, tend to see sharper drop-offs in turnout when they control the White House.

"Turnout, turnout, turnout!" said Tyler Law, a former aide to the House Democrats' campaign arm in 2018.

"If you look back at past midterms where Democrats took an a-- whooping, it was largely because of huge drops in Democratic turnout," he said. "Two massive decisions from the Supreme Court will up the stakes of the election and fight against any voter apathy that could hurt our side."

For decades, abortion has been a political win-win for Republicans, galvanizing their base while lulling supporters of legal abortion into relative complacency, due to a perceived unlikelihood of losing the right. Guns were once a winning issue for the GOP, but the rising frequency of mass shootings over the last decade has moved voters in favor of stricter laws, surveys show.

Mike Davis, a conservative strategist who has worked on Supreme Court nominations at the highest levels of the GOP, said he'd welcome a battle over the courts in the midterm election.

"As Hillary Clinton in 2016 and four former Senate Democrats in 2018 learned the hard way, focusing on the Supreme Court is a winning issue for Republicans," Davis said, adding that it "unites and motivates conservatives" and "wins over independents."

'A problem for Republicans'


In 2018, a heated fight over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh fired up conservatives who believed he was mistreated over decades-old allegations of sexual misconduct. In 2020, one week before the election, Republicans confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg, enabling conservative legal victories where they once appeared unlikely.

"The American people are pro-choice and understand how important reproductive freedom is," said Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., the second-highest-ranking woman in House leadership. "The American people want to reduce gun violence and make a difference. And so we will see what happens with the Supreme Court. But I think if they were to rule against the will of the American people on those two fundamental issues, that is going to be a problem for Republicans in the fall of 2022."

One case is about the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, going to the heart of Roe v. Wade and its subsequent precedents. In the gun case, the court will decide whether the Second Amendment provides a right to carry a handgun outside the home. The justices will hear both this fall, with decisions expected by the end of June 2022.

The cases come as President Joe Biden faces a restive progressive flank that is pushing to add four seats to the Supreme Court in response to scorched-earth Republican tactics to cement a conservative majority. In response, he has created a commission with a broad ideological range of voices to study the structure of the court and recommend changes.

One Republican Senate campaign aide predicted that the rulings on guns and abortion would elevate the voices on the left calling for expanding the Supreme Court, saying it would enable Republican candidates to run against "court packing," which is unpopular.

Other conservatives downplay the political impact of the Supreme Court cases, suggesting that the outcomes are uncertain and that the justices may take incremental steps with consequences unlikely to be felt broadly or quickly by voters.

"It's difficult to look into the future and predict how the court might rule on either issue, let alone what the political reaction would be," said Dan Eberhart, a major Republican donor and oil-and-gas executive. "I have a hard time believing the court will go so far as overturning Roe v. Wade, and even if they do, that doesn't mean abortions would become illegal overnight."

"Both sides are sure to use these issues to mobilize their base and increase turnout," he said. "Expect lots of loud, obnoxious, half-truthful campaign ads and fundraising appeals."


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    3 weeks ago
"If you look back at past midterms where Democrats took an a-- whooping, it was largely because of huge drops in Democratic turnout," he said. "Two massive decisions from the Supreme Court will up the stakes of the election and fight against any voter apathy that could hurt our side."

Looks like the Democrats already know what the decisions will be. 

"The American people are pro-choice and understand how important reproductive freedom is," said Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., the second-highest-ranking woman in House leadership. "The American people want to reduce gun violence and make a difference. And so we will see what happens with the Supreme Court. But I think if they were to rule against the will of the American people on those two fundamental issues, that is going to be a problem for Republicans in the fall of 2022."

I am not sure, based on what the Congresswoman stated, that she knows how the Court operates and how cases are decided.  Sounds like she wants a "popular" decision instead of a legal decision. The will of the people doesn't factor into decisions.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1    3 weeks ago

I know that overturning Roe v Wade would be a serious problem for conservatives. Even my extremely catholic aunt ( she literally drags my uncle to church even though she knows he doesn't believe) told me that they need to leave that alone and that "any judge who thinks they can tell me what I HAVE to do with my womb can go fuck themselves". 

I think this is a massive landmine for conservatives and they may regret it. Women, of all political stripes, are not going to take kindly to the idea that if they are pregnant they MUST have the baby. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1    3 weeks ago

Sounds like you think the case has already been decided, too.

Liberal progressives fear-monger just about every time an abortion case comes before the Court, declaring that the conservatives on the Court will strike Roe down. 

And they keep on being wrong every time.

I can not see anything that would lead a reasonable adult to believe that Roe will be overturned. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1    3 weeks ago
I know that overturning Roe v Wade would be a serious problem for conservatives.

