Mediaboss Marketing

Published

2022-07-01 07:16

7:16

July 1, 2022

am

When a draft opinion leaked in early May showing the Supreme Court planned to overturn Roe v. Wade, Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval turned to his staff. Pureval wanted to figure out what he could do to shore up abortion protections in his city, in a state that was set to restrict abortion access. Ohio now bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

We immediately started thinking, What can we do in the instance that Roe v. Wade went down? he told The 19th. Thats frankly when, during that research, we discovered the 2001 ordinance.

That ordinance, passed by a different city council, restricted city employees from having their work health insurance cover an elective abortion. On Monday, Pureval announced the council planned to repeal the restriction and pass new rules that would allow city health insurance to include abortion-related services. It did so unanimously Wednesday.

Hamilton County, where Cincinnati is located, is just one of a handful of Ohio counties where a majority of voters backed President Joe Biden in 2020, even as the state overall went for Republican Donald Trump by eight points.

We are a blue city in a red state. And that dynamic is playing out right now in real time, where local leaders are trying to understand how to effectuate these laws, if at all, and also how to protect their constituents, Pureval said.

A similar dynamic exists in several Republican-led states that are also home to large populated urban areas. Polling shows liberals are more likely to live in cities, while conservatives lean toward rural areas and small towns. The result has been Democratic officials at the helm of some of the biggest local government bodies in red states. Now, Democrats like Pureval are trying to work through bans and restrictions in the state to offer additional protections for residents who seek abortions no matter how limited that might be.

Leaders in several cities including in Atlanta; Austin, Texas; Cincinnati; and Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona are talking openly about their options. Several are trying to lessen the impact of criminalizing people who seek or perform abortions. Some are considering how to limit the use of city funds for related criminal investigations. Others, like Pureval, are offering more protections for city employees.

Theyre doing the right thing because they are pro-choice champions, said Heidi Sieck, co-founder and CEO of #VOTEPROCHOICE, an organization that works to elect people in local and state offices that support abortion and mobilize voters on the issue. They realize that they have to step up and do this.

Several leaders acknowledge there are limitations to what they can do, especially if state and district attorneys are determined to seek prosecutions related to an abortion.

In Austin, the Democrat-led city council plans to vote on a resolution this month that would provide guidance to city law enforcement that aims to lower the priority of abortion-related investigations. It would also recommend that city funds not be used for such investigations. Abortions up to six weeks of pregnancy are currently allowed in Texas but will likely be completely banned in the near future.

Chito Vela, an Austin council member who co-introduced the resolution, said the Texas legislature might preempt the city council, stopping it and other cities from creating city-specific rules on abortion. Its a tactic state lawmakers have turned to before, subverting city policies on police budgeting and use of plastic bags.

We have to be very careful about trying to kind of craft our local ordinances in such a way that they minimize conflict with the legislature, and at the very least make it harder for the legislature to try to stop us from implementing local will with regard to these issues, he said.

Vela added that local officials need to step up even if the legal road ahead is messy.

Dont underestimate something like morale, he said. The people of Austin do not want to just sit there and see it happen. They want to do everything that they can to push back for abortion rights.

In Phoenix, Mayor Kate Gallego said the city council plans to vote on a resolution stating that they are not allocating resources toward investigating or prosecuting cases involving abortion providers. The state is in the midst of sorting out legal questions about which of its abortion restrictions is in place. Gallego explained that its police department can be asked to investigate both misdemeanor and felony cases.

We are going to prioritize resources to focus on violent crime and not preventing women from getting health care, she said.

In Cincinnati, Pureval has committed to offer travel reimbursement for any of the 6,000 city workers who need health care services not locally available. He has also directed his administration to examine how to decriminalize abortion in the city and to prioritize law enforcement resources to protect the health and safety of women and medical care providers.

Pureval has asked his administration to provide a report within 30 days that explores the citys options on decriminalization efforts. But they may be limited. City prosecutors have jurisdiction over misdemeanors, but abortion, according to state law, is a felony. The prosecutor with jurisdiction over felonies in the county Cincinnati is in has indicated he plans to pursue cases involving abortion.

