What if Clinton, wanting to "triangulate", signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995?
I strongly doubt that those issues were major sources of Democrat strength.More prudish dems are less well-positioned to take advantage of various post-2003 changes on sexuality so weaker dems in general.
I'm guessing that @interpoltomo is referring to LGBT rights and the "SJW" and "metoo" eras of feminism.I strongly doubt that those issues were major sources of Democrat strength.
LGBT rights.I'm guessing that @interpoltomo is referring to LGBT rights and the "SJW" and "metoo" eras of feminism.
...Wait, what? Also, keep it in Chat.LGBT rights.
SJWism/Meetoo are cases of short term gain, medium and long-term problems for democrats. Well, feminism in general beyond abortion rights too.
I’m aware of that. I’m saying that Democratic strength came from Bush screwing the economy and invading Iraq on lies, not on anything related to LGBT rights.I'm guessing that @interpoltomo is referring to LGBT rights and the "SJW" and "metoo" eras of feminism.
I agree with you 100%.I’m aware of that. I’m saying that Democratic strength came from Bush screwing the economy and invading Iraq on lies, not on anything related to LGBT rights.
What if Clinton, wanting to "triangulate", signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995?
Signing a law you oppose so that it gets struck down by the SCOTUS would be brilliant.It's found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart (Yes, I know what the Court did seven years later: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart but that was after Alito had replaced O'Connor.)
Signing a law you oppose so that it gets struck down by the SCOTUS would be brilliant.
I didn't mean to say that he should have told anyone that that was his plan. Also keep in mind that the Supreme Court striking it down would prevent a future GOP government from enacting it.Not really. Feminists would still consider it a betrayal ("he had no right to gamble on the outcome in the Supreme Court--and besides, he, not just Supreme Court justices, took an oath to uphold the Constitution") while social conservatives would say that he always knew a Court with his appointees Breyer and Ginsburg would strike down the law. (And remember, Ginsburg replaced Byron White, who had been one of the two dissenters in Roe.) In short, he might just be seen as cynical by both sides.
Also keep in mind that the Supreme Court striking it down would prevent a future GOP government from enacting it.
I'm guessing that @interpoltomo is referring to LGBT rights and the "SJW" and "metoo" eras of feminism.