The right candidate loosed to a women who campaigned against the anti abortion and gerrymandering.

The faction supported candidate loses again.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The right candidate loosed to a women who campaigned against the anti abortion and gerrymandering.

The faction supported candidate loses again.

Your command of the English language astounds me.......

Dobbs will be the gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. Not only did this decidedly liberal judge replace a retiring conservative, she won the election by almost 11 points. In the traditional swing state of Wisconsin.

Doesn't bode well for the GOP. Dems need to stop talking about the .0001% of the population that is transgender and start talking to the 51% that are female and that have been told by a bunch of old white guys when and where they can have a child.

I don’t disagree that the Dobbs decision will be a strong motivator to Democrats for quite some time to come.

I also think it’s being a bit overstated how “landmark” the decision is as far as abortion.

Face it, all it would take is either a different court or a simple constitutional amendment to change it “back”.


Precedent isn’t quite what it used to be now.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The right candidate loosed to a women who campaigned against the anti abortion and gerrymandering.

The faction supported candidate loses again.

Your command of the English language astounds me.......

Address the right’s defeat due to a candidate’s position on abortion. You know the position you advocate for.

The Finn’s case had given the issue back to states, but state legislation can still fail when the State Supreme Court interprets the state constitution and state bill of rights as preventing the state law.

So, this is not overstated.

Liberal judge had a decisive victory which balances the court to 4-4. If you look at the referendum questions Wisconsinites still showed that they have conservative values. All passed with pretty considerable margins, conditions of bail release, cash bail and welfare benefit requirements are big wins.

The Court is rated 4/3 liberal lean.

Not 5/3. That would be impossible bc of an even number. Some might like that bc ties mean the lower court decision stands.

Ties have happened a few times, but that is because nobody agrees with anyone on the court.

quote:

Originally posted by thecanadian:
Liberal judge had a decisive victory which balances the court to 4-4. If you look at the referendum questions Wisconsinites still showed that they have conservative values. All passed with pretty considerable margins, conditions of bail release, cash bail and welfare benefit requirements are big wins.

Wisconsin Supreme Court has seven members. This election gives the progressive justices a 4-3 advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I don’t disagree that the Dobbs decision will be a strong motivator to Democrats for quite some time to come.

I also think it’s being a bit overstated how “landmark” the decision is as far as abortion.

Face it, all it would take is either a different court or a simple constitutional amendment to change it “back”.


Precedent isn’t quite what it used to be now.

You must not understand the holding in Dobbs. There are many states now where if a pregnant woman wants an abortion, she has to travel to another state to get one. Texas is one example. Women in Massachusetts have control over their bodies, women in Texas do not. That may not be a big or significant thing to you but I promise you when a woman who makes $30,000 a year or who is living on assistance gets pregnant and wants to terminate the pregnancy, it's a big deal to them.

As for a different court, which one might that be? The SCOTUS is the final arbiter.

Finally, you might want to look into how difficult it is to add a "simple constitutional amendment" to "change it back." A two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. There's no issue these days that gets that sort of vote...ever. Maybe if China invades us, you get that kind of vote on a declaration of war...otherwise, forget about it.

Different court as in different SCOTUS justices (Warren court, Roberts court, etc.). SCOTUS has changed its mind what, 2-3 times now on abortion?

The difference is not abortion at the federal level is illegal, the change was federal legal right to state decided rights. A truly huge shift would be federally legal to federally banned (which is what most federal gun control proposals have been…)

I don’t disagree that the change in the law has had huge impacts on some people. But the federal change in itself didn’t make abortion illegal. The individual states involved also had passed a law that changed things.

My biggest dislike of Dobbs personally is that now we will be spending all kinds of political time and money fighting over an issue that was at best a picked at scab prior to the decision and it is adversely affecting several unrelated issues.

Yes, the religious right really didn’t do the country any great favors here. I get the personal abhorrence to the procedure. Unlike most, I’ve been there. I just don’t think that banning it at a state level does much. Some states will keep it legal, and as history shows, even if illegal it gets performed and historically prosecutions are very difficult and rare.

It’s the right wing version of virtue signaling.

Technically, 2 times.

Plan Parenthood was a Ducati on of Roe. Created an entirely different analytical structure for deciding state abortion decisions. It Aldi created Intermediate Scrutiny.

Dobbs is a total reversal of the limited federal right. Dobbs de-incorporates the right to an abortion.

The loosing candidate went full it is not my fault, I have been wronged.

The Faction believes they have a Right to these offices. You do not.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Technically, 2 times.

Plan Parenthood was a Ducati on of Roe. Created an entirely different analytical structure for deciding state abortion decisions. It Aldi created Intermediate Scrutiny.

Dobbs is a total reversal of the limited federal right. Dobbs de-incorporates the right to an abortion.

The loosing candidate went full it is not my fault, I have been wronged.

The Faction believes they have a Right to these offices. You do not.

When Ed Hubel died, was he reincarnated as "LHeym500"? Their spelling and command of the English language is eerily similar. And LHeym500 says he could be a judge if he wanted the position?

He's busy. With his other jobs, Saeed hired him too. He said it's "his job" to be the thought police on ARPF. Saeed hasn't admitted hiring him yet though.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The right candidate loosed to a women who campaigned against the anti abortion and gerrymandering.