Democratic leaders agree that state and county prosecutors will be pivotal in figuring out what comes next. At least 90 district attorneys and other prosecutors from more than 30 states and territories and the District of Columbia have signed onto a letter committing not to investigate those who seek, assist in or provide abortions.

The degree to which we can decriminalize the issue in Cincinnati really hinges upon our ability to deprioritize the issue of abortion using our police resources, Pureval said.

Sieck added that its important for local officials to take action now because there is such confusion about what policies will be in place on the local and state level following the Supreme Court ruling. She called the dynamic utter total legal chaos.

Youve got all this complexity. Every single situation now is a patchwork of unknown, she said.

In recent days, national Democrats have called on the public to vote for candidates who support abortion access a form of action that may be complicated in states with gerrymandered state legislative and congressional maps that may make it harder for Democrats to flips seats. But Pureval said it will be up to people to vote for policymakers who support abortion access if they want the rules to change in the state. He added that hes reached out to the mayor of Chicago in an effort to address and support a potential influx of Cincinnati residents seeking services in the area.

This is not a solve for this issue. This is our attempt to fight back as creatively and firmly as possible, he said. But unless there is federal legislation or unless your state legislature protects a womans right to choose, it is an uphill battle, no doubt about it.

Gallego in Phoenix encouraged people to vote in the August primary and November general election. The state is electing a new governor, U.S. senator, state legislators and local prosecutors.

All of those matter for the outcome related to womens health care, she said.

Vela said his staff has been in communication with officials within other Texas cities and outside of the state, including in Atlanta about enacting similar policies. The council approved a resolution last week, before the Supreme Court ruling, urging local police to make abortion investigations the lowest possible priority.

There is strength in numbers, and the more cities and counties that speak up, the stronger our voice will be, he said.

See the original post here:
Democratic leaders in red states are figuring out what they can do to help people seeking abortions - The 19th*

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Link:
OPINION: Democrats hope 'Trump fatigue' gives them a shot - Lewiston Morning Tribune

The US Supreme Courts annual term usually finishes at the end of June, so late June is when the most important decisions are likely to be announced.

On June 23, the Court struck down a New York state law that restricted carrying of guns outside the home. On June 24, it denied a constitutional right to an abortion, overturning its own Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973. On June 30, it ruled against the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) regulations on fossil fuels.

From an international viewpoint, the EPA ruling is the most significant. Other countries can set their own gun and abortion laws, but climate change mitigation efforts require international co-operation. According to a May 2021 report, China had 27% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, with the US second with 11% of emissions.

How did the Supreme Court become right-wing? Unlike Australia, judicial appointments in the US are politicised. Democratic presidents will try to appoint left-wing judges and Republican presidents will try to appoint right-wing judges.

Supreme Court judges are lifetime appointments. Presidents nominate judges who are subject to confirmation by only the US Senate, not the House of Representatives.

Until late 2020, the Court had a 5-4 right majority, but Chief Justice John Roberts sometimes sided with the left, most famously in the June 2012 decision that upheld Barack Obamas Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

In February 2016, right-wing Justice Antonin Scalia died. Obama was still president at the time, and replacing Scalia would have given the left a 5-4 majority. But Republicans controlled the Senate, and majority leader Mitch McConnell denied a vote for Obamas nominee, Merrick Garland.

McConnells ruthlessness was rewarded when Donald Trump unexpectedly defeated Hillary Clinton at the November 2016 presidential election. Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia, and his nomination was confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate in April 2017.

In July 2018, right-wing Justice Anthony Kennedy retired. After a vicious confirmation fight that involved allegations of rape, Kennedy was succeeded by Trumps nominee Brett Kavanaugh in October 2018.

At the November 2018 midterm elections, Democrats gained control of the House, where all 435 seats are up for election every two years. But senators have six-year terms, with one-third up every two years. The seats up in the Senate last had elections in 2012, a great year for Democrats. Republicans gained two net Senate seats in 2018 to extend their control.

In September 2020, left-wing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. McConnell ruthlessly rammed Trumps nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, through the Senate in late October, shortly before the November 2020 election that Trump lost.

This is how weve now got a 6-3 right Supreme Court: Obama did not get a chance to replace the right-wing Scalia, while Trump had three nominees approved, including Ginsburgs replacement.

