The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
I've Finished Reading The Apparent Dobbs Draft Opinion
The penultimate paragraph of Part IV provides the course of action going forward.
After my spate of blog posts from Monday evening (1, 2, 3, 4), I took the time to read the apparent Dobbs draft opinion. It is a tour de force. Justice Alito meticulously dissects, and forcefully responds to, every conceivable position in favor of retaining Roe and Casey. I could teach an entire law school seminar class on this opinion. It touches on nearly every facet of constitutional law. Moreover, the opinion carefully addresses the concerns of other members of the majority. Alito cites Justice Gorsuch's book. Alito discusses safe harbor laws, which seemed important to Justice Barrett. Alito repeatedly cites Justice Kavanaugh's Ramos concurrence, and calls on returning the issue to the democratic process. This is an opinion designed to hold five, as the saying goes.
Will this opinion, or a version of it, ever see the light of day? Who knows. We are now in uncharted territory. For all we know, the Court issues a one sentence per curiam opinion overruling Roe, and remanding the case to the Fifth Circuit for further proceedings.
Still, I think the penultimate paragraph in Part IV provides the course of action going forward:
We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today's decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.
In a perverse way, due to the leak, the Court can foresee what will happen when the opinion is formally released. Turn on MSNBC and log onto Twitter. We know exactly what would happen. Still, that foresight should be irrelevant. The justices lacks "authority to let that knowledge influence [their] decision." Let the press do their job. And the Justices can will do their job.
And even more perversely, Justice Kagan's dissent became much more difficult to write. Predictably, she would warn about how this decision would harm the Court's institutional legitimacy, yadda yadda yadda. But that bandaid was already ripped off. Everyone knows how this decision will be received because--again--we can watch MSNBC and doomscroll through Twitter. It will be hard for Kagan to even address this issue without talking about the draft opinion that everyone has already seen. Josh Gerstein is the elephant in the room. Politico's leak deflated the inevitable Dobbs dissent.
I do not know what Tuesday will bring, but we should hear from Chief Justice Roberts shortly. As of Monday afternoon, all nine Justices were in the Court for Justice Stevens's memorial. They may be called back to duty right away. Here they were in happier times:
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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don't think you should refer to a memorial for someone's death as "happier times."
The death itself may be an unhappy event. The point of a memorial is to remember the deceased fondly.
By leaving things up to the states. Doesn't this basically make it harder for some future hard right president to ban abortion nationwide? If so why are progs so upset?
That's not the way it works. Overruling Roe means that Congress could ban abortion nationwide.
Based on what enumerated power?
The infamous FYTW clause. It's found somewhere between the Commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clause.
It seems the crux of the opinion is that states have a right to set their own agenda. Theyd have to throw out this supposed stepping stone in order to get to their supposed goal. It would be easier to do a ban without this ruling.
It's one of their penumbrae and emanations.
The Congressional prohibition of so-called partial birth abortion is a regulation of interstate commerce.
"Purports to be".
Uh, "in or affecting interstate commerce" is an element of the offense.
Yeah, and that "or affecting" fork isn't in the clause. It only allows regulation of the commerce itself, not everything that might affect it.
"Or affecting' is how they do the purporting.
Then perhaps we can get some support for ending the idea that interstate commerce is a catchall that grants unbounded authority.
well they certainly could stop providing Federal funds for it.
The same one that they relied on to ban D&X abortions and the Court had no problem with.
Which was upheld by Roe and Casey which said the federal government could provide some regulations for abortion.
From the bits I read that would go against crux of the majority opinion.
Sure, Jan.
Thats not what the draft says. It says the constitution has no say on the issue. It has no right nor no power for congress to enact a law regarding it. That is left to the states.
Was there ever a time when progs weren’t upset about something?
Whenever law is interpreted as it is written, progs feel that an opportunity to intervene and meddle is lost.
Maybe I read this blog too much, but the ones hating this country we live in every day seem to be largely on the right at the moment.
Lol. Wow. Sadly you've been this delusional for a decade. It isnr the right insisting they need to fundamentally change society or wrapped in the original sin of slavery responsible for all global ills. What an idiotic assertion.
It's the right saying we *have* fundamentally changed society due to those libs in the judges or schools or immigration or Deep State, and we need to go back to the way it was when America was great. The ones who want a civil war, or a race war, or a purge. That's posters on this blog.
The only folks I've seen talking about morning in America being a thing they have hope for have been BLM marchers.
Ever been to a wake?
Stevens was 99 and had a pretty full life, nothing wrong with celebrating it.
it would be a happy time if a hypothetical team of sjws were forced to evaluate the scene without context since it would appear to be another old conservative white male kicking the bucket making way for modernity.
I agree with Kaz.
You gotta make everything about your culture war addiction, though. No way to go through life.
You gotta make everything about your culture war addiction, though.
OK, kettle.
No U, eh?
Trenchant.