It would be a serious problem for many. Especially women.

told me that they need to leave that alone

Agreed. Current abortion laws and restrictions are a reasonable and adequate compromise between the 2 sides of the debate.

"any judge who thinks they can tell me what I HAVE to do with my womb can go fuck themselves". 

The same can be said of anyone who thinks that or supports increasingly restrictive abortion laws.

Women, of all political stripes, are not going to take kindly to the idea that if they are pregnant they MUST have the baby. 

The sad part is, some women probably support that idea.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
1.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1    3 weeks ago
ing Roe v Wade would be a serious problem for conservatives. Even my extremely catholic aunt ( she literally drags my uncle to church even though she knows he doesn't believe) told me that they need to leave that alone and that "any judge who thinks they can tell me what I HAVE to do with my womb can go fuck themselves". 

I don't think your aunt understands Roe V Wade very well. If Roe is overturned, Judges will be taken out of the equation. If she wants to live in a state with unlimited, free  abortions that's cool.  Just let the people decide.   

As Kevin Willamson wrote, "Black ceremonial robes notwithstanding, the Supreme Court is not supposed to function as an Iranian-style guardian council keeping the state and society within certain moral guardrails. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law — which is written down for a reason"  It's Unamerian for unelected justices to invent rights because it's fits their moral vision.  Let California live like Californians want to and Utahan  live like they want to.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

I am 50/50 on it. I want to believe that the justices will observe established (multiple times) precedent, and avoid the societal backlash that would occur if they decided women are little more than baby makers. But since we have so few rulings to go by on the newer justices... it is hard to say where the winds blow. Can only go fof their backgrounds.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
I am 50/50 on it. I want to believe that the justices will observe established (multiple times) precedent, and avoid the societal backlash that would occur if they decided women are little more than baby makers

Given how polarizing the abortion issue is, there will probably be some kind of backlash no matter how it's decided. But yes, hopefully they do respect previous precedents, especially since there is no good argument as to why Roe should be overturned or abortion made unnecessarily restrictive or illegal.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.6  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

We both know that you vastly oversimplified the decision. Come on Sean, we can have an honest conversation. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
1.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
he sad part is, some women probably support that idea.

Of course they do. Do you think Biology dictates how woman think?  I hate to break it you., but women have agency too.

There's little difference between men and women on abortion 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.7    3 weeks ago
Of course they do. Do you think Biology dictates how woman think?  I hate to break it you., but women have agency too.

The issue is that others may want to remove that "agency" from women.

There's little difference between men and women on abortion 

Only pro-choice or ant-choice. I'd say that difference is a polar opposite.

Roe took the question away from the states. If it's overturned, abortion would be legal in most states.  

For good reason too! Some states were denying women autonomy over their bodies and choices. Cleary such laws were unconstitutional.

What do you think will happen if its' overturned? A nationwide ban on abortion? 

Some states will no doubt impose some type of ban, including extreme restrictions. That's a problem.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
1.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.6    3 weeks ago
e both know that you vastly oversimplified the decision. Come on Sean, we can have an honest conversation

No, I'm not.  Roe took the question away from the states. If it's overturned, abortion would be legal in many states because they've codified Roe or similar abortion rules.  Even if Mississippi wins this case, abortion would still be legal there in the first trimester, and Mississippi would have abortion laws  similar to most European countries.  And nothing would change in NY, California etc...

What do you think will happen if its' overturned? A nationwide ban on abortion? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.4    3 weeks ago
But since we have so few rulings to go by on the newer justices... it is hard to say where the winds blow. Can only go fof their backgrounds.

Ok, so what in any of the SCOTUS Justices' backgrounds leads anyone to believe they will overturn Roe, when no SCOTUS decision has ever done that?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
Ok, so what in any of the SCOTUS Justices' backgrounds leads anyone to believe they will overturn Roe, when no SCOTUS decision has ever done that?

The implications go further than that. Overturning Roe would be tantamount to forcibly and unduly removing an established right. There has never been a precedent in the history of the SCOTUS where rights are removed once granted or acknowledged.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
1.1.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.8    3 weeks ago
Only pro-choice or ant-choice. I'd say that difference is a polar opposite.

How do you not understand this? There isn't much a gender gap on abortion. Men and women differ on the economy or the military much more then they do on abortion. 

. Cleary such laws were unconstitutional.

When you can only offer conclusions.... The Constitution is silent on abortion. Anyone who can read understands that.  

Some states will no doubt impose some type of ban, including extreme restrictions. That's a problem.

Then don't live there. If taking innocent human life is that important to you, move somewhere where it's legal.  Get the state  legislature to make them free and give out sandwiches out after the procedure. That's your right as an American. Forcing your values upon others through unelected justices making things up, is not.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.13  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    3 weeks ago
Ok, so what in any of the SCOTUS Justices' backgrounds leads anyone to believe they will overturn Roe

The professed religious beliefs of Kavanaugh and Barrett.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.12    3 weeks ago
How do you not understand this? There isn't much a gender gap on abortion. Men and women differ on the economy or the military much more then they do on abortion. 