Left-wing Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would retire at the end of the current term, and President Joe Bidens nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, was confirmed by the now Democratic-controlled Senate in April. Jackson has now replaced Breyer, but she replaced a left-wing judge, so the 6-3 right majority remains.

A Gallup poll conducted in June before the major decisions were announced, had 25% expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 36% in June 2021. Thats the lowest confidence in the Court in Gallups polling, which goes back to 1973; the previous low was 30% in 2014.

A FiveThirtyEight article last Friday cited seven polls that asked whether voters approved or disapproved of the June 24 abortion ruling. Disapproval led in all seven polls by seven to 23 points, with an average lead of 15.6.

The bad news for Democrats is Bidens ratings are at a near-record low compared to past presidents. In the FiveThirtyEight aggregate, 55.9% disapprove of Bidens performance and 39.2% approve (net -16.7).

Thats worse than Trump, who had a -10.2 net approval at this stage of his presidency. Since presidential approval polling began with Harry Truman (president from 1945-53), Biden only beats Truman at this stage of previous presidencies. Truman fell to -19.0 net before rebounding into positive net approval.

Inflation and the resulting drop in real wages explain a large amount of Bidens unpopularity. US inflation increased 1.0% in May alone for a 12-month rate of 8.6%, the highest since 1981. Real weekly earnings dropped 0.7% in May and are down 3.9% in the 12 months to May.

As well as economic factors, I believe a perception that Biden has been weak in both the Afghanistan withdrawal in August 2021 and the current Russian invasion of Ukraine has damaged his ratings.

Midterm elections will be held in early November, with all 435 House seats and one-third of the Senate up. FiveThirtyEight has Republicans leading Democrats by 2.0% in the race for Congress, little changed from before the abortion ruling.

While the currently close polls give Democrats hope, they do not yet account for Republican efforts to tie Democratic candidates to the unpopular Biden, or for greater Republican likelihood to vote. The FiveThirtyEight House model gives Republicans an 87% chance of winning control from Democrats.

In the Senate, there are elections for 35 of the 100 seats 34 are regular elections that were last up in 2016 and one is a byelection in the safe Republican Oklahoma. Republicans will be defending 21 seats and Democrats 14. The Senate is currently 50-50, with Democrats in control on Vice President Kamala Harris tie-breaking vote.

Although Republicans need just one net Senate gain to win control, their defence of 21 seats to 14 for Democrats makes it harder for them than the House. FiveThirtyEight gives Republicans a 55% chance of winning the Senate.

In my opinion, the economy is likely to be far more important to most voters than abortion. Democrats are still likely to be thumped at the midterms owing to the economy.

In April I calculated the percentage of people living in cities of over 100,000 population in four countries: the US, Australia, the UK and Canada. 68% of Australians lived in cities of over 100,000 population, but only 29% of Americans.

Read more: Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities?

In the US, high income white people have moved to suburbs outside cities, and these swung to Democrats in 2020, helping Biden win.

Like the Australian Senate, the US Senate has the same number of senators for each state (12 in Australia, two in the US), and this makes it highly malapportioned, with high-population states like California, Texas, Florida and New York getting the same number of senators as the lowest population states.

Analyst Nate Silver said in May that this means the US Senate has a large skew towards groups that are trending towards Republicans (rural and small town voters).

In the US overall, suburban and urban voters make up 52% of the population, to 48% for rural and small town voters. But in the average state, rural and small towns make up 61% of the population, while suburban and urban voters have just 39%.

In 2024, Democrats will be defending 23 Senate seats and Republicans just 10; these will include Democratic defences in Montana, Ohio and West Virginia, which Trump won easily in both 2016 and 2020.

If Republicans gain a permanent lock on the Senate, they will be able to deny future Democratic presidents legislative or judicial wins. The US could be heading for a future where only Republican presidents are able to govern effectively.

I covered the June 23 UK Wakefield and Tiverton & Honiton byelections for The Poll Bludger. The Conservatives lost Wakefield to Labour and T&H to the Liberal Democrats. Also covered: the collapse of Israels government that was formed to keep Benjamin Netanyahu out, and Colombia elected a left-wing president for the first time.