The funnier part though was a miserable pathologically lying sack of shit like you, who spends so much time virtue signaling because you're well aware of what a sack of shit you are...dispensing advice on how to go through life.
That of course was a reply to the goat above.
No issue is more volatile in this country than abortion, and both sides have their potentially dangerous extremists. It is quite likely than at least one individual is fomenting a fantasy about saving abortion by harming one of the justices in the majority.
If he is serious about protecting the integrity of the Court, which he claims to hold so dear, Justice Roberts should direct the Court to release tomorrow, at least, a short per curiam opinion to the effect that the Mississippi law is constitutional and Roe and Casey are overruled.
If the morality of the anti-abortion fanatics were controlling, assassination is a legitimate tactic. What does it matter whether the target is a doctor or a jurist?
That is why I don't refer to the "pro-life" movement. It's all about control.
Yeah what a horrible blow to freedom this bill that says states can choose and not the federal government. The the anticontrol position is the federal government controlling everything.
Switching from individuals to states when talking about freedom is a tell. Has been for a long time.
Thank you!
Thought the same thing.
Look, if you want a woman's right to abort until the child is weaned, pursue a constitutional amendment. It's just not in the Constitution, no matter how much you think it should be.
Look, fuck off with your pinched and historically incorrect Constitutional formalism.
No, YOU fuck off with your distortion of plain words to fit a preferred outcome. You lefties have been doing this for decades and it’s getting tiresome.
You have no idea what my jurisprudence is.
I'm taking issue with the comment Brett laid out. You're taking issue with something you made up about me.
Deal with what's on the page, not what's in your imagination.
You have no idea what my jurisprudence is.
ROFLMAO!!!! Yeah, you're just a completely unknown quantity.
Yeah, my comment is that abortion isn't in the Constitution, it never was, and if you want it there, amend the Constitution, don't suborn judges.
This has been a growing problem since, FDR: The left wants changes to the Constitution, doesn't expect the states would ratify amendments to give it those changes, and so just has their tame Justices say the Constitution already means whatever they want.
And the gulf between the Constitution as interpreted, and the Constitution anyone can pick up and read, just keeps growing.
You failed in your effort to have political speech removed from the protection of the 1st amendment, and freaked out.
You failed in your effort to have the 2nd amendment abolished, and freaked out.
Well, now maybe you're going to LOSE one of you illegitimate pseudo-amendments, and you're freaking out. Because maybe your gains aren't permanent, and that scares you.
You want your changes to the Constitution to be secure, persuade people and get the Constitution amended. Because until you do, they're ill gotten gains, and we'll take them away from you any chance we get.
Your comment is that it's a fake right, based on your saying it's a fake right.
Your opinion does not define reality.
*abortion isn't in the Constitution - begging the question
*amend the Constitution, don't suborn judges - begging the question
*The left wants changes to the Constitution - begging the question
*And the gulf between the Constitution as interpreted, and the Constitution anyone can pick up and read, just keeps growing - begging the question. Putting you, Brett, in place of 'anyone.'
*You failed in your effort to have political speech removed from the protection of the 1st amendment, and freaked out - begging the question. Telepathy.
*You failed in your effort to have the 2nd amendment abolished, and freaked out - begging the question. Telepathy.
*illegitimate pseudo-amendments - begging the question.
*ill gotten gains - begging the question
Brett, your certainty of your take on the constitution does not give you any more moral right to condemn anyone else for disagreeing with you.
You can be certain other people are wrong, but once you invoke your certainty to declare others are *illegitimate* you're off in solipsism-land.
I think you're dead wrong. But somehow I am able to assume you're sincere.
Yet again, I implore you to have a modicum of humility and realize others may be as sincere as you are. You an still argue for your preferred interpretation, you just can stop telling me I'm a liar for daring to disagree with you.
I see you didnt quote where in the constitution was in the abortion.
Strange.
That's our Sarcastro, classy as always.
Next he'll be complaining about clingers and telling people to open their mouths wider.
Yeah, after some pretty strong judicial activism going 'well maybe you should amend the constitution if you don't like it' is hypocritical nonsense, and pisses me off.
You and Brett continually declare you're on the Founders side, but it turns out every time that your preferred outcome is exactly what you think the Founders would have wanted.
And both of you reject Baude's actual scholarship about originalism.
So yeah, your moral high horse is pretty grating.
Ah yes...Judicial activism...like letting the people decide what laws they would like to pass.
Which is an argument which denies the existence of all rights.
Who decides rights in a leftists world? Aoc? Obama? A committee of the elite?
Why have a legislature. Sarcastro prefers regulations and laws to appear at the whim of a judge.
Let the leftist claim whatever justification he needs for his beliefs. That is all sarcasto can do.
Try reading the Ninth Amendment.
I have. It's not a blank check for the courts to turn crimes into new rights, a right has to be pre-existing for the 9th amendment to apply.