Irrelevant. People are either pro-choice or pro-life, with some being both.

When you can only offer conclusions.... The Constitution is silent on abortion. Anyone who can read understands that.  

The SCOTUS disagreed with that. Anyone who reads SCOTUS rulings and explanations understands that!

Then don't live there.

What an ignorant statement. Moving from state to state is not that easy. Especially if a woman does not have the economic means.

If taking innocent human life is that important to you, move somewhere where it's legal. 

Spare me the emotional based tripe! Right now, it's legal in all states, as it should be!

Forcing your values upon others through unelected justices making things up, is not.  

What "values" am I forcing on anyone? I'm not telling anyone they must or must not have an abortion, unlike some states or anti-abortion proponents who are clearly trying to force their "values" onto others. Don't like abortion? Then don't have one. It's that simple!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.15  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.11    3 weeks ago

I was responding directly to what he wrote.

I believe that SCOTUS will uphold Roe.

Never stated differently.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.16  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.13    3 weeks ago

Other Justices also have religious beliefs.

What rulings have they made that leads anyone to think they will overturn Roe?

Surely there must be something other than "beliefs" to lead one to think they will abandon their judicial principles.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    3 weeks ago
Never stated differently.

I never claimed that you did.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.18  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    3 weeks ago

All we have to go on is what they have said and how they voted. Based upon those things there is not a lot of confidence they will not vote to make women brood mares again. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.19  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.17    3 weeks ago
And I responded to your replies to me. 

Nope. I responded to you only AFTER you made a comment to me. Look at the posts again. My first comment to you is on post #1.1.15. Your first comment to me is post #1.1.11.

 I know this for a fact because I made it a point to not speak to you unless spoken to first.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.20  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.18    3 weeks ago

That always happens---fearmongering as I stated above.

Not a thing to do with past decisions or anything, just personal crap.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.21  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.20    3 weeks ago

We agree, but when it comes to them all we have to go on in a lot of cases is personal crap. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.22  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.18    3 weeks ago

Got any quotes from either saying they will overturn Roe?

How they voted on what?

And unless it is on a case, how they vote is irrelevant. They are SCOTUS Justices, not political hacks.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.19    3 weeks ago

I realized that after and made the necessary correction.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.25  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.22    3 weeks ago

Nope, but christians gonna christian.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.26  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.25    3 weeks ago

6 of the 9 Justices are Catholic. 3 are Jewish.

What do you think the liberal Christian is going to do?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.27  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.26    3 weeks ago

Awesome, all members of the most bat shit religions to ever plague humanity. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.27    3 weeks ago

Evading the question?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.29  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    3 weeks ago

Not at all, merely pointing out that they are all members of the worst religion(s) humanity has ever come up with and so I expect the worst. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.30  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.27    3 weeks ago
Awesome, all members of the most bat shit religions to ever plague humanity. 
Nope, but christians gonna christian.
We agree, but when it comes to them all we have to go on in a lot of cases is personal crap. 
All we have to go on is what they have said and how they voted. Based upon those things there is not a lot of confidence they will not vote to make women brood mares again. The professed religious beliefs of Kavanaugh and Barrett.

Each of the above statements is exactly what I am talking about when I say fearmongering.

No facts to speak of, no judicial record review, no talk of any of the briefs they have written, no mention of any decisions they wrote, majority or minority.

Fearmongering based on personal crap projected upon SCOTUS by people who should know better.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.31  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.29    3 weeks ago
Not at all,

I don't see an answer there.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Masters Guide
1.1.32  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.31    3 weeks ago

Because there isn't a definite answer [deleted] This discussion is purely opinion and speculation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.33  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.32    3 weeks ago
This discussion is purely opinion and speculation.

Yes, that's right, and why I asked what you thought the liberal Christian Justice was going to do.

And I wouldn't have even asked that had you not brought it up to begin with.

 
 
 
charger 383
PhD Quiet
2  charger 383    3 weeks ago

I am very pro gun rights and pro abortion rights.  Anyone who wants an abortion should get one at no cost and with no questions at any time and anyone eligible to vote should be able to buy the guns of their choice and parents or guardians should control guns for minors to go hunting. practice or participate in shooting spots

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @2    3 weeks ago

I agree with you, except I would make it where the first two abortions paid for by taxpayers were the last ones the woman would ever get. Heck, I would go as far as forcing vasectomies on deadbeat dads.

 
 
 
charger 383
PhD Quiet
2.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    3 weeks ago

I'm on board with that

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




shona1
Gazoo


35 visitors