More here:
How the US Supreme Court has become right-wing, and do recent decisions give Democrats hope at the midterms? - The Conversation Indonesia

Opinion: Pima County Democrats are spreading the word on social media about a 'F--- the 4th' event. Do they just want to turn off voters?

While the rest of the country prepares to celebrate the nations birthday with hot dogs, apple pie and fireworks, the Pima County Democratic Party on Friday promoteda novel Independence Day … um … celebration?

F--- the 4th.

Tell me, do you people have to work at turning off voters, or does it just come naturally?

Tucson Womens March the group organizing the event in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade is asking people to bring comfortable shoes, water, lawn chairs, posters and your anger.

And the Pima County Democrats spreadthe word on social media on Friday, saying F---the 4th. See you at Reid Park.

Sorry, thats a hard pass for me.

Icalled the Pima County Democratic Party to make sure this wasnt some sort of hoax.

Itisnt.

A half-hour later the party took down the six-hour-old tweet and the attached flyer, which features the Statue of Liberty and says, Lets Mourn With F--- The 4th.

Bonnie Heidler, chairwoman of the Pima County Democratic Party, said she supports the protestbutnot the name or the flyer advertising the event. The party's tweet, she said, was a mistake.

We support women being able to protest when they feel wronged, she told me. They (Tucson Womens March) picked that name. Wedid not.

The party also posted a statement on Twitter, saying the graphic was "in poor taste".

"Make no mistake, however. We support the event which will be on July 4 at 7 pm at Reid Park. The event was organized to help women in our community grieve for the loss of their bodily autonomy, which we consider an elemental right."

I can appreciate the fact that Democrats, independents and even a few Republicans are full-out furious about the demise of Roe v. Wade and the look of Arizonas new future, rooted in a law passed during horse-and-buggy days.

The girls and women of this state woke up this week to learnthat our bodies are not our own but instead under the care and control of state of Arizona. Even a rape victim will be forced to bear her attackers babies.

So, yeah, anger. I get it.

But I also know that Democrats are facing an uphill battle in this years elections. Everything from control of Congress to control of the state Capitol is up for grabs. Meanwhile, historical voting patterns, the price of gas and groceries, and Joe Bidens low approval ratings are not the Democrats friends.

Now comes F--- the 4th?

Sorry, thats just not a good look for a party thats trying to convince independents and even moderate Republicans to look their way in November.

Republicans, meanwhile, jumped on the thing, tsk tsking in delight at the Democrats show of disrespect.

There it is the modern Democrat Party in a single tweet, Karrin Taylor Robson, Republican candidate for governor, responded. Arizona patriots will gather w/ friends/family on Independence Day to celebrate our nations birth & honor those who sacrificed for our freedom. But these Democrats will be doing something very different. Shameful.

"Clearly the Pima dems dont care about our country or those who fought and died for our freedoms," tweeted Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott.

This from the party that gave us Lets Go Brandon T-shirts and flags and sued to end the wildly popular early voting program used by up to 90% of Arizona voters.

Republicans disrespect a president. Now the Democrats disrespect one of our nations most importantholidays.

Theres no high ground here.

Fortunately, there are some Democrats who havent lost their ever living minds.

Adrian Fontes, who is running for secretary of state, was stunned by his partys promotion of the F---the 4th event.

Absolutely NOT how this Democrat feels. What the hell are you thinking @PimaDems?!? How does this help us WIN? Standby for an official statement condemning this tweet. Take this trash down!

Why celebrate freedom, you might ask, when we just lost a bit of it?

Because were free to win it back.

Celebrate by using that freedom to hold a voter registration drive on Monday. Orgo door-to-door and make sure that votersknow how to get early ballots. Theyll start arriving in mail boxes next week.

Give them information on who is running and how to vote and where to vote.

You want to change America? Then do it the old-fashioned way. At the polls.

And let us have this one day a year whenall Americans should be able to come together and celebrate.

This, Democrats, was a Yankee Doodle Don't.

Reach Roberts at laurie.roberts@arizonarepublic.com. Follow her on Twitter at @LaurieRoberts.