'Pre-existing' doesn't seem to appear in the text of the 9th. A penumbra, I guess?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Something has to already exist to be retained. You can't keep things you don't already have.
Again, you're reading something into the text that isn't there - namely that the Amendment deals with a snapshot of the rights landscape of when it was written. Which is begging the question.
There is no reason why rights may be retained now that weren't then.
"There is no reason why rights may be retained now that weren't then."
"retained" has to be read as "retained" as of passage of the amendment. Text makes little sense otherwise.
It makes fine sense otherwise - the people retain rights even to this day.
No, Sarcastr0, you can't 'retain' something you never had.
Stop the BS word games, they never did persuade anybody. Retain means "keep", not "get".
You can gain something and then retain it.
Brett, you should consider retaining an attorney.
"You can gain something and then retain it."
You're arguing a sort of adverse possession theory here? That if the Court uses BS reasoning to impose a new, ahistorical right on the nation, the 9th amendment means that no later Court can correct the mistake?
Well, that's at least an argument. I wonder if you'd stick by it if the current Court started playing that game?
Old joke: under Jewish law, a child is not viable until it graduates from law school or medical school.
Arguing for a strong central government to displace centuries of state regulation is a tell. Has been for a long time.
Civil rights is federal power but also not tyranny weirdo.
Not always tyranny. Any power can be turned to tyrannical ends, especially if inflated past it's legitimate scope.
Take it up with Michael P's tellingly sweeping take
I was mocking your tellingly sweeping take.
Self-awareness has never been your strong point.
You need to do a better job with your mockery - it looks a lot like being knee-jerk super wrong.
If you think I was too sweeping, do you have an example of something I swept up I shouldn't have?
Some people think they have a civil right to march around in white robes and masks. Others think they have a civil right to threaten campaign volunteers and "punch fash". Claiming something is a civil right doesn't make it so. Exactly what civil right do you think is involved here?
That's not what you said - you came out against federal power overruling a state's longstanding policy.
Which is a facial attack on federally enforced civil rights generally. And incorporation. And the 13th Amendment.
Think a bit, and maybe try again with a more nuanced take.
What we oppose is the federal power overruling a state's longstanding policy without any actual constitutional basis.
If there's a genuine constitutional basis, overrule your heart out.
The starting point for this analysis is, and will remain, that the 'right' to an abortion is a fake right that the Court pulled out of its collective fecal orifice, and that makes a huge difference if you're arguing constitutional law.
It is in no way comparable to real rights that actually have a constitutional basis, whether from being enumerated, or having already traditionally existed at the time the 9th amendment was ratified.
'genuine constitutional basis' is really some hard question begging. It is, in fact, the entire debate here.
The starting point for this analysis is, and will remain, that the 'right' to an abortion is a fake right that the Court pulled out of its collective fecal orifice
No, and that kind of 'actually you're all lying liars and that's all the proof I need I'm right' discussion tactic can fuck right off.
Now we see the real Sarcastro. All emotion, no logic.
Yeah, emotionalism like 'you're begging the question' and taking issue with an argument being 'you're in bad faith hmmph.'
Truly I am appealing to emotion and that's all.
You keep using begging the question incorrectly.
It doesn't mean he simply refuted you.
"If the morality of the anti-abortion fanatics were controlling, assassination is a legitimate tactic. "
James Hodgkinson could not be reached for comment.
Not really comparable to the militant arm of the pro-life movement. That guy was a mentally ill guy on his own.
There are violent left-wingers, but nothing like Operation Rescue and the like.
Weather Underground, Baader–Meinhof Group, Eldridge Cleaver...
Harold Haley unavailable for comment.
Probably shouldn't include Baader-Meinhof, being a German group...
Kathy Boudin.
1983 Senate office bombing.
What do any of these counter examples have to do with abortion rights? It is the anti-abortion crazies who regard assassination as a legitimate tactic, not abortion rights supporters. If assassination were legitimate (of course it's not), why would taking out one or more justices be beyond the pale?
First, what makes you so certain that "anti-abortion crazies" -- excepting the one or two who actually do assassinate people -- believe that assassination is a legitimate tactic? I have seen pro-life people come under fire for not making this a tactic, both by pro-choice and pro-life people who say "pro-life people don't really consider this murder, or they'd be doing more". The problem with this claim is that most pro-life people have other concerns they are trying to balance, too, such as accepting the Rule of Law, and trying to make changes via legitimate means within the system.
Second, what makes you so certain that pro-abortion people wouldn't consider assassination an appropriate tactic? Since when were pro-choice people in a position where assassination would have reinforced their position?
(And if conspiracy theories about the untimely death of Justice Scalia are to believe -- I personally don't believe them, but I'm aware they exist -- it's not entirely implausible that this may have already happened.)
"'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,' Obama said in Philadelphia last night."
"Representative Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) told demonstrators to 'stay in the street' and become 'more confrontational'"
"After thunderous applause, Schumer doubled down: 'You won’t know what hit you, and you will pay the price. . . You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.'”
