Reason Roundup

Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires, Everyone Flips Out: Reason Roundup

Plus: Vermont's GMO-labeling law backfires, Kansas kicks Vermin Supreme off the ballot.


The end of democracy?!?! The upcoming retirement of Anthony Kennedy, announced by the 81-year-old U.S. Supreme Court justice yesterday, has struck fear and glee into the hearts of people concerned about the future of abortion access in this country—and not without reason. It's also spawned a fair share of apoplectic doomsaying about the future of same-sex marriage, contraception access, and democracy itself.

Let's start with Slate, which opens its piece on Kennedy's retirement thusly:

When he heard that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was retiring on Wednesday, a friend in his twenties told me: "Today is the darkest political moment my generation has experienced."

"What about the day Trump was elected?" I asked in surprise.

"This is worse," he responded. "It's the day Trump consolidates his power."

Or here, for instance, was the headline at Splinter:

And here is the cover of New York's Daily News today:

The Slate piece centers on a common refrain: the fearsome tailspin launched by Kennedy's retirement and what it could mean is a sign that "the institutions meant to constrain [the Trump administration] are proving far more pliant than we might have feared." Some say it shows there's too much power vested in the Supreme Court.

But this interpretation is predicated on all these doomsday predictions being true. It is, at the very least, premature, and reads a lot like the kind of narcissistic dystopian melodrama everyone loves to conjure up for their side these days. The speed with which progressive activists and serious media types reached for the Handmaid's Tale analogies again is telling.

In any case, much of the concern (or dismissal of it) rings hollow from the ranks of those who tweet very different tunes when the court or Congress seems stacked another way…

…which isn't to say it's premature to start mobilizing against potentially awful picks or any negative consequences that could come from them—and people already are.

(For more on potential nominees, see this post from Eric Boehm.)

But being smart on this front takes avoiding the trap of thinking we live in uniquely democracy-challenging (or racist, or misogynistic, etc) times, and that's not something either Democrats or Republicans are (or aim to be) good at. Obama is coming for your guns has given way to get an IUD now before SCOTUS bans them! And hysteria on both sides drives unproductive policy discussion as well as truly painful cable news segments.

For an even-handed look at Kennedy's legacy, see this piece from Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy. As for what this could actually mean for abortion access—and politics—in this country: "Kennedy was the firewall for abortion rights for as long as he was there," Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the Florida State University, told The New York Times.

He has been the defining force in American abortion law since the '90s, so his absence means that Roe will be much more in peril. A decision overturning Roe is way more likely. A series of decisions hollowing out Roe without formally announcing that's what's going on is pretty likely, too.

As long as Kennedy was the swing vote, there wasn't even really much of a point in asking the court to overturn Roe; now, we're kind of in a brave new world. The question now is: 'Who are you talking to? Who's the swing vote? Who do you need to win over?' It's a complete game-changer.

But in what direction the game will go is anyone's guess.



Adventures in GMO labeling. After Vermont passed a law in 2014 requiring foods made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be labeled as such, "GMO-labeling initiatives were soon popping up on ballots all over the country, and Congress eventually passed a national labeling law in 2016," notes The Atlantic in a new exploration of Vermont's adventures in GMO labeling.

In the heat of political battle, both sides presented the labeling situation as do-or-die. The Organic Consumers Association, which supported labeling, likened mandatory GMO labels to a "kiss of death" and credited them for driving GMOs out of grocery stores in Europe. On the other hand, opponents of labels argued that they would unnecessarily scare shoppers, as GMOs pose no unique threat to safety despite the negative public perception of them. A GMO label, National Geographic wrote in 2016, might as well be "a skull-and-crossbones." Tens of millions of dollars were spent in the fights, most of by food companies opposed to labeling.

And after all that?

A new study has found that Vermont's GMO labeling law may have even decreased opposition to GMOs.


  • Good morning from President Trump: "Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with Meddling in our Election! Where is the DNC Server, and why didn't Shady James Comey and the now disgraced FBI agents take and closely examine it? Why isn't Hillary/Russia being looked at? So many questions, so much corruption!"
  • Thirty-six members of Congress, including 22 Republicans and 14 Democrats, are backing new legislation to grant statehood to Puerto Rico.
  • A new Congressional Budget Office report says our national debt will double as a share of the economy in the next three decades.

NEXT: Why Are Americans Adopting Fewer Foreign Children?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. He wants to spend more time with his family being the swing vote on which restaurant they visit.

    1. Hello.

      Fuckity fuck fuck. FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! Fuck you, fucky fuck fuck. This is fucked because fuck. Fuck and fuck and fuck. Wow. What fuckness.

      I present to you progressive articulation.

      Soooo, the equation goes something like, Trump = Nazi + Handmaid's Tale, huh.

      1. Another day, another nickel dropped into the outrage machine to keep it spinning. This thing puts the energizer bunny to shame

        1. The outrage machine actually costs a quarter now. Inflation.

          1. It cost a Susan B Anthony you misogynist! Because how else are the outrage workers supposed to fight the patriarchy while earning a living wage.

      2. You need to refine this equation, let me take a try:

        Trump = ((Nazi + Handmaid's Tale)*(FUCK!!!!)^6) / ((But he should rewrite our immigration laws by executive fiat) * (he should also disarm us))

        1. He's the calculus of Presidents.

          1. I would bet money that President Trump can't do calculus

            1. Calculus comes to mind when saying I've forgotten more than you have ever learned.
              Not you, that is, but you know.

