Politics 2022

[Rusty Edge]

I guess it's time for a new thread now that we're halfway through the Calander year.

I looked up the old thread because while I claimed there that the GOP doesn't stand for anything anymore, that they were only oppositional, I feel I was wrong.

Today's GOP is still pro-capital punishment and pro-military style weapons (semi-automatics rifles and pistols with detachable magazines and barrel cooling features.)  They may think they are pro-life, but they are really more anti-abortion and anti-vaccine.

[Geo]

I definitely can't link a pro-life point of view with an anti-vaacine one.
To me that just sound like riding on a popular opinion platform.

[Elok]

The whole "not pro-life" thing isn't terribly meaningful.  Pro-life refers specifically to one side of the abortion debate and nobody ever claimed that the label, by itself, says anything outside the context of abortion.  Compare the term "pro-choice" and ask how many of the people who employ it support positions of maximum individual freedom and autonomy outside the context of abortion.  Do they support an individual's choice to own a firearm?  School choice?  A merchant or artisan's choice not to provide services for gay weddings?  Maximal deregulation of all industries?  In most cases, probably not, and they have reasons for all those stances, and they all fit together into a more or less coherent worldview, but just saying, "Aha!  You support paternalism in this or that respect, so you're not really in favor of 'choice' at all!" will earn you some rolled eyes and possibly a rude gesture.

[Rusty Edge]

The whole "not pro-life" thing isn't terribly meaningful.  Pro-life refers specifically to one side of the abortion debate and nobody ever claimed that the label, by itself, says anything outside the context of abortion.  Compare the term "pro-choice" and ask how many of the people who employ it support positions of maximum individual freedom and autonomy outside the context of abortion.  Do they support an individual's choice to own a firearm?  School choice?  A merchant or artisan's choice not to provide services for gay weddings?  Maximal deregulation of all industries?  In most cases, probably not, and they have reasons for all those stances, and they all fit together into a more or less coherent worldview, but just saying, "Aha!  You support paternalism in this or that respect, so you're not really in favor of 'choice' at all!" will earn you some rolled eyes and possibly a rude gesture.

Turnabout is fair, and I accept your point that I'm increasing isolated politically.

[Geo]

You're goin' to be an Independent, Rusty? 

[Geo]

So, with Roe vs Wade overturned in the USA, and a number of States intending to make practicing and/or participating in abortion a criminal act, I wonder what it meant for those people crossing State borders into those that may make their law such.
For instance, a medical practionioner of an abortion clinic in California goin' vacationing in Missouri. Could such a person then be arrested, tried, and convicted for actions done in another State?

[Elok]

They could try, but it wouldn't stick.  State laws don't have jurisdiction outside their own borders.  Pretty sure that's firmly established.

[Trenacker]

Modern conservatism is a desperate rear-guard action to preserve the dignity of its members. It is entirely about protecting them from the buffet of uncertainty and discomfort. Suspicious of vaccines because you have been taught to view experts as condescending and unprincipled? You shouldn’t have to take them. Distressed by the idea that you might have to change long-standing assumptions about personhood? The law can force LGBTQ+ persons back out of sight. Furious that some corporations disagree with you? We’ll use the power of government to punish them. Alarmed that the new narratives about social justice make your unreflective jingoism seem ignorant at best? We’ll label it Communism and purge it from our schools. Speaking of which, are you jealous of competition with teachers over influence over your kids? We’ll help you drastically limit what is said in the classroom.

Fox News carefully curates the information its viewers receive to avoid troublesome truths that might prompt self-reflection, which is emotionally uncomfortable. Conservative politicians rarely govern these days. Instead, they perform acts of social validation, glorifying the in-group and excoriating the out-groups. To the uninitiated, this looks and sounds like buffoonery, but conservatives are just grateful to be out of the firing line and assured they needn’t change a single thing. That’s the most powerful act of validation that can occur between two people: reassuring someone that they are perfect just as they are. And [Sleezebag] was uniquely willing to do that in a way his predecessors weren’t. John McCain was prepared to call out the fringe. Even figures like Ted Cruz articulated what they thought was an intellectual, values-based conservatism that, in theory, demanded some consistency from its adherents. Donald [Sleezebag] realized that karaoke is less about knowing lyrics and more about engaging the crowd, even with nonsense.

