(08-09-2023, 11:43 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I will say it was pretty interesting seeing the list of damn near all the elected politicians in OH saying "Vote YES on this!" and then watching NO win by 14 points.  Given that, I guess it makes sense that they want to change things so a "regular majority" can't have its way.

(08-09-2023, 02:24 AM)pally Wrote: Well Ohio republicans tried to put an impediment in the way of voters in order to prevent a reproductive rights amendment on the ballot in Nov from passing.  Issue 1 sought to raise the vote percentage needed to approve state constitutional amendments from a simple majority to a 60% supermajority.  
The amendment was soundly rejected by Ohioans 57-43 so it remains a simple majority vote.

Coincidentally, or not, polling indicates that the reproductive rights amendment is expected to pass by about that same margin.

When a party gerrymanders themselves into a supermajority in the state legislature, sometimes they need a reminder that they don’t always represent a majority viewpoint.

(08-09-2023, 12:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wife and I typically vote Republican, but we both voted no on issue 1.  It just seemed like a very pointed and short sighted proposition that also requested voters to give up rights to introduce initiatives to the ballot by way of petition.  So, there you have it from a conservative, we didn't like that attempt at a huge power grab, even by our own party.

(08-09-2023, 01:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Kudos to you both.  It's almost like many/most GOP voters aren't the lockstep authoritarians they are portrayed as by the media.

(08-09-2023, 12:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wife and I typically vote Republican, but we both voted no on issue 1.  It just seemed like a very pointed and short sighted proposition that also requested voters to give up rights to introduce initiatives to the ballot by way of petition.  So, there you have it from a conservative, we didn't like that attempt at a huge power grab, even by our own party.

(08-09-2023, 02:09 PM)pally Wrote: Thanks!

I've been saying all along that Issue 1 wasn't about abortion but it was simply the public face placed on the issue by the Republicans to gin up the base.  The real issue was power.  They wanted to block any future anti-gerrymandering attempts and then push their agenda unabated by us pesky voters

It should have never been a right vs left, liberal vs conservative issue...it was a legislature vs voter issue

(08-09-2023, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I concur.  I would suppose you're against other naked power grabs like packing SCOTUS?

(08-09-2023, 04:05 PM)treee Wrote: Are you against naked power grabs like not fulfilling your constitutional duty to let the president nominate supreme court justices? Is anything other than "oh well guess we just have to deal with it now" hypocritical to you?

(08-09-2023, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I concur.  I would suppose you're against other naked power grabs like packing SCOTUS?

(08-09-2023, 05:53 PM)pally Wrote: Yes and no...I am opposed to "packing the court" simply for political reasons.

However, the Federal Court system is vastly overloaded with cases to the point that it can take years for a case to be heard.  I also am against the ability to judge shop by filing cases where the plaintiff knows who the judge will be (see Matthew Kacsmaryk) so I believe there does need to be a shake-up among the Federal Court Districts.  They can build smaller districts by adding 2 or 3.  They can simply add judges to the current districts spread out the workload and allow more randomness in judge assignment.  I would also shake up the Supreme Court Justice assigned to each district to oversee.  Maybe have 3 justices assigned to each district so you never know who will decide on emergency orders.  But something needs to be done so the federal court system can move at tortoise speed vs glacier speed

(08-09-2023, 12:58 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wife and I typically vote Republican, but we both voted no on issue 1.  It just seemed like a very pointed and short sighted proposition that also requested voters to give up rights to introduce initiatives to the ballot by way of petition.  So, there you have it from a conservative, we didn't like that attempt at a huge power grab, even by our own party.

(08-09-2023, 10:09 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Lindsey Graham on August 7: “I've been consistent…States should decide the issue of abortion.”

Lindsey Graham on September 20, defending a national abortion ban: “This is not a states’ rights issue.”

*(h/t @keithboykin)
pic.twitter.com/ALSawn40Xf

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) August 9, 2023

 

(08-09-2023, 10:17 PM)samhain Wrote: I'm not saying I predicted it because I didn't, but the reaction to the end of Roe is pretty fascinating.  It seems like there's a decent sized chunk of people in this country who are vocally anti abortion but likely voting in ways that differ from their public speech.  It's all fun and games until the government starts getting serious about revoking rights that many in this country have had for the entirety of their lives.

Abortion isn't a pleasant concept.  It's kind of like a gun that a non gun person owns for home protection.  People hope they never have to use either one, because if they do things have gone horribly wrong.  However, if and when it gets to that point, it's better to have the option available when the need arises.

(08-09-2023, 10:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: And there remains the possibility that they will go after other rights like gay marriage, interracial marriage and even birth control.

(08-10-2023, 11:28 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I think most people probably support those things, even if they may not agree, just like the vast majority support some kind of compromise on abortion.  I don't think it would gain any real traction.

(08-10-2023, 11:38 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's interesting to see many on the left use this slippery slope argument when they routinely reject in whenever it's used to argue against gun control. 

(08-10-2023, 11:48 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The Catholic church has, in official capacity, been against gay marriage and birth control for decades. It's not a leap to think religious people, if they had the ability to, would make those things illegal. In the case of gay marriage, it would be really simple to make illegal since it was just legalized less than 10 years ago. There are still politicians working today who were vehemently against the legalization of gay marriage.

Interracial marriage I'm not worried about though. That has gone to the wayside of conservative stances at this point, thankfully.
At least in most cases. I'm sure there's still a few nutjobs out there that hate the idea of "miscegenation."

Which is great for me, considering my wife is black.

One of the many successes of the passage of time is the gradual and frustratingly slow elimination of blatant racism from the mainstream. Among many other slow and gradual creeps to the left that occur over time (women's rights, workers' rights, gay rights, trans rights etc).

Now it's a lot more subtle racism 

(08-10-2023, 11:48 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The Catholic church has, in official capacity, been against gay marriage and birth control for decades. It's not a leap to think religious people, if they had the ability to, would make those things illegal. In the case of gay marriage, it would be really simple to make illegal since it was just legalized less than 10 years ago. There are still politicians working today who were vehemently against the legalization of gay marriage.

Interracial marriage I'm not worried about though. That has gone to the wayside of conservative stances at this point, thankfully.
At least in most cases. I'm sure there's still a few nutjobs out there that hate the idea of "miscegenation."

Which is great for me, considering my wife is black.

One of the many successes of the passage of time is the gradual and frustratingly slow elimination of blatant racism from the mainstream. Among many other slow and gradual creeps to the left that occur over time (women's rights, workers' rights, gay rights, trans rights etc).

Now it's a lot more subtle racism 

(08-10-2023, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the appetite for overturning same sex marriage is far less then many believe.  I honestly don't think most people give it much thought.  You certainly don't see national stage politicians campaigning on the issue like you do with abortion.  Also same sex marriage has a much more solid foundation via the Constitution than then Roe decision.  You probably noticed both Bel and I, who are both pro-choice, pointed out that the argument in Roe was based on some rather tenuous legal logic.  As marriage carries with it major civil benefits, and for many people has nothing to do with any religion, it would be a major stretch for the SCOTUS to reverse course on that issue.  I agree about interracial marriage, that's a ship that has long since sailed.

Quote:As for racism in general, I see a lot more overt racism than you might expect.  But I do believe that people in general are far less racist then they used to be.  I'm definitely not a pro PC person, but my sister and I were talking just the other day about Sixteen Candles and "Long Duck Dong".  It's jaw dropping how overtly racist that was, intentionally or not.  You'd never see that today.