            2. Maybe, but I can't do it anymore either. And Trump has more money than he knows what to do with, plus a past littered with well fucked porn stars and supermodels, so it doesn't appear that this has hurt him in life.

      3. I believe that pretty much covers the prog response/outrage. Have to say I am enjoying it immensely, not that I wan't the handmaid to come to fruition [I have daughters, after all] but the hyperbole...

  2. Stop Wiping Your Butt So Hard
    Good morning, here's a story about my butthole. Years ago, it was itching constantly, and I couldn't figure out why.

    1. Stop Picking Your Nose, Or At Least Wash Your Hands First

    2. Wipe harder, boy.

  3. Adam White
    When a single judge's retirement turns the entire political world on its ear, we ought to consider that perhaps the Supreme Court has claimed too much power in our republic.

    Or maybe the entire political world just needs to calm the fuck down.

    1. ^

    2. Or perhaps the Supreme Court has too few judges.

      1. Lets just replace the SC with a council made up of of every state governor.

        1. Or- let's just divide the US into districts and then once a year we send a couple kids from each district to compete for their lives as entertainment. We could call the game: "Kid Murder" or "Survivor Kid Version" or something like that

        2. And require the council to resolve every case put before it within 30 days.

      2. "Or perhaps the Supreme Court has too few judges."
        Plenty of articles already out there suggesting that Team D dust off FDRs court packing idea when the pendulum swings back to their side

        1. Sounds like a recipe for a lot of sniped judges.

    3. Obviously, the solution is to shift all that power over to the executive branch. We'll get the right one in office next time.

      1. Hmm. Maybe it's time for a new Branch?

        1. A space branch!

          1. Maybe we could fire ALL the branches into space. Of course, we'd risk any advanced extraterrestrial species taking that as a declaration of war, so we'd have to aim carefully at the sun.

            1. Random fact: it takes considerably more energy/delta-v to hit the sun, than it does to escape the solar system.

              Firing them into the sun would be too expensive. A low earth parking orbit should suffice; Jeff Bezos can offer the service through Amazon and save the taxpayers some money.

  4. Thirty-six members of Congress, including 22 Republicans and 14 Democrats, are backing new legislation to grant statehood to Puerto Rico.

    The president better hurry up and build his wall to keep these foreigners out of our elections!

    1. That wall is called the Atlantic Ocean.

  5. 31% Think U.S. Civil War Likely Soon
    But 59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump's policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned. This compares to 53% and 28% respectively in the spring of Obama's second year in office. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don't share that concern, including 16% who are Not At All Concerned.

    1. Democrats (37%) are more fearful than Republicans (32%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (26%) that a second civil war is at hand.

      "Fearful" is an editorial supposition.

    2. *Will* resort to violence?

  6. The end of democracy?!?!

    I agree that ultimately this is the only thing necessary in today's Roundup.

    1. I was wondering if anyone caught that... 😉 Had a glitch for a second there.

      1. I prefer to keep thinking of it as an editorial decision.

      2. The most important piece of news in today's Roundup is that Vermin Supreme's middle name is Love.

  7. "How Big Dick Energy explains modern masculinity."

    Well, it's a hell of a personal mantra.

    1. Big Dick Energy was my nickname in college.

        1. Brutal

        2. You are just jealous I said it first.

          1. No, i actually typed it out, thought "Too obvious," and went in a different direction.

              1. Incontinentia Buttocks?

            1. "Too obvious,"

              Your actual nickname in college.

          2. Well, it does take Big Dick Energy to get your portrait into a Spanish chapel.

            1. Ecce homo monkey Christ. They actually let the church handicrafts lady do this sort of thing.

  8. Roman Catholic Church Quickening
    Many early Church leaders and publications, such as the Didache, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Basil the Great, and others, also indicated that quickening was not used to determine the value of life in the womb. Later Catholic theologians, leaning heavily on Greek philosophers like Aristotle, declared a distinction in the severity of the crime of procured abortion based on a particular point in development. Indeed, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both cited a point after conception, generally the point of quickening, as the moment at which the life in the womb becomes human, meaning ensouled with a rational human soul. For Augustine and Aquinas, intentional abortion was always an offense against God but after the point of ensoulment it was much more so. These and other Church theologians often declared that abortion after quickening was a highly immoral action, worthy of immediate excommunication and/or the legal penalty for homicide.

    Using quickening as the standard for determining how serious a crime it was to procure an abortion was a tradition that lasted for centuries as common Church and legal practice.

    1. "Later Catholic theologians, leaning heavily on Greek philosophers like Aristotle" and "Indeed, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas both cited a point after conception"

      St. Augustine didn't rely on Aristotle. He was influenced by Plato. Aquinas, I think, is the one who began the fixation with Aristotle.

      I may be wrong

    2. Wait, so the Catholic church believed souls battle it out for who gets to incarnate into the fetus?

      There can only be one! We are all winners.