Now THIS is dumb as hell. If you think this is calls for violence, then what did Trump do on Jan 6?
You can't have it both ways.
Told protestors to march peacefully.
What do you think he did?
● Nancy Pelosi tells 2020 Dems, “You have to be ready to take a punch. And therefore you have to be ready to throw a punch—for the children.”
● Sen. Rand Paul had part of his lung removed this weekend because of damage from 2017 attack.
● Actor Jeff Daniels to CBS’s Stephen Colbert: ‘We Need Someone That Can Punch Trump in the Face.’
● Ilhan Omar Retweet Suggests Rand Paul Deserved to Be Assaulted.
● Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) to 2020 Dems: Don’t Run Away from Trump — ‘Punch Him in the Face.’
● Parents cheer as kids bash an ICE agent piñata and throw balls at the painted image of President Trump.
● Joe Biden: I Want to ‘Beat the Hell Out of’ President Trump.
● Patti LuPone defends violent attack on Rand Paul.
● CNN Host Palled Around with, Promoted ICE Firebomber’s Antifa Group.
● Leftist Thug Caught on Video Assaulting Conservative Berkeley Student While Fellow Students Laugh.
● Journalist Andy Ngo Beaten Up at Portland Antifa Rally.
● John Dickerson, the host of Face the Nation and the “political director” for CBS, wrote an article for Slate in 2013 charmingly titled “Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.”
"Flashbacks:
● Nancy Pelosi tells 2020 Dems, “You have to be ready to take a punch. And therefore you have to be ready to throw a punch—for the children.”
● Sen. Rand Paul had part of his lung removed this weekend because of damage from 2017 attack.
● Actor Jeff Daniels to CBS’s Stephen Colbert: ‘We Need Someone That Can Punch Trump in the Face.’
● Ilhan Omar Retweet Suggests Rand Paul Deserved to Be Assaulted.
● Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) to 2020 Dems: Don’t Run Away from Trump — ‘Punch Him in the Face.’
● Parents cheer as kids bash an ICE agent piñata and throw balls at the painted image of President Trump.
● Joe Biden: I Want to ‘Beat the Hell Out of’ President Trump.
● Patti LuPone defends violent attack on Rand Paul.
● CNN Host Palled Around with, Promoted ICE Firebomber’s Antifa Group.
● Leftist Thug Caught on Video Assaulting Conservative Berkeley Student While Fellow Students Laugh.
● Journalist Andy Ngo Beaten Up at Portland Antifa Rally.
● John Dickerson, the host of Face the Nation and the “political director” for CBS, wrote an article for Slate in 2013 charmingly titled “Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.”
"a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like, is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.
Evidence for this theory exists in the left's theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violence, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech"
Citations omitted.
Sorry for the double-paste.
Citations available upon request. And nothing from the '60s here.
I regret that I posted material without meeting the author's express requirements to cite his copyrighted work. I hereby correct that error.
" . . a simple premise on the left: A person doing something a leftist does not like, is a provocation to attack them. It is part of the broader philosophical abandonment of the rule of law.
Evidence for this theory exists in the left's theory of speech from any opponent. Speech from an opponent is considered to be violence, and worthy of attack. Violence, from the left, on the other hand, is considered to be speech"
https://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2022/04/is-carrying-gun-provocation-to-be.html
If the morality of the anti-abortion fanatics were controlling, assassination is a legitimate tactic.
Are y'all trying to argue that *today* anything like that group has any kind of voice on the left, via these anecdotes you need to reach back to the '60s for?
'Anecdotes show my side is more violent than yours' is a dumb game; maybe I shouldn't have jumped in, but so far y'all are so enthusiastic in your anecdotes you're kind of missing the original thesis ng posted.
We don't need to reach past last year, Sarcastro. We just need to reach back to the 60's for left-wing murderers you won't pretend were protesters.
This is a straight-up lie. I've made the distinctions I make clear to you multiple times.
You didn't used to do this.
You literally defended attempting to set fire to a building with people trapped inside, on the basis that arson wasn't an attempt to kill people, just a property crime. Remember that?
Militant people like the guy who shot up the FRC.
Youre an idiot Sarcastro.
Roe is why the issue is volatile. With Roe gone, a lot more people will get the laws they prefer depending on their state.
With Freedom of Speech gone, a lot more people would get the laws they prefer depending on their state!
You just admitted above there is no amendment for abortion and decried the need for it.
Can you be intellectually consistent?
Remarkably absent from Justice Alito's draft is any discussion of a pregnant woman's rights to personal autonomy and bodily integrity. If statutes regulating abortion are to be subjected only to rational basis analysis, a state is free to mandate abortions. (As I have noted in another thread, Buck v. Bell has never been overruled.)
Misogyny now.
Misogyny tomorrow.
Misogyny forever!!
