If progressives are blaming the over-turning of Roe on "establishment" Democrats, I suggest they

[JohnSJ]

a real hard look in the mirror at what happened in 2016 when the Supreme Court was at stake, and how many went out of there way to undermine Hillary when she was running in the general election in 2016.

"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Now that Roe v. Wade is nullified – along with the reproductive rights it enshrined for women – progressives are increasing pressure on Democratic Party leaders to rip up their old playbook. They say two things are clear: 1. Roe was ripped away on their watch, and 2. they have no concrete plan to reinstate it.

A case in point, to increasingly restive progressives, is that even after the Roe decision was leaked back in May, Democratic Party leaders continued to support anti-abortion Texas incumbent Rep. Henry Cuellar over his progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros. That runoff divided establishment Democrats from the party’s growing ranks of progressives, many of whom are inspired and supported by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

“This is why we do this,” AOC told reporters – as she clapped and stomped her foot for emphasis – just minutes after the Supreme Court formally abolished Roe, “and this is why sometimes the isolation from the caucus and the targeting from leadership and all this stuff, that's why it's worth it, because this isn't about the Democratic Party of today. This is about the Democratic Party of tomorrow and the day after that and the day after that, and we really need to start reassessing how big this tent really is.”

https://www.rawstory.com/aoc-on-abortion/

What Ocasio-Occana doesn't seem to GET repeatedly, is that NOT every geographical place is on the same page with them. Case in point, in the Cuellar race, he has a better chance in the general election than Cisneros in THAT DISTRICT.

Funny that their memories are so convenient that they seem to forget when Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed the anti-abortion candidate Heath Mellow.

More importantedly though, when we are this close to the midterms, she somehow feels it is imperative to push this theme.

[SheltieLover]

1. Absofuckingloutely!

[murielm99]

2. K&R

[msongs]

3. and then there's the 2 saboteurs.... nt

[LenaBaby61]

8. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Tomconroy]

4. You are a brave person, JohnSJ

[JohnSJ]

6. I am frustrated Tom. I believe this is the last thing we need at this critical time with a 50-50

Senate, and a very slim majority in the House, a few months away from the midterms

[LenaBaby61]

10. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[AZSkiffyGeek]

5. I realized the other day that the "why didn't Obama do it!" crowd have also forgotten...

Not only did the "supermajority" only last a month or two, but the massive gains in the house and senate were a result of the 50 state strategy, which elected a bunch of moderate Dems in red districts. It wasn't a groundswell of progressives that gave us the house and senate majorities in 06 and 08, it was moderates.

[JohnSJ]

7. There were so many things going on at that time. Ted Kennedy passed away, Arlene Spector swithed

parties from republican to Democratic, and Scott Brown won the seat occuppied by Kennedy.

The ACA made it through during that time, and no one then thought the SC would over-turn Roe since they all said they would respect stare decisis.

After 2016 though, the die was cast

[LenaBaby61]

11. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[betsuni]

22. +1

[The Magistrate]

9. I Agree, Sir, our 'Lefter Than Thou' Comrades Helped Mightily To Bring The Ruin They Complain Of

It is also true that in the present circumstances, our Party's leadership needs a ruthless determination to destroy the Republican party I have not yet seen them display. If they do not, we are lost.

I regard the Cisneros/Cuellar thing a red herring: Party leadership supports incumbents, full stop. Has nothing to do with the incumbent's position on the political spectrum, that's the guy who's there now, and helps hold the majority that lets the Party wield power in the legislature.

[onecaliberal]

12. For fucks sake.

I guess losing the god damn court wasn’t enough. Fuck!!!

[Just A Box Of Rain]

13. I distinctly remember that Heath Mellow episode.

Oh yes, I do.

[Me.]

14. You've Said The Quiet Part Out Loud

I believe they don't get it because they are so wedded to their agenda that they can't believe they won't get their way. A lot of time, money, energy and influence is wasted on paths to nowhere. And foot stamping doesn't seem to be working.

[betsuni]

23. "They can't believe they won't get their way." That populist extreme overconfidence.

There is no question they and only they are right, righteous, uncorrupted, The People are with them. I always imagine Joan of Arc when I say that, with The Democratic Establishment the enemy instead of England.

[Me.]

24. There Are Positions I Agree With, MOst Of Us Do

But blowing the place up, ala Sarandon, is a losing strategy

[pnwmom]

15. Thank you, John SJ. And the idea that Roe v Wade went down under the Democrats "watch"

is laughable.

Roe v Wade went down in slow motion, beginning with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's decision not to heed the many liberal voices asking her to step down in Obama's first term, when Obama was able to get Kagan and Sotomayor confirmed. At the age of 81, she'd already had two cancers, including pancreatic cancer, but she said she didn't want to retire then because she didn't think Obama would confirm anyone better than she was. (Apparently Kagan and Sotomayor weren't good enough.)

In the final year of Obama's second term, McConnell refused to confirm Merrick Garland, which gave Trump the opportunity to quickly appoint 2 Justices. Then in Trump's final year, Ginsburg died, giving Trump the chance to appoint the nauseating Amy Coney Barrett.

If Obama had been able to appoint a replacement for RBG in his first term, when many were urging her to step down, then the vote to overturn Roe v Wade would have been 4 - 5, not 5 - 4.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a message for liberals who have been saying the 81-year-old should step down while Democratic President Barack Obama is in office so he can appoint her successor: Who are you going to get who will be better than me?

Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”

The real question we should have been asking: What's the worst that could happen if Obama can't nominate someone to fill RBG's seat? Now we know.

[JohnSJ]

16. +++

[luv2fly]

17. And you're pushing it here

And this close to the midterms.

[pnwmom]

18. He's responding to something others are pushing. Why aren't you objecting to what they're saying?

[JustAnotherGen]

20. +1

[JustAnotherGen]

19. I'm just done with them

It has nothing to do with President Biden - and everything with how people did or did not vote at all in swing states in 2016.

I'm blaming it on them.

IDGAF about their reasons - its on them.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

21. I'm not sure that those who willfully set back progress

deserve to expropriate the term "progressive."

That's just me.