The faction supported candidate loses again.

Your command of the English language astounds me.......

This is what a steady diet of cheese curds and brats does to people.

I wonder where he learned that behaviour?
====

Daniel Kelly, the right-wing former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who lost his bid to re-join the high court on Tuesday as liberal circuit court judge Janet Protasiewicz won by a decisive margin, refused to concede to his opponent in a speech that one critic said personified the Republican Party's approach to electoral politics in recent years.

"It brings me no joy to say this," Kelly told supporters. "I wish that in a circumstance like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent. But I do not have a worthy opponent to which I can concede."

Kelly acknowledged that he lost the election and said he "respected" the decision made by more than 55% of Wisconsin voters who chose Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee County Circuit judge who was outspoken about her support for abortion rights and labor unions, to join the court, giving Democratic-aligned justices a 4-3 majority.

But he denounced Protasiewicz as a "serial liar" and accused her of disregarding judicial ethics and demeaning the judiciary "with her behavior."


"This is just what Republicans do now," said New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie.

Progressive Chicago-based news outlet Heartland Signalaccused Kelly of going "full sour grapes."

In the two-and-a-half years since former Republican President Donald Trump urged his supporters to attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and refused to acknowledge his loss, a number of losing GOP candidates have demanded recounts, claimed their elections were "rigged," and spread baseless conspiracy theories about voting irregularities.

"Among the Trumpian core of the Republican Party, this has become mainstream," Rick Hasen, the director of UCLA Law's Safeguarding Democracy Project, toldAxios last year. "It's exceedingly dangerous, because a democracy depends on losers' consent."

As Common Dreamsreported earlier this week, Kelly claimed to be nonpartisan during the campaign, but has received funding from vehemently anti-union billionaires and has ruled in the past in the favor of allowing people to carry concealed weapons on public transit. He has also written blog posts in the past saying that people who support abortion rights want "to preserve sexual libertinism" and denouncing marriage equality and people who rely on Medicare and Social Security benefits.

LHeym has explained his typos are due to typing on his phone. I wouldn't even attempt that challenge.

It gets old listening to the spelling cops. Maybe I'll be one too, just to see if there's any fun in it.

I work on my iPhone 75% of the time these day. Ninety % of my AR posts are made from my iPhone Mini. I seem to type coherent messages. The iPhone checks spelling.

Address the issue. Your candidate loses again. The reason he loses is rejection of the positions you advocate for concerning abortion.

You realize Wisconsin has both chambers of the Legislature Republican. Before President Trump it had a Republican Governor.

Now, your type of candidate has lost the Governors race and lost control of the Supreme Court.

Keep at it with your national influence on GOP politics. You are just helping Dems.

Oh dear, I hit the D in the last first post.

quote:

I seem to type coherent messages.

Appearances can be deceiving. LOL!

I am very proud of the 14th Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 4th Amendment Supreme Court jurisprudence primers I have thumb picked out here.

Jtex does not know S. Ct. is the professional abbreviation for Supreme Court.

LHeym, I really wish you would try to make your posts coherent. Unfortunately, much of what you are putting out here is “covfefe-esque.”

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Technically, 2 times.

Plan Parenthood was a Ducati on of Roe. Created an entirely different analytical structure for deciding state abortion decisions. It Aldi created Intermediate Scrutiny


Dobbs is a total reversal of the limited federal right. Dobbs de-incorporates the right to an abortion.

The loosing candidate went full it is not my fault, I have been wronged.

The Faction believes they have a Right to these offices. You do not.

Sorry, I don’t get this.

Hell, with his twisted syntax, misspellings, grammar from Hell, who knows what he’s trying to say. If this is the best the legal system of KY can do, hope I never end up in court there. And frankly I ain’t buying the small cell phone screen as being the cause of the spelling/ grammar abortions.

quote:

Originally posted by sdirks:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Technically, 2 times.

Plan Parenthood was a Deconstruction of Roe. Created an entirely different analytical structure for deciding state abortion decisions. It Also created Intermediate Scrutiny.


Dobbs is a total reversal of the limited federal right. Dobbs de-incorporates the right to an abortion. Abortion was a limited right incorporated by the 14 Amendment against some state regulation. The review was Intermediate Scrutiny.

Basically, under Plan Parenthood v Casey, the states could regulate abortion; even ban abortion at viability. However, states could not ban acres to abortion in general. That is the basic thumb nail of Plan Parenthood v Casey.

Roe on the other hand created (arguably) a fundamental right to an abortion up to the 3rd trimester. Toe would imply Strict Scrutiny the highest level of review. Again, this is argued back and forth by law scholars. It is moot because of Plan Parenthood v Casey.

Intermediate Scrutiny is one of 3 levels of review the Fed courts apply to actions of the legislature applying substantive due process rights of individuals against legislative action.

Dobbs removes all federal protection to abortion accesses.

The loosing candidate for this state Supreme Court went full it is not my fault, I have been wronged when not conceding the election. More language of the election loss is not valid.

The Faction (far right folks who are not really Republicans nor conservatives, but represent a car jacking minority in the GOO who keep nominating unacceptable candidates in primaries) believe they have a Right to these offices. You do not.

Sorry, I don’t get this.

Does that help? Sorry for confusion.