And, where are those rights respected anywhere besides abortion? They're not taken seriously even by the people who mouth them, or else a lot more than abortion would have to be legal.
Certainly not taken seriously when it comes to vaccines or masks...
Just like pregnancy and childbirth.
Really showing your care for women here.
We are: They're half of the aborted, after all.
It's perfectly legitimate to point out that this talk about "personal autonomy and bodily integrity" is just an excuse, because when does that ever get applied outside this narrow context?
There are a lot of cases where if this were an actual legal principle, medical regulations would be falling like dominoes. And yet they stand. Because the pro-abort left doesn't give a fig about "personal autonomy and bodily integrity", they just want their abortions.
Yes. If I really had the right to bodily autonomy, I'd be able to go to CVS and get a bottle of antibiotics to treat a minor infection rather than have to pay the medical-industrial complex $150 to have a doctor tell me that I need what I already know I need.
If I really had the right to bodily autonomy, I wouldn't be told that I can't drink sodas without paying an absurd tax.
There are too many to list.
Sterilization.
Which Alito says is not a right firmly rooted in our history. Along with interracial marriage and contraception.
the pro-abort left doesn't give a fig about "personal autonomy and bodily integrity", they just want their abortions
Telepathy again. Just because YOU see a double standard doesn't mean there is one.
Which specific regulations do you think infringe on autonomy? Is it public health regs? Is it consumer protection? Because there are some pretty easy distinctions there if you'd try for a moment to think like anyone other than yourself.
Given that states had anti-miscegenation laws up until the late 1960s, I don't think you can claim that such a marriage was "firmly rooted in our history."
Doesn't really matter, because the 14th amendment banned such laws, and they were only preserved because the Supreme court deliberately misconstrued it to minimize the effects of the 14th amendment in all sorts of ways.
As I've related before, the moment the 14th amendment was ratified, multiple states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws on the understanding that they'd been rendered unconstitutional, and the courts started striking them down where they hadn't been repealed. All halted by the Supreme court, though this was a discussed implication of the amendment prior to its ratification.
The text of the 14A does not ban such laws.
Alito comes after SDP, which means Loving, Griswold, Turner, Moore v. East Cleveland, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
Maybe you love the potential in that chaos. I do not.
There were people who were there for the ratification who claimed it didn't ban such laws, but the 14th Amendment was unique in that it was basically ratified at gunpoint, so there are people who were forced to vote for it who didn't agree with it.
When did the SCOTUS halt the challenges?
You're already looking beyond the text, I see.
But former slave states not knowing how reconstruction would go doesn't really say a lot about the original intent.
was a discussed implication was never actually declared or decided on, was it? You're grasping for straws. Because you gotta have your Constitution both not be obviously evil, but also let you cut out the rights you don't like.
'these rights but not those' requires making distinctions over ad over again between the rights you feel need to be kept and those that don't. It's not sustainable.
There is no overarching logic other than question begging. You need to distinguish over and over again, making your standards thinner and thinner and more and more ad hoc until you are unable to convince anyone who isn't lock-step with Brett's preferred set of rights.
Look, I can understand why you object to double standards being pointed out; If you didn't have double standards, you'd have precious little in the way of standards at all.
But your demand that we ignore them is rejected.
"Which specific regulations do you think infringe on autonomy?"
Oh, lots. There are a wide range of medical regulations that are arguably at least as self-regarding as abortion, even if you insist on pretending there's nobody being aborted. Regulations intended to "protect" people from themselves, or worse, to 'protect' professional sports from cheating.
For instance, there are a lot of body building supplements you can't get anymore, such as myostatin blockers. How does it harm anybody else if I get some help in arresting my ongoing sarcopenia?
I'd like to privately replicate Dr. Fahy's thymus gland regeneration protocol, the results so far have been very promising, I live too far from his lab to participate, and by the time his research clears the FDA I'll likely be far too old to benefit. But I can't; Half the stuff involved is prescription, and the HGH is locked down to the point where even doctors aren't allowed to do off-label prescriptions, so even finding a cooperative physician wouldn't help me.
And that's just a starter. The whole field of medical research is being impeded by stupid regulations that wouldn't stand for a second in the face of the sort of "personal autonomy and bodily integrity" reasoning that's reserved for abortion, and ONLY abortion.
I can understand why you object to double standards being pointed out; If you didn't have double standards, you'd have precious little in the way of standards at all. Way to start your argument with an insult.
Professional sports regs are about an entertainment business. I'm having a hard time seeing anything short of a return of Lochner making them fall under bodily autonomy rights. You can dope all you want absent illegal drugs in your own backyard.
You’re the one telling him to “fuck off” twice above.
Oh my stars and garters, some no-no words. I hope your fainting couch is okay.
I engaged with the comments (and some posting history). He's engaging with my assumed bad faith. That's not the same.
He's engaging with your proven, repeatedly demonstrated, bad faith.