  9. Shady James would be an awesome name for an r&b singer.


    I approve of the fact that instead of engaging in reasonable conversation, everyone is just trolling one think piece at a time

    1. Every media apparatus just a sea of gargled balls.

        1. Try meat bucket

  11. Angela's ashes: Merkel's grand project is crumbling
    'This is not about whether Mrs Merkel stays as chancellor next week or not,' said Xavier Bettel, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, as he came out of an emergency summit on immigration last weekend. He was joking. That was exactly what the meeting had been about, and everybody there knew it. The summit was Operation Save Mutti. Their mission: to stop Merkel's government collapsing by thrashing out a tough stance on immigration to assuage her critics. It's quite a turnaround. Once, Merkel was queen of Europe, now she's a beggar. Suddenly, European politics has changed beyond recognition.

    1. It's turning out the average European sees it more like Italy than German and France on the issue; which interestingly puts them in line with Trump. Yes Hungary and Poland were the first to push back but Italy is a core, original founding member of the ECC/EU and it's the first of the 'Big three' to say, 'Eat it' and France doesn't like it one bit.

      How crazy is it in Italy? The right are winning in places they NEVER EVER won before.

      1. "How crazy is it in Italy?" The place is being run by a coalition between the far right and far left parties.

        1. How do you figure? The coalition lean right. Five Star is 'a floater'.

          1. The newz told me that The League is far right and Five Star is far left.
            Googling now to find backup, BBC describes Five star as anti-establishment and the League as right-wing.
            In another article Five Star has been accused repeatedly of aligning itself with classically fascist ideals

      2. Have you guys ever been to Italy? That place sure is something. Especially Naples. Chaos incarnate.

        1. Many many times. It is fucking awesome.

  12. The Ohio House of Representatives passed its proposed ban on sexting for anyone under age 19.

    Lobbied for by law enforcement hoping for more sexy teen evidence to pore over?

    1. Two additional thoughts:

      1. They picked 19 so that it would most definitely get struck down as unconstitutional. For an adult citizen, this is as clear of a violation of the 1st amendment as you can get. Easy to decide.

      2. When did these idiots first start talking about sex? What in the world are they thinking? 50% of this dingbats had lost their virginity by 16 (using numbers from my youth - and I'm about their age). "Sure, have sex in the back seat of a 1976 Ford Falcon, but for the sake of all that is Holy, don't send a dirty text message!"


    2. well, a few hours of community service is a hell of a lot better than putting them on the sex offender registry, at least.

  13. When Will The Other Shoe Drop?
    Rightists, like my friend, are rightly fearful of the consequences of this thing going bad. We have some idea of what this really means, and so we hold back earnestly hoping for another way. This, in turn (and sadly), emboldens the Leftists, most of whom have no Earthly idea what they are really agitating for, or the risks they are taking, because they have no experience with risks like these.

    However, at some point Leftist derangement will exceed the Rightist's reluctance to resort to violence. And when that Rubicon is crossed, there is no going back. Leftists are quicker to violence, but Rightists are far better at it. The consequences of this will be grave.

    To top it off, nobody really knows exactly where the Rubicon is, in this political mess.

    1. Here we go. Yet another Schlichter-esque piece advocating for violence and civil war, in his cute coy way. "Oh no I don't really want violence! Don't throw me into that briar patch, Leftists!"

      1. You don't believe the current wave of 'confrontation' initiated by the left could escalate into violence?

    2. Back in the day, writers who advocated for violence and insurrection were considered fringe nutjobs and relegated to the wilderness.

      Now, they are considered "luminaries of the Right".

      1. When Schilter starts getting published in National Review, I'll consider him a "luminary of the Right".

        1. Your point on Schilter being unstable, though, is worth noting

      2. Most of the people advocating for violence and disruption are leftist shitheads like you and Maxine Waters, and this has been the case for 50 years now.

        1. Mikey is a peaceful soul. He would never, for example, threaten to kick the shit out of Citizen Crusty Weigel.

      3. You mean like the Founding Fathers? They wrote about violence and insurrection all the time.

    3. People on the right need to have some perspective. There was orders of magnitude more left wing violence in the late 60s and the early 1970s than today. Left wing fanatics blew up ROTC buildings, kidnapped Patty Hearst, there were deadly riots on college campuses all over the country. Since the media is so good at rewriting history for the left's benefit, a lot of people on the right have no idea how violent the left was. And the result of all of that violence was not a civil war but Nixon being elected winning 49 states. We are a long ways from a civil war. Keep calm and keep winning elections.

      Elaine Choo having to tell a bunch of angry Soy Boys she was going to kick there ass is not Memphis in 1968. The Right needs to stop pretending it is. At some point will some leftist nut do something horrible? Almost certainly and one already did last summer. But even a series of isolated acts is not a civil war and does not justify acting like it is one. The left does not help its cause acting violently. It just creates the choice of voting Republican or embracing violence and chaos.

      1. Reasonable points, but the one problem of bringing up past history is ignoring how it may have used up everyone else's tolerance for this sort of BS. You say it was worse. It was. Others can point to how bad they have historically been to say what to expect.

        1. It takes a lot of nerve to become a terrorist. It is one thing to talk shit on twitter about the resistance. It is quite another to go risk your life and freedom actually doing something. How many of these people are really willing to die or go to prison for life for the cause? Damn few. They just want to cheer on someone else to do that. It is harder to find the someone else than they think. They will find some and no doubt there is going to be some awful acts of leftist violence in the coming years. But it won't be enough to accomplish its purpose of terrorizing the public into submission and will instead just turn people away from their cause. To really accomplish something with political violence, it has to be systematic and sustained such that people become afraid to speak or publicly act against you cause. And I don't see them being able to do that. The country is too big, too well policed and too well armed for that to happen even if they did have enough violent crazies to do it, which they don't.