The Pro-Life movement is about feeling. That dopamine hit you get when you think you’ve done something really meaningful. Saved the life of a child. Sent a deserved moral signal to people with inferior self-discipline. The people who support abortion restrictions focus on healthy children only. Pro-Life attitudes correlate strongly with age. These are people who had children already and can’t have them any longer—i.e., people who won’t be confronted by the medical consequences of their own position. For them, Pro-Life advocacy is an easy dunk, a no-cost way to reassure themselves they are good people. It’s right there in the name. Who doesn’t believe in life? The logical progression for the Pro-Life Movement is to ban all non-procreative sexual activity outside the traditional marriage contract because it destroys “the potential for life,” something I’m not sure most of Pro-Life America has caught onto yet.

Brett Kavanaugh is on-record with his latest concurrence arguing that states cannot constitutionally prevent people going to abortion havens. He’s either lying or the point is moot. As soon as November, a Republican Congress will move to outlaw abortion nationally. The recent celebration of the supposed solution of federalizing abortion is purely a fig leaf. This is one of those “all or nothing” propositions. The Pro-Life position isn’t fungible. Either you believe abortion is murder, or you don’t. Most Americans believe that, too. Ask the Average Joe when happened on Friday and they’ll tell you, “They overturned Roe v Wade,” which refers to the right to abortion.

The GOP is moving beyond the traditional understanding of how to enforce state law. Texas recently hit upon the idea of enlisting civil law to replace state power where lawsuits would result. Several states, including Missouri, are already formulating laws to punish people who use abortion havens in other states. And the dominant thinking on the Supreme Court is clearly that abortion is murder, which Scalia more or less said outright when he insisted that abortion is a unique issue involving the potential for life.

[Geo]

They could try, but it wouldn't stick.  State laws don't have jurisdiction outside their own borders.  Pretty sure that's firmly established.

If that's the case, I wonder how a State Government implementing such laws thinks how it can prosecute women (and their 'assistants') who would go 'clinic-shopping' outside their own state.

[Geo]

.

[Trenacker]

They could try, but it wouldn't stick.  State laws don't have jurisdiction outside their own borders.  Pretty sure that's firmly established.

If that's the case, I wonder how a State Government implementing such laws thinks how it can prosecute women (and their 'assistants') who would go 'clinic-shopping' outside their own state.

I think, at first, the focus would be on the medical professionals providing abortion care. Taking a shot in the dark, in terms of "remedies" that Pro-Life states could apply, I'd guess they'd go after things like admitting privileges, licensure, and reciprocity. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, you get warrants enforceable within that state exclusively, or by sympathetic law enforcement in other states. Can you imagine what conservative sheriffs might do in liberal states?

On the civil side of the spectrum, lawsuits are increasingly the tool of choice. Texas found a way to privatize enforcement of morality laws with their recent abortion ban, and I fear this Supreme Court would uphold it.

But I do think, eventually, that the enforcement will fall on women, because at some point, the people who prioritize the unborn above all else are going to feel like they're losing the battle, and that will cause them to accept sterner measures. Probably, to avoid the appearance of a police state, they will try to punish rather than prevent.

[Rusty Edge]

You're goin' to be an Independent, Rusty? 

Maybe I mostly have been all of my voting life without realizing it. I've never voted, or contributed $ to re-elect a president. I've been disillusioned with the number of Libertarians who cheered [Sleezebag]'s chaos and turned a blind eye to his authoritarianism. Meanwhile they were demanding ideological perfection from their own candidates.

Regardless, I've started labeling myself as an independent in surveys and polls this year.

[Geo]

You're goin' to be an Independent, Rusty? 

I've never voted, or contributed $ to re-elect a president.

That's (predominantly) out of the citizens' hands here. IIRC, political parties elected in Parliament receive donations from the State respective to the percentage of votes they received in the last ballot. Private citizen gifts are of course possible, but personally I never saw the point of that.

Regardless, I've started labeling myself as an independent in surveys and polls this year.

Any particular reason you wish to participate in such surveys and polls?
My 'political color' isn't something I entrust to such semi-anonymous entities.

[Buster's Uncle]

I would mention that I don't pay attention to the news about the Nazi Wednesday hearings - because the Pig didn't spend that night in custody over just what I saw on TV, AT LEAST guilty-as-hell of inciting a riot.  I STAY in a rage, if I think about it, that no public official who betrayed their trust that day is even indited.  It's fine that the thugs who carried it out are slowly being processed into prison, where they most certainly belong, but probably over a hundred elected-and-otherwise public officials are in no serious danger of ever being arrested, at least for that.  That's who Democracy, the Constitution and the American Way need to see punished a year ago.

[Geo]

Is there a law in the US that an official in office can't be prosecuted as long as he stays in office?
Because I reckon a number of those elected officials are still in Congress or Senate or whatever.