The thing is, beyond the rudeness of calling me a liar, is that merely responding to an argument with ad hominem is not only boring but makes you look like you don't want to put the thoughts in to address the substance.
LOL! "Absent illegal drugs" is begging the question. We're discussing why drugs are illegal.
"to 'protect' professional sports from cheating" is not about cocaine.
Read better. And be less of an open piece of shit white supremacist if you could also do that.
"Really showing your care for women here."
What's a woman?
One joke.
Ad popularum is still a fallacy even when applied to a subset. There is no discussion of life of the mother, of fatal birth defects, or anything. The rationale leaves all that up to the states. Especially given the emotionalism of the draft, blithely ignoring these consequences while dwelling on other consequences is worth criticizing or defending on it's own merits.
But do go off on your lame joke.
You didn't answer -- what IS a women?????
*woman
If only they hadn't aborted the edit button!
We had a pretty good Thursday open thread about this - it was a long discussion, and even the right-wingers on here found themselves disagreeing among one another.
Suffice to say while you may think you know it when you see it, the margins are really difficult to make into bright lines.
So your blithe questioning is an appeal to incredulity that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Which it looks like most of you already know, but what is reality before an attempt to own the libs by clinging to a simplicity for just a little longer, even if you know it's wrong?
It is a simple question and not in doubt (except as a birth defect in a literal handful of cases) -- your refusal to answer makes you a radical ... and wrong.
You say it's a simple question. To the point you declare anyone who disagrees is a radical and wrong. I guess you mean penis or vagina at birth is the key.
You may want to take that up with those who insist it's gotta be the DNA, and those who think it's about who has a womb, and those who say chromosomes, and those who go by various statutes.
All of whom were your compatriots, and anti-trans.
IOW it's not an easy question, regardless of how much certainty you have that it is.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/07/thursday-open-thread-77/?comments=true#comment-9436202
even the right-wingers on here found themselves disagreeing among one another
As you would expect. The lefties are the people who think everything should be decided by the government. The righties are everybody else. Why would you expect the righties to be homogeneous ?
The left's ideas about the government aren't nearly as universally superlative as your take.
And plenty on the right are pretty into uses for the government as well. Witness this very issue.
In reality, philosophy has really receded behind branding and tribalism.
But all of that is not on point - the point is that 'what is a woman' is not an easy question, even on the right.
After reviewing that thread, I cannot help but notice two things:
First, even with right-wingers disagreeing with each other, they were in far more agreement than you were giving them credit for, and Second, the Leftists there were trying their darnedest to throw out weird exceptions to attempt to make the case that they should be the foundation for the rule.
There was another topic elsewhere, where someone was trying to use a weird corner-case to justify complete and no-holds-barred abortion (it was even a corner case that my wife and I had intimate knowledge about, having experienced it ourself), and it strikes me as arguing "hey, people have to kill others in justified self defense, so we should make murder illegal!"
"discussion of life of the mother, of fatal birth defects"
Policy issues. No need to discuss, policy is up to the states.
Awesomely dismissive argument. It also works for school segregation!
Then again, one of the things I cannot help but notice, when looking at self defense statutes, is how much variation there is between the States. Maybe we shouldn't let States decide on those kinds of issues at all: maybe we should just have one Federal standard, so that we don't have silly States like Massachusetts that refuses to recognize things like Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine.
"The rationale leaves all that up to the states."
And state voters, most of whom are women.
And they know what they are.
Ad popularum doesn't work great with rights - rights are explicitly anti-majoritarian.
So you're low-key begging the question.
And you're begging the question as to what degree killing babies should be considered a right.
More women that men are anti-abortion
Brett, do you claim that Rochin v. California was wrongly decided? That decision sounded in the right to bodily integrity without implicating abortion.
Because clearly all bleeders (I'm sure not guity's preferred term) are in lockstep pro-abortion unison.
Presumably because no such right is mentioned in the Constitution. If there were such a right it would have to be inferred from something that is mentioned. And Alito explains precisely why such a right cannot be inferred from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, where he says, pro-choice folk currently allege it is to be found hiding.
Several nonenumerated rights have been recognized under the rubric of substantive due process. None of them is now safe.
Well, good. Substantive due process is an absurd oxymoron. A bastard creation of a Court that didn't have the integrity to just overturn the Slaughterhouse cases, and rule that all our enumerated and traditional liberties were incorporated by the P&I clause, as intended.
Lets roll our system of rights back to 1938!
I'd rather roll it back to just before the Slaughterhouse court constructively struck down the 14th amendment.
The cowardice of the Court in refusing to directly confront its evil history there, and just forthrightly overturn Slaughterhouse, is despicable. I don't want the bastardized version of the 14th amendment the Court has given us, I want the original, in its full glory.
This is silly. No legal system is going to be smooth and consistent.
It's not worth upturning our centuries-old edifice of rights and precedents because you don't like it's logical aesthetic.