            1. Strange things sometimes happen.

            2. I'm gonna credit the haikus. For no other reason than because I did them.

              1. Like a pangolin,
                Flicking its long tongue at ants,
                John sometimes makes sense.

                1. More poetry should have pangolins in it. Real Talk.

          1. "to turn people away from their cause"

            Yeah, not gonna happen.

            Remember all the outrage about the Senate Softball Shooter? Remember all those national news stories and editorials about left-wing political violence in the aftermath? Yeah, me neither.

            Remember the coverage of the Antifa at Berkeley? Remember how the national media highlighted leftist political violence? Yeah, not so much. Probably equal coverage of right-wing "handwringing" over the incident.

            Remember how the press covered the Antifa "provocateurs" instigating violence at Richmond? Yeah, not so much. In fact, I remember the press showing me video and photos of Antifa members in black riot gear getups and telling me that they were Nazi members of the alt-right.

            Or how about that "right wing" violence against Gabby Giffords (by the leftist dude who was obsessed by her), incited by Sarah Palin?

            On what possible planet do you think the press would cover left wing violence as left-wing.

            1. How do you know that those things have not turned people away from their cause? How is that blue wave working out? It absolutely turned people away from their cause in the 70s. And that wasn't because the media didn't try every way in the world to cover it up or portray it positively. They did.

              Of course, the media is ignoring this stuff or acting like it doesn't matter. They are doing that because it does matter and they know it. Violence only works if you can engage in it enough to sufficiently terrorize your opposition. Any amount of violence short of that, just makes you look like a thug and turns everyone against you. They are not anywhere close to having enough violence to terrorize their opposition. So it is just going to harm them.

              1. Yeah, but it is minimal. It is mostly preaching to the choir and activating the base.

                How many people do you think even have a clue that a leftist democrat activist took an an assault rifle and tried to kill the Republican Senate leadership, actually wounding the second-ranking senator?

                I'd wager that a "man on the street" interview would find more people who didn't know that it even happened than knew that he was a democrat activist.

                Heck, I'd say that a random "man on the street" poll would likely find a majority would say the shooter was a "right wing extremist" when pressed to apply a label.

                Even Wikipedia labels the shooting the "2016 Congressional Baseball Shooting", leaving out the political identity of the victims from the label.

                Despite the vast majority of politically motivated violence in the US being of the left in the last 2 decades, the media and pundits are in lockstep on this one, and their minions around the country are happily drinking the cool-aid so they can avoid the cognitive dissonance.

            2. There was more coverage of imagined scenarios where right-wing racist republicans were going to assassinate Obama in the run-up to the 2008 election and the inauguration than there was of actual politically motivated shootings against US senators.

              Remember how the press said it was the end of democracy that Trump wouldn't pledge to support the winner of the election, or accept the results, no matter what? And then notice how they refused to support the winner of the election or accept the results.

              That's what is gonna happen, every time. If the DNC directly sponsored a terrorist attack on the Republican National Convention, the national press would cover it from the "how right wing extremism drove the DNC to defend democracy" angle.

              1. They are going to say stupid and crazy shit. They always do. But that doesn't mean doing so helps their cause. It doesn't. If being stupid and crazy helped their cause, Republicans would not have won an election in this country since the 1950s.

        2. John makes some real points concerning the race riots and Vietnam related violence of the Sixties. Don't forget that most of the people who actually remember that stuff are approaching, or in, their sixties. So I don't think the younger folks have used up their tolerance yet. Left wing idiots may start all sorts of undercover violence (where the heavily armed conservatives won't know who to defend against) but out and out street gang battles, like in pre-Nazi Germany, don't seem to be in the cards.

          1. I keep seeing all of these leftists on Twitter advocating violence and their profile pictures always show them to be some guy who looks like he spent his entire school years with his head stuck in a toilet. They are always some unbelievable 98lbs dork. If you ever see pictures of the real SA, they were some nasty looking guys who you really wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley. The idea that the current crop of leftists is going to become a force for political violence and terror, especially in a country as well armed and violent as this one, is beyond laughable.

          2. The boomers will advocate violence and convince younger dumb dumbs to execute on said violence. The Boomers are too old and too unarmed to get into any real trouble.

      2. I would pay good money to see Choo drop kick a soy boy. Good money.

      3. Nixon won 49 states, then was kicked out of office for doing what LBJ did, because the left controlled the media.

        1. Sure he was. But he was replaced by Ford, a moderate, and then Carter, a conservative Southern Democrat. The left may have got Nixon, but they didn't win the war politically.

          1. Hence our ever shrinking government and lower debt levels.

            1. That hasn't happened because of the left. That has happened because people wanted it that way. It may benefit the left but it isn't their ultimate goal and they are not the cause of it anyway.

      4. "People on the right need to have some perspective. There was orders of magnitude more left wing violence in the late 60s and the early 1970s than today. "

        Excellent point.

  14. "Kansas kicks Vermin Supreme off the ballot"

    I'm sorry I underestimated you ENB... you do care about us yokels in fly-over country.

