Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Republicans: Leave it to the states!

States: OK, we like safe, legal access to abortion with reasonable accommodations.

Republicans: No! Not like that! We need a federal ban!

My guess? They are trying to create a new political wedge issue, using the promise of a federal ban. They don't intend to pass it but have to make a show to attract supporters.

Hi James:

Graham's primary failure was not pitching any proposed bill as the "Federal Guaranteed Access to Abortion Act."  Sarcasm intended of course, but any chance of reasonable debate at the federal level is lost with the ubiquitous framing of a proposal that permits unrestricted abortion in the 1st trimester and limited abortion, "for rape, incest and pregnancies that threaten maternal health" after that as a "ban."

https://www.ft.com/content/eeecf636-adb4-424a-9cc7-5609af86a7bc

Have you all been following Ukraine's counter offensive?  NPR covered it extensively yesterday with many interviews of military experts on the ground.  This is a thrilling development that certainly gives Ukraine the momentum and let's pray has flipped the trajectory of the war.   

Jim

Originally Posted by Brian McFarland

It's hard to believe how inept the Russian military has turned out to be, and how inferior their equipment is. Ukraine's success in definitely a nod to the superiority of Western arms - they couldn't have done it without all of those donated arms.

After these spectacular failures, I suspect Putin's days are numbered.

Let's hope so.  The world could really use some good news.  Europe is girding for a horrible winter of unaffordable energy.  Next year could be worse if the war goes on, because Europe generally goes into this winter with healthy energy reserves, but no one knows what next year will look like.  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"the "ban," "includes exceptions for rape, incest and pregnancies that threaten maternal health."  So, assuming that is correct, 2nd trimester abortions would be OK in instances of maternal health.  Not just the life of the mother, but maternal health.  So at first glance, this statute is not unlike codifying Roe."

Physicians would be shaking their heads in disbelief upon reading the above. As it is, they already have to contact their lawyers in states with similar anti-abortion laws in order to determine if their case for "maternal health" will withstand criminal/civil liabilities. That's crazy and the end-result is the patient has to leave the state for an abortion. So much for your idea that it's not really a ban...

2nd Trimester abortions are already pretty rare.  I think the physicians and regulators can figure it out.  FWIW, in the opinion of most people, other than activists and legislators in the deepest of blue states, 3rd trimester abortions should be banned, in the true sense of the word "banned."

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I think the problem is Jim, that for many of us, the conservatives have lost the right to now frame the debate as we need laws at the federal level, after emphasizing they wanted to overturn Roe and "send it back to the states."

Maybe Graham is trying to mitigate the political liability that GOP has created for itself in the midterms regarding the overturning of Roe? It remains a highly unpopular SCOTUS decision even among Republicans. So, maybe he's saying, "Look here, we have a plan to protect abortion rights!" Who knows? Of this I'm sure though, he has no plan to actually try to pass this law, and even if he did, it's highly unlikely he could get the support he needs, especially before the midterms. The GOP is exactly like the dog that caught the car on this one.

I reckon you are right, James.  Any federal legislation has to be originated by Democrats.  They are not going to do so, and the Rs would oppose it reflexively, so we have this issue remaining at the states for the foreseeable future.  Unless the Court flips in a few years. 

On NPR the other day I heard of a lower court's temporary injunction of one state's new abortion law.  I forget most of the details, but I recall that the injunction was argued on equal protection grounds.  i.e. women are being denied equal protection of many laws if forced to carry a pregnancy to term.  There are counter arguments of course, many of them, and this is just a preliminary injunction at a lower court, but it is conceivable that a different Supreme Court would re-Roe the country based upon the equal protection clause.

Personally, I think that people will become comfortable with this issue being decided by the states, and I also think that the state laws will tend toward compromise since the Rs are not generally politically suicidal.  We will see if this actually is Roe-vember.  As usual, I think the economy controls.   Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Maybe Graham is trying to mitigate the political liability that GOP has created for itself in the midterms regarding the overturning of Roe? 

Hi James:

You got me thinking...  My knee jerk reaction was that the GOP did not create this liability, the Court did.  Unlike others I do not think the Court was motivated by base R politics in overturning Roe.  On the contrary, I think the Court was exercising proper jurisprudence as they have seen it their entire careers.  They corrected a wrong decision from 50 years ago, without being swayed by the political benefits or consequences.  Rod probably just barfed, but so it goes.  At least the ghost of RBG agrees with me.  

But

1.  Trump ran on the platform of appointing originalist judges who would be likely to see Roe as judicial overreach.  This is one area where he had broad R support.  It probably was the one issue that carried him over Clinton in some of the closest states.  

2.  Trump implausibly got to appoint 3 judges, and in this instance he lived up to his campaign promise.  

3.  I doubt any R's said at the time, "Hey Donald, maybe you ought to appoint a moderate or two, just so that Roe does not get overturned and cause us R's to face an enormous backlash..."  

So, I guess your stance that the GOP created this problem is correct after all.  If it is a problem....  I remain unconvinced of a GOP face plant this Roe-vember!

Jim 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Better yet, is there any Democrat on the forum who even has the stones to respond to this idiocy that is part of the Democrat Progressive Left?

I doubt it.  

The real question Richard is whether there is anyone on the forum who desires to engage with you when you post such a hostile and slanted opening post?  In other words, who really wants to waste time that badly?  

FWIW I think a "no cash bail" plan is a bad idea.  On the other hand, I know that existing cash bail systems are strongly biased in favor of the wealthy and well connected.  This is a difficult question, and based upon past experience I know that you have no desire to explore difficult or nuanced issues.  

I have 1st hand experience with Denver's cash bail system by the way, as I represented a bail bondsman in Denver from about '87 to 2000.  Glad I moved on from that aspect of my legal career, but it was certainly eye opening.

Jim

Truly world class semantic nit picking we've got going on here.  Entertaining if nothing else!

The #1 HERO of the left and they've adored him for nearly the last 100 years…
LOL!  Of course the left reveres FDR as their HERO….
All the liberal adults I knew growing up tended to speak of him in glowing, reverent terms….
So don't give me your BS that FDR isn't revered by the older generation of liberals as the greatest President of all time….


LOL!!  I never said that the left WORSHIPS him. I said that they consider him a Hero.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

blah, blah, blah

Do you agree that the existing cash bail system favors wealthy or well connected defendants? 

Jim

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

...coming from the guy who regularly jumps into conversations he's not involved with...

You realize that this is an internet discussion forum... right?