Screw logical aesthetics, centuries old edifices of lies deserve to be overturned.
Nope. You and the critical theorists can take a seat over there.
Law is a human endeavor. Insisting on perfect fidelity to the truth is insisting on the impossible. Real humans, alone and in institutional groups, change their mind, and are hypocritical, and miss some ambiguity they didn't intend.
So no, I don't think a quest for an 'honest' jurisprudence is a worthy one.
Plus, of course, let us not ignore how convenient this particular lie you're going against is for how you wish America was substantively. Same with other opinions you don't like - Wickard, McCulloch, Obergefell, etc.
It's funny you think Wickard, in particular, shouldn't be overruled. That's a pretty egregious case -- why should wheat grown on your own property for your own purposes be within the purview of the Federal Government?
What kinds of chaos do you expect to happen once the Feds are forced out of our backyards?
"Substantive due process is an absurd oxymoron."
Absolutely. Substance is not process.
The right of parents to direct the upbringing of children. The right to marry and raise a family. The right to procreate or to avoid doing so. The right to be free of governmental intrusion on bodily integrity. The right to choose a sexual partner. None is mentioned in the text of the Constitution, but each is none of the government's freaking business, no matter what procedures are provided. Would you abandon all of these rights?
To give a personal example, for the first ten years of my married life, my wife and I committed a felony each time we engaged in oral sex. (Crime against nature, repealed in 1989.) How is that any of the state's business?
Avoiding procreation is childishly simple and 100% foolproof.
I suspect they still taught it when you were growing up, before you chose a life of sophistry.
Would you overrule Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird? Yes or no?
The slaughterhouse cases greatly assisted in the death of reconstruction and the rise of Jim crow.
A state statute banning pre-viability abortions is just as destructive of individual liberty as would be a statute mandating abortions. A rational basis for either can be manufactured.
But five members of SCOTUS don't seem to care.
It's their job to care what the Constitution means, regardless of the expected results. It's not their job to change what the Constitution 'means', to produce desirable results.
The elected branches get to say what results are desirable.
If the Constitution we actually have produces outcomes people don't like, that's what Article V is for. NOT what the Court is for.
Now apply Justice Alito's methodology in Dobbs to NYSRPA v. Bruen and you get, "No Concealed Carry For You!"
Your monomaniacal open carry obsession makes Josh's Roberts fetish look well-adjusted.
Except the 2nd Amendment limiting the government's ability to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the Constitution. And under McDonald v Chicago, the 2nd Amendment was incorporated onto the States.
Nope, scattergood. The right to carry firearms for self-defense is nowhere mentioned. If it exists, and you want to find it, look in the penumbras. Same as for abortion.
Maybe blue states ought to start outlawing arms for self-defense, in anticipation of an overturn of Heller.
The right to carry firearms for self-defense is nowhere mentioned.
You think the right to "bear" arms was predicated on their value as fashion accessories?
jk...I'd never seriously accuse you of thinking.
It's not the right to carry firearms for self-defense. It's the right to carry firearms, period, for any goddamn reason you want, because it's a right, and you don't have to give the government reasons you want to exercise a right. Because a "right" is exactly what you DON'T need permission to do, and you don't need to give a reason for what you don't need to get permission for.
Having the right to carry them, you can then use them for any lawful purpose, of course.
Well, Heller said it was for self defense. And for hunting.... also in a penumbra I suppose. Not "any purpose."
By the way, appealing to generality works for abortion too. "The constitution says liberty! You can't constrain my liberty to have abortions or whatever."
Anyway, as anyone who read the pseudo-opinion knows, it's pretty bad, being written by Alito. The worst part is, he makes up a new stare decisis rule: constitutional interpretations are the least protected. According to Alito, it's so important to get the interpretation right, there's practically no bar to overruling past ones.
So this opinion will make it even easier to jettison Heller (and Citizens United, etc.) when the time comes. We just have to say "egregiously wrong" and poof! Gone.
After all, the second amendment gives us the reason, and there's only one. If your first two guesses are self-defense and hunting, bzzt both wrong. You have one guess left.
Well, Heller said it was for self defense. And for hunting.... also in a penumbra I suppose. Not "any purpose."
Heller said no such thing.
Try reading.
"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."
Heller did not say that the second amendment protects bearing arms for "any purpose." It says actually:
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
The "central purpose" it identifies, somewhat shockingly, isn't the one named in the text. It's self-defense.
It justifies that conclusion with originalist nonsense like:
> The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.
So there you go. Originalism says that what "most Americans undoubtedly thought" 250 years ago (in Scalia's imagination at least) trumps the text.
Egregiously wrong!
Indeed, try reading:
"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
It's the USE that mentioned self defense, merely as an example of a traditionally lawful purpose. The RIGHT is just to possess a firearm. Period, end of story. Not to possess it for a specific purpose, just to possess it.