  15. Butchers in France are calling for government protection from militant vegans

    1. Big Dick Energy and the Militant Vegans was my garage prog rock band in college.

  16. "This is worse," he responded. "It's the day Trump consolidates his power."

    This is worse than that time Bill Clinton was going to use FEMA to cancel presidential elections.

  17. When a single judge's retirement turns the entire political world on its ear, we ought to consider that perhaps the Supreme Court has claimed too much power in our republic.

    ...unless, of course, it's swinging the other way.

  18. #HandmaidsTale will be our reality.


    1. I love how this is considered reasonable discourse by the left, but any hint that a Hillary victory would pave the way to America ending up like the Soviet Union was absurd.

  19. Vermin Supreme is the greatest satirist on the continent.

  20. The Handmaid's Tale comparisons were already valid before Kennedy's retirement. Now that Orange Hitler is picking his replacement, the US will become a Christian theocracy ? unless the Democrats #Resist with every legal strategy in their arsenal. This country absolutely cannot afford another right-wing extremist like Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.

    See also Ezra Klein: How to fix the Supreme Court: adopt Rick Perry's idea for 18-year, nonrenewable terms. Or, hell, 12-year terms. Vacancies should be more predictable, lower stakes, and with less pressure to appoint young justices.

    1. Stealing Rick Perry's ideas to own the cons

      1. Don't stop believin'

        1. Steve Perry, brah

          1. Sorry, I forgot goofing around wasn't allowed anymore.

            1. Not when we're talking about Journey

        2. Everyone is a small town girl living in a lonely world sometimes.

  21. So what you point out is that fed govt has claimed too much power (incl. criminal code) such that too many things are literally federal cases.

    Take that noise outside.

    1. I will never forgive Trump for ruining comedy

      1. Since 2015, i've felt so bad for The Onion's writers.

    2. Who seriously watches that boring crap and thinks to themselves, 'hey this is ssooooo funny and edgy! You gotta watch this!'?

      1. When people clap for comedians, rather than laughing, you know it's really funny

        1. One of these days, Trump is no longer going to be POTUS, and these poor saps are going to have to find something else to whine about.

          1. Nah, they'll just turn the next high profile Republican into a Nazi. Remember the Obama years? The joke about Obama was that he was super cool and smart and sexy but those mean old republicans were going around interfering with his quest to turn America as forward-thinking as he is.

            Jon Stewart ruined late night comedy because he spent seven years licking Obama's nuts.

      2. Colbert et all are nothing but comedic cowards. They flick cards at the establishment from the comfort of their sets nestled within the entertainment establishment.

        Crowder has balls:

        1. Dying industries aim for loyal consumers if they can't have a large number of them. Kimmel would be as neutral as Carson if he had Carson's mass audience to lose. Older people are more set in their brand preference, hence advertisers appealing to the young.

          Long story short, businesses push left wing causes because they want young left wingers to buy deodorant and breakfast cereal from them. What does Citibank care about abortion from a bottom line standpoint?

    3. So Colbert hates him . . . but wants him to stay forever? I'm not gay, but I'm morbidly curious what sex between Colbert and Justice Kennedy would be like?

      1. Basically like every time Past Me gets laid.


      2. "I read... citizens united, and you never had one [a mind]"

        This mentality was on display this morning as the national news reported Kennedy's retirement. They listed his big swing votes and among them was "Allowing corporate money into elections".

        Yeah, that's how they "neutrally" described Citizen's United.

        The entire point of the first amendment was to protect political speech. That one was pretty easy to figure out, "congress shall make no law" being the operative phrase. But the left apparently has such good ideological blinders on that they can't see it.

        1. It was never to them about big money staying out of politics it was the other side's big money. They could care less that unions were usually the biggest spenders in campaigns cause that is their side. I have little doubt that eventually McCain Feingold would have been amended to "Give Unions a Voice".

  22. I think the way the Left is going on about The Handmaid's Tale is enormously funny. It reminds me of the aliens who thought Galaxy Quest was a "documentary".

    1. The fact that it's on TV now is probably the reason 80% of them have even heard of it.

  23. When the left loses, it's OK to for lefties to be pricks:

    "SF activist targeting Trump 'collaborators' has no interest in civility"
    "The civility and respectability politics are also just maintaining the institutionalized white supremacy that it is at the core of Trump's agenda," Hess said."

    1. You're starting to catch on...

  24. So Kim K has Dragon Dick Energy?

  25. So is everyone stocking up on their abortions? I went to three abortion stores last night and two of them were already sold out. You better stock up now that Kennedy is retiring.

    1. Haha! The hysteria over this is really spectacular. Does anyone really believe that abortions are going to become unavailable to libtropolis thots anytime soon even in absence of Roe v. Wade? You're not going to be able to get abortions in DC? Or NY? Or CA?

      I doubt that very much. Sure, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and a couple of others are fucked (both figuratively and literally). But there now exists this thing called the automobile, and women make up a large well-paid portion of the workforce last I checked. So I suspect they'll have the resources necessary to go where an abortion can be obtained if needed.

      Besides, I constantly hear from people like Tony that these fly over rubes deserve whatever comes to them for fucking their uncles or some such, so maybe they should get the Trumpening they so richly deserve! Why doesn't the left view this as a win-win?

