@Cassiodorus asking for $. This is more of the same, using abortion rights to raise money, and it will work well in an election year. Herd the sheeple back into the D pen.
Meanwhile, we head into WWIII and stock market crash and more austerity. Food shortages, and school closures. Hospital closures. Bridges falling down.
I call BS.

that they have an issue as they head into 2022 campaigns many of them will lose. Then all of the well-funded ones will go into consultant work while waiting for the Republicans to screw us some more.

I think the sticking point is when they recognize that they cannot escape the worsening world they've created.

@Fishtroller 02 the progressive left has been a minimal force in the party and with the larger public. That public is therefore going to not hear or ignore or downplay any current prog-lefty complaints about previous D inaction on codifying Roe or the rest. This assumes a basic political competence level of the party in organizing around this case for the fall and keeping the emphasis on the GOP's role in turning back the clock to 1952 for women's rights. Total incompetence would be to get involved in an ongoing public debate about their failure to previously codify Roe.

it still will not help the Dems much. I've seen about a half dozen columns written by women who blame the Democrats for sitting on this issue and doing nothing when it was obvious that the GOP was gaining the power to topple Roe. They also are giving the finger to the symbolic vote that Schumer led the other day.

Bernie Sanders killed any hopes of a third party, and I for one, will never forgive him for how he messed that up.

@Pluto's Republic 1) if leaked from a liberal pro-choice clerk, the strategy would be to try to get one Justice to re-think their anti-Roe position prior to the opinion becoming official by noting the extent of the public outcry and taking notice of the potential political backlash against that Justice's presumed party. 2) if leaked by an anti-Roe clerk, the strategy would be to push the draft opinion out in the public as a done deal and thus make it harder for a Justice to change his/her mind.

But in any case I don't see this at all as being "organic and spontaneous" as leaks of SupCt draft opinions are extremely rare. The odds greatly favor it being a deliberate leak either to change one vote or to lock in the 5-4 majority.

There is a lot of political nuance in everyone's opinions.

After reading the prior posts, I'm inclined to set aside a premeditated "political" motive.

Of course, the public reaction is a political one. Being political is how one stays in the game in DC. It's how the People are manipulated into self-opposing factions — and how they are distracted and propagandized over and over again, with the most preposterous misinformation that the intelligence industry and their DC think tanks can produce.

In my view, verything about the SC leak was amateurish. There was no planning, no guidance, no apparent strategy. I suspect the leaker did not see the issue as a political one. It's more about body sovereignty, which speaks for itself. However, the abortion draft decision is being wedged this way and that by the media, in an attempt to give it political spin that drives the news cycle. While abortion really cannot be reduced to a political issue when addressing intellectually developed people, it is treated in this cartoonish way in the US because the American culture has been debauched and savaged by its own corruption. Here, the unthinkable is entirely possible.

Intellectually speaking, the energy surrounding abortion is actually a 'religious' issue. It has a psychological dimension that brings up identity and esteem issues. Abortion tends to be outlawed in small, undeveloped countries that are steeped in superstitious ignorance and primitive misogyny. The kind of places that give rise to brutal, abusive leaders and extra-judicial murder by the State.

The United States certainly belongs on this list. And that tells me that the leak is an organic, spontaneous occurrence — and is probably not part of a political strategy.

As for speculation on the political motives, here, most are familiar political strategies that are being used to make sense of things. But they are rarely a good fit. 'Third Parties' are structurally impossible due to many, many legal barriers put in place during the past century of duopoly rule. Also, domestic matters may seem important to the American people, but the US is fullyand completely engaged at the international level. Domestic issues are of little importance to Our Overlords. The media has captured the minds of the population, so these things can be managed automatically and the people easily distracted.

IMO, abortion restrictions will remain with us in the future. The US is very much a model of the Taliban, and the US Supreme Court is a cluster of lifetime political appointees. There are plenty more where they came from. The Democrats will not be making any amendment-level laws, even if it were possible to open that door. As for the Constitution, it is entrenched and can no longer be amended. Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

@doh1304 #1: It's the very rare SupCt case (in modern times) which takes away long-held rights, as this draft opinion signals. Therefore, more people are going to be energized to show up to vote against the party responsible for taking away those rights, thereby hoping to have those same rights restored, than those voting to applaud the taking. This would especially include socially moderate Rs, and women and single women generally under-40, many of whom haven't voted before though eligible. It will not be a wash. Advantage Ds.

It's a shame Obama just didn't act aggressively in 2016 by fitting Garland for robes as soon as it was clear the senate would not fulfill its constitutional role.

1, hard line single issue voters on Roe are already reliable D votes. The Ds can expect a few 19 year olds to come out but that will be a pathetically small number. Likewise an attack on Roe will energize very few religious right non voters to turn out for Rs. All told it will be a wash.
2, the thought that Roe will force D voters to redouble their fear of risking a new party has merit. A 50 or 60 House, 5 or 6 Senate seat wipeout could have led to a new party that would possibly have returned government to the people. Now a similar wipeout will lead to an electorate too afraid of the R gains to risk a new party, while a return to the status quo would do simply just that. The Rs would prefer 200 quisling D House members to 150, as that would be too few to effectively scapegoat.
3, I was wrong however. Bernie's failure to run as an independent in 2016 was indeed fatal, but not as I predicted. the Rs did not gain 20 or 30 house seats in 2018 and the Ds regained the Presidency, but 2022 and 24 will return the prediction to track, just with less possibility of salvation. My original prediction was for Bernie to have effectively formed a new party in 2016 and won. He would have been forced to destroy the obstructionist remaining Ds and hopefully establish a survivable America and world before ecological extinction. Today that hope is pollyannaish in the extreme.