Unsurprisingly, you're totally wrong. Heller refers to the "right to self-defense" over and over. The whole reason Scalia arrives at the conclusion he does is that the "right to self-defense" is more important (in his mind, despite hiding in penumbras) than the text of the Constitution itself.
His logic is that the "right to self-defense" is what the "right to keep and bear arms" is really about, because... insert fantasy about the founding era here.
You might think I'm exaggerating. But Scalia even goes so far as to disclaim the original, textual militia-related purpose as antiquated and no longer operative. Pretty rich for a fucking originalist!
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
Try reading.
Physician, heal thyself.
"Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."
I see that you have a preschooler's grasp of English. That says that handguns are the most popular home self-defense weapon. It does NOT say that home self-defense (note how specific it is being here because of the context of the statement...which you omitted, of course) is the right is just "for self defense".
The "central purpose" it identifies, somewhat shockingly, isn't the one named in the text. It's self-defense.
Why are you placing "central purpose" in quotes when that term appears nowhere in anything that you've cited?
Short version: You're a babbling idiot.
> In Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right.
That's from McDonald, sort of Heller II, quoting Heller.
That's not new. If something isn't constitutional in nature, Congress can change it. But for constitutional interpretations, the only way to change it is a constitutional amendment. Pretty sure that argument was used to justify the courts keeping qualified immunity; the courts don't want to change it if Congress can do so instead.
I hope that Jill Stein and her 2016 voters are happy with the upheaval they have wrought.
Don't neglect to give Harry Reid his due credit for abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees. If not for that far-sighted act, Senate Democrats could have easily blocked the nomination of Amy Comey Barrett.
As Mitch McConnell said at the time, "You'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think."
Do you think the Democrats regret it?
Not just abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees. In October of 2016, you had multiple highly placed Democrats publicly discussing how they were going to abolish the filibuster for Supreme court justices after Hillary took office.
That all went down the memory hole after Trump won, of course. So many Democratic complaints are of the "How dare you do to us what we said we'd do to you!" nature.
Don't blame Democrats for things Republicans do.
Literally, Democrats ended the filibuster for the lower court seats, and came right out and said that they'd end it for the Supreme court the moment Republicans tried to filibuster a nominee. So stop trying to memory hole the fact that this IS something Democrats did.
Tim Kaine Predicts Possible ‘Nuclear Option’ Over Supreme Court Nomination
"“I was in the Senate when the Republicans’ stonewalling around appointments caused Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice,” Kaine said. “If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘We’re not going to let you thwart the law.’”
Retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid worked those procedural changes as majority leader back in 2013. And the Nevada Democrat has suggested his party could be prepared to go further next year."
Don’t blame Democrats for anything Republicans do.
The Dems are responsible for the end of the judicial filibuster.
This Court is all GOP dominated. This is what they want.
But of course you'd deflect it over to the left. Pretending your side has no agency is a reflex now.
You're acting like Democrats are parents and Republicans are wayward children for whom the parents are responsible.
That sounds basically right.
You've said that twice now. As a simple statement, it is true (and didn't need to be repeated). What maybe does need to be repeated is that the corollary is precisely-equally true:
Don't blame Republicans for things that Democrats do.
All the conservatives here are bending over backwards to avoid giving the GOP any agency, even now.
That is not what "agency" means. Of course they have agency. They are entirely responsible for their actions. What they don't have is novelty. Their action was in choosing to do it, not inventing it.
1) Who cares about novelty? He did it first does not actually absolve anyone.
2) The GOP have done a lot of stuff to the judiciary Dems hadn't done since 2013.
When the argument is "A says that X is morally wrong", the fact that A invented X matters rather a lot. Specifically, it eviscerates A's credibility when now claiming that X is in fact morally wrong.
1) Who cares about novelty? He did it first does not actually absolve anyone.
Yeah...who fired the opening salvo is utterly irrelevant to determining why we're shooting at each other!
The GOP did not end the non-Supreme Court judicial filibuster, so your comparison doesn't work.
Rossami, reality exists in the world. With regard to court appointment, the political reality now is that the Coney-Barrett ram-through will be treated on the left as totally illegitimate, and a but-for cause of a 5-4 (if that is what happens) all-out attack on personal privacy. Enjoy the victory.
If it turns out that overturn of Roe advantages Ds in senate elections, get ready on the basis of that reality never to see another Republican elevated to the federal bench at any level, until the Rs get both the presidency and and senate control.
Rossami, reality exists in the world.
Yes, and kudos to you for having so effectively avoided it for so many years.
When Democrats all but promised that they were going to get rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, it would have been foolish for Republicans to keep the filibuster, even if they wanted it. Something like this can only exist when both sides agree to it -- and when one side explicitly declares they are no longer agreeing to it, it's dead.
"Don't blame Democrats for things Republicans do."
The Dems ended the filibuster in such a way that it was clear no SCOTUS justice should ever be filibustered again. There's no ending the filibuster just for your side.