      1. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, I would be surprised if more than 20 of the 50 states banned abortion. And states like New York and California would keep it legal at any stage of the pregnancy. If your biggest claim to oppression is having to drive a few hours over a state line to get an abortion, you are not oppressed. The whole thing is just insane. I honestly don't get their obsession with abortion over all other issues.

        1. I think you're being FAR too generous. I would be very surprised if the number was more than five. Given CA's recent actions, I would also be very surprised if they didn't immediately vote into existence a fund to fly disadvantaged abortion-needers from anywhere in the country to CA round trip to obtain abortions and avoid such terrible patriarchal oppression.

          1. I think you are probably right about that. Five is more likely than 20. The whole thing is just insane.

        2. From a libertarian perspective, abortion is the second most important human right, ranking just behind the right to immigrate to the United States. Of course we should be making a big deal out of it.

          1. Sometimes you really are funny. You are often tiresome. But sometimes you hit the tone and thought process of the typical brain dead Wokeltarian perfectly. This post was one of those times.

          2. But wait, what about the right to choose your gender? How can there be a superior right of abortion over a xir-fetus' who has not yet identified? Plus, said xir-fetus could also technically be an immigrant with parents who are traveling to a gay wedding, for which there is both a right to have, and have catered by homophobes.

            1. And the right to a gay wedding cake of your choice. Don't forget the gay wedding cakes, you monster.

              1. I didn't mean to other you. I sincerely intended that the homophobes catering the gay wedding would include homophobic bakers forced to bake gay wedding cakes.

                If it gets me back in SJW good graces, I will also make sure that there are gender neutral bathrooms provided so that the guests will have their absolute and Constitutionally enshrined right to pee in the bathroom of their choice - be it male, female, or xir - respected.

                1. What also if the xir-fetus wishes to unionize? Are they not denying the fetus the right to unionize?

              2. What? Floral arrangements don't count?

                1. Of course they do. So long as they come from underprivileged immigrant florists. Homophobic florists can be forced to bring gay wedding flowers, but according to intersectionality, I think it is better that the immigrants bring the flowers while the white homophobe florists just get sued. Muslims, of course, are allowed to attend and kill the entire wedding party, who must praise their superiority and the tolerance and peace of their religion as they are ritualistically beheaded.

          3. And what about the undocumented mothers who want to come over for an abortion? First the government takes her kid, then they won't let her kill the unborn one? I just can't even with this administration...

            1. If you let her kill the unborn one, you can't violently kidnap it from its mother's tit to a concentration camp later. So there is a certain logic to it.

              1. Yes but then in the future you are denying the unborn one the right to have an abortion. How can you be so cruel.

        3. I honestly don't get their obsession with abortion over all other issues.

          It fits in with the left's refusal to take personal responsibility for anything.

          1. Actually the abortion thing is pretty easy to understand.

            If you are a woman, being trapped into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is a pretty big thing. Even for those who probably would never be in that situation in the first place, having the state interpose it's judgement for yours on something that personal is pretty enraging. And then there's the "it just impacts women" angle, which is going to ruffle more feathers.

            From the right it has been a pretty huge issue too. Jerry Falwell rode this issue (among others) to prominence. It has been a litmus test for the (R) until recently. And it is understandable, because they are focusing on the rights of the new little unborn human.

            This one is way more about who's ox is being gored than it is about taking personal responsibility.

            You could look at the last 40 years of US politics and argue that both the left and right have been obsessed with abortion over all other issues.

        4. To answer your question their obsession is nothing but an us versus them wedge issue. A way to paint anyone who is slightly to the right of Hillary Clinton into a Grand Inquisitor with comfy chair and rack accesories.

          The screaming on my FB feed has been nonstop insane. OMG next week there will be hundreds of women a day will die in back alley abortions. This ignores that first a state must pass legislation that bans abortion. Which will then be challenged. A Federal Judge will then issue a stay preventing enforcement. It will work it's way through a host of courts where odds are it will be struck down there. Maybe 2-3 years later at best land on the Supreme courts lap. Who may or may not even pick up the issue. If they do Roberts has already shown himself to be unwilling to overturn long standing precedent so who knows if it is still overturned.

          1. Roberts didn't have the balls to strike down Obamacare. I find it highly unlikely he would have the balls to overturn Roe. But is likely to happen is that states will be able to restrict or maybe even ban late term abortions. The real fallout of this is that women will have to decide if they want to keep their baby within the first three months of getting pregnant. The horrors of actually having to take responsibility for their actions and making a decision.

            1. How anyone can be OK with late term abortion is beyond me. I think the record holder for earliest birth at approx 22 weeks is now a toddler. Unless you're an emotionally/mentally disabled 12 year old like Cytotoxic you have no excuse

              1. Cytoxic, that is a blast from the past. He was crazy but never boring. And yeah, in the day and age of prenatal care and sonograms, there is just no rational way to defend late term abortions.

                1. I still remember how he used to equate fetuses with retarded dogs who needed to be put down. He was "special"

                  1. He was a total open borders fanatic but was equally fanatical in his desire to whack radical Muslims overseas. It was like he believed that there wasn't a Muslim in the world outside of the US that wasn't worth killing but somehow they would magically transform into wonderful people when they crossed the border. It was a strange combination of views.