Support local journalism: Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

Read the rest here:
Hey, Pima County Democrats, F-bombing the 4th of July will not win you any votes - The Arizona Republic

Obama and his party combated it not with a norm violation of their own such as a temporary (and legally dicey) recess appointment of a justice but with reasonableness. Surely appointing a modest and moderate justice like Merrick Garland would lead public pressure to force McConnell to relent or would push voters to punish Republicans for their transgression. Neither happened. And the seat was filled by a Republican.

This is a pattern weve seen repeated ever since. Republicans attempt some unprecedented and shocking move; horrified Democrats respond by trying to be the adults in the room; and then the Democrats go unrewarded for it.

To be sure, a country is probably better off with one responsible party than with zero. But in important ways, this kind of asymmetry can be dangerous, making the government less and less representative of its people.

Now, time for some game theory.

In the game known as the prisoners dilemma, two players are competing against each other, and each has just two options cooperate or defect. If they both cooperate, they both get a nice reward. However, if Player 1 defects while Player 2 cooperates, Player 1 gets an even bigger reward while Player 2 pays a penalty. (The reverse happens if Player 1 cooperates while Player 2 defects.) If both players defect, neither gets a reward nor pays a penalty. Thus, each player wants the other to cooperate, and both prefer jointly cooperating to both defecting. But since neither can trust the other to cooperate, the usual outcome is for both to defect, leading to no payoff for either player. (The ferryboat scene in The Dark Knight (2008) remains my favorite, if imperfect, example of the prisoners dilemma.)

Playing this game many times can lead the players to develop norms of trust. Neither is happy with the low payoff, so reaching some sort of agreement about cooperation can be beneficial to both.

This hasnt been the pattern in national politics. On a range of issues and tactics, Republicans have defected while Democrats have cooperated. This includes how the GOP secured multiple Supreme Court justices, Donald Trump giving White House jobs to his daughter and son-in-law, Trump profiting from the presidency while refusing to release his tax returns, the Republican National Committee declaring the Jan. 6th riots to be legitimate political discourse, and many, many more. (I am not including Trumps efforts to steal the 2020 election or his instigation of the Capitol riot since those were, appropriately, met with impeachment and investigations.)

Were seeing this dynamic again in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ruling, while opposed by most Americans, was a longstanding goal of Republicans and particularly conservatives on the court. And Democratic leaders had, thanks to POLITICOs bombshell disclosure of the draft opinion, ample warning that it was coming. And in response, they have done virtually nothing.

As Jamelle Bouie notes, there are things the president or Congress can do to rein in an out-of-control Supreme Court. Lawmakers can impeach justices (perhaps the appointees that appear to have deceived senators or even lied under oath in their confirmation hearings). They can curtail the courts jurisdiction or constrain judicial review. They can add more justices. No, Democrats may not have the votes to do any of these things; such efforts would likely fall at least one or two votes short in the Senate amid opposition from people like Sen. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, though they may at least be open to discussion on some ideas. But its not clear that Democrats are even trying to broach the topic. Instead, they have read poems and sung patriotic tunes.

Even if Congress doesnt act, the Biden administration could push back on its own. One possible policy response would be to put abortion clinics on federal lands within states that have banned abortions; the administration has taken that off the table. Biden also could verbally attack the legitimacy of the court, as a previous Democratic president once did. He hasnt.

To be clear, most of these moves would be treated as significant norm violations in Washington. But thats the point. When a norm violation is met by another, that gives both parties an incentive to find a new equilibrium down the road, and suggests to the first violator that they may have gone too far. If the majoritys rulings to end the federal right to abortion and restrict the states ability to regulate guns were met with an attempt to add four justices to the court even if that attempt failed it would send a message that there is a price to be paid, and that a future Congress might finish the job.

A classic economics article by David Kreps et al. outlines a version of the prisoners dilemma that spans many iterations. In this game, it may make sense for one player to act irrationally in the short run, forgoing some payoffs, in order to give that player a reputation of unpredictability or craziness. This can improve that players negotiating position further down the road. It could make sense for Democrats to adopt a similar strategy, at least to the point that Republicans believe that Democrats are as willing to damage institutions as they are.

For now, though, the lack of any fulsome Democratic response simply sends the message that there will be no penalty for GOP transgressions. And the courts conservative majority is just getting started.

See the rest here:
Opinion | Why Are Democrats Letting Republicans Steamroll Them? - POLITICO