                    1. Cytotoxic was awfully pro-American, for a Canadian preteen.

                    2. He was a Canuckican, not a Canuckican't.

                2. The state should stay out of pregnancy rules but if you have a baby that can survive if pulled from the womb, you are getting into killing a person territory.

                  That and women pushed for assaults on a pregnant woman, where the fetus dies, is murder. But late stage abortion is not murder?

                  1. From a legal point that one always bugged me. How can they say a fetus is a person in one instance but not the other. The choice of one other human being makes the difference? It has to be one or the other.

    2. Even worse than that, I have it on good authority that soon all men suspected of having had gay butt sex will be subjected to forced anal cavity searches, and any man whose anus is deemed to be a little too raw will be put in public stockades where small children will be encouraged to pelt them with rotten fruit and small rocks.

      1. I think you heard wrong. The plan is to pelt them with non-gay wedding cakes from homophobic bakers, while non-gay florists lash them with the stems of non-gay wedding flowers.

        1. Non gay flowers and non gay cakes? Ugh, how will they survive the tackiness!!?

          1. Check your privilege, shitlord!

    3. I went early and bought like 100 so I can flip them on eBay

      1. See, it's people like you who price true abortion fans out of the market. You must be related to a Koch or own Ticketmaster.

  26. A new study has found that Vermont's GMO labeling law may have even decreased opposition to GMOs.

    I know that the "GMO-Free" label is a turn-off for me. When I see products labeled with that, I'm more likely to seek an alternative, because FUCK those anti-science anti-GMO pro-starvation fuckshits.

    1. This makes perfect sense. When the labeling happened, people realized that products they have been using for years contained GMOs. If you don't know how common GMOs are, you can be convinced to believe they are some scary new thing. Once you realize how common they are and how much you have been ingesting them, the scare tactics become a much harder sell.

    2. I've been intentionally buying GMO products, wherever I can determine they are. Because, science, yay! [And usually better product for lower price. Kinda the opposite of organic, bleah.]

    3. It's the new "organic". A very profitable scam designed to sucker idiots with money to burn.

    4. InVite's supplements are advertised as GMO-free because, as Chief Scientific Officer Jerry Hickey says, they didn't want certain pesticides used on their ingredients, and those pesticides are used particularly on pesticide-resistant GMOs. Hickey has nothing against GMO technology itself, but found that the easiest way to insure that those products would not have those materials used in growing them.

  27. The Aborto-Freaks will finally restrict women's right to choice.

    A big deal to many.

    1. Lefty scumbags in a panic! Amusing to most.

    2. I share your passion for reproductive rights, but you need to express it in a more trans-inclusive way. It's not just women who need to access abortion care. Many transmen are capable of getting pregnant. So are roughly half of non-binary people.

      1. Exactly. PB is a fascistic transphobic shitlord.

      2. You've overreached on the parody OBLT; you just outed yourself.

    3. Yes indeed Weigel. Also, you might want to go extra heavy on the lubrication, because you're near the top of the priority list for the mandatory anal cavity search!

      1. To absolutely no one's surprise, Mikey is volunteering to be the searcher.

    4. Abortion would remain legal in large areas of the country and you are shitting your pants over it. But it is everyone else who is an aborto freak. The saddest thing about you is that you honestly seem to have no idea how pathetic and stupid you sound.

    5. This is what the country is coming to, isn't it?

    6. Don't forget that this will usher in the Handmaid's tale, where we not only deny abortions, but force women to fuck and get pregnant in the first place. I'm basically giddy over it. BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA!!!!!!

      1. Yeah, i heard that the next SCOTUS term, they'll overturn the birth control case and then you just KNOW at least 45 states and probably closer to 48 will outlaw all forms of birth control, including abstinence.

        1. Griswold! Shit, i was blanking on the name.

        2. That's just the beginning. Adoption will also be outlawed too so that we can finally stick it to all those women and make them keep all those unwanted, unavoidable kids forever. Fuck their lives! Hell yeah! It's the moment I've been waiting for for all my life!

          1. Don't forget burning every woman who can read on the basis that she must be a witch.

            1. I mean, she can read the recipes in women's magazines and stuff, that's fine, but only a woman who is a witch would want to read anything literary.

              1. Oh, and we'll solve the campus rape problem because women won't be going to college - instead they'll be forced to go to Sandwich-Making School.

              2. What about literary porn? Can we have exceptions for that? Because that might also lead to more unabortable babies.

                1. If it's good porn, the men should be reading it.

                  1. If it were good porn, they'd have made it into a movie

            2. And making it illegal for them to wear shoes! Except in the bedroom of course, where they can wear high heels. For our pleasure of course!

      2. Well that would solve the school shooting crisis once involuntarily celibate dudes get to pick #9s and 10s to

        1. See. How can anyone tire of all this winning?

      3. Soon the Iranian ambassador will be like, "what's with all these anti-feminist policies you have, this goes too far!"

      4. If we keep going in this direction, the Muslim Invaders won't have much work to do.

    7. Should I go ahead and invest in wire coat hanger companies now or wait until after confirmation? I want to get in on the ground floor this time!

      1. If you really want to get rich, you may want to get started developing a stair-pusher-downer machine.

      2. It is probably already too late to get in on the ground floor of abortion hoarding like lap83 has. So, investing in coat hanger and wire futures is likely your best bet.

      3. Dump your shares in women's shoe companies too, since they're all gonna be barefoot and in the kitchen from now on.

    8. They're going to take your abortion away.

      But no one wants to take your guns away.

  28. Kennedy seems to have picked his retirement announcement purposefully. If he'd waited any longer, the next SC justice wouldn't be confirmed by this senate--if the Democrats take control of the senate in November, the Democrats are unlikely to confirm anybody Trump nominates at all.

    That might leave the court split on a 4-4 basis until the Republicans either retook the senate or Trump was voted out of office. By retiring now, Kennedy is doing the Court, the Constitution, and the country a big favor.

    Anybody doubt this logic or that this isn't what's driving Kennedy's decision to retire now?

    If we accept that, we might need to accept some other inconvenient truths--like that the Republicans holding the senate is important for everybody who cares about the Constitution and the country. It might suggest that Trump being president through 2024 is an important thing for people who care about the Constitution and the country, too.

    . . . even libertarians.

    As bad as I think Trump is on free trade and immigration, if Kennedy thinks the Democrats are such a threat to the Constitution that he's maneuvering his retirement to avoid their influence, then, yeah, that should give everybody pause. This latest crop of Democrats may make Obama look like one of the good guys. This latest crop of Democrats may be somewhere to the left of Hugo Chavez.

    1. Tarriffs can be repealed a hell of a lot easier than Supreme Court cases can be overturned.

      1. Back during the presidential campaign, the libertarian argument for voting for Trump was a lot about the SC, especially on the issue of guns, with Hillary Clinton campaigning on banning "assault weapons" and such.

        That argument is still sitting there, and Justice Kennedy seems to be endorsing it by his actions.

      2. Tarriffs can be repealed a hell of a lot easier than Supreme Court cases can be overturned.

        Tariffs can be repealed roughly as easily as the Supreme Court can be enlarged.

        The practical question appears to be when America will next have a Democratic Congress and Democratic president.

    2. Since modern politics involves fighting for control of the Supreme Court, not hemming in its power to limit its mischief-making capacity, then it becomes really important to get the right guys and gals on the Court.

      It would be too much to hope that the other branches would slap down the Court if it gets out of line - so it seems the only way to check the Court is to put better people on it.

      1. Yeah, and the problem is that the Democrats aren't picking people they think will call the Constitution fairly. They'd champion nominees to the Supreme Court specifically because they're against certain constitutional rights--like the Second Amendment, free speech, freedom of association, etc.

        If opposing those rights are qualifications for an SC nominee in the left's collective mind, then that's a legitimate libertarian concern.

        1. Both of Obama's appointees they bragged openly that they were not going to just base their decisions on the Constitution or law but on empathy, fairness and emotion. In fact they were really open that those would be the first things they looked at. Notorious RBG has even sought foreign precedents to decide cases. What would have happened had Hillary put two more Sotomayors, RBG's or Kagens on the court. I am not saying that the Conservatives on the court haven't made some bonehead plays in the past but they have been known to buck their party far more often then the Liberals. Remember it was the Liberals who gave us the Kelo decision not the Conservatives.

    3. Long SCOTUS vacancies have been done before.

      This is going to be very interesting indeed. I'm not certain that the current Senate will necessarily confirm anyone. Collins, Murkowski, and Flake aren't sure bets. The Dems have what, 10 vulnerable seats this election (?), and 3 highly vulnerable in ND, IN, and WV.

      You can bet that Kennedy's announcement will change the election dynamics in an enormous way. This election will turn into more of a SCOTUS election than a repudiation of Trump. I personally think that favors the Republicans, and wouldn't be surprised if they gamble and delay the confirmation until after the election because it could really swing the Senate in their favor. Interesting times!

      1. There's a better-than-decent chance there will be a delay, but I don't think it will happen. Even taking Collins, Murkowski, and the AZ contingent into account, and assuming Schumer gets everyone on the Ds in lockstep (an unlikely scenario given that Manchin is practically a Republican in all but name at this point and McCaskill is fighting for her political life), Pence can still act as the tiebreaker for the nuclear option.

      2. Flake, Collins, and Murkowski should send a list of three names to the President and tell him any nominee they vote to confirm will come from that list.

    4. As bad as I think Trump is on free trade and immigration

      Yeah, I don't think those are even in the top five or ten issues facing the US and the media's obsession with them - and that includes this magazine - is baffling to me.

  29. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't we still not know what Puerto Ricans want, regards to statehood? Until we have a fair, legitimate, straightforward ballot measure about the issue by Puerto Ricans, I don't think it is a good idea.

    1. They've rejected it before, but now there's a new generation.

      1. Or was it independence they rejected? I'm not 100% sure.

    2. As someone who has lived there, Puerto Ricans in general want the USA to protect them and let hundreds of thousands of them sit on their asses and drink all day.

      PR could never have the welfare state that they have if they were independent.

      1. As someone who has lived there, Puerto Ricans in general want the USA to protect them and let hundreds of thousands of them sit on their asses and drink all day.

        So, the same thing they do when they're not in Puerto Rico?

  30. Not sure if it's been pointed out, but Progressives have been using the court system for almost 100 years to get their way. Thus we should absolutely expect them to do something extreme right now since they're about to lose hold of their #1 political weapon. They still hold most of the rest of the court system, but having lost the head of the snake the rest is in danger of withering.

    So, yes, expect serious political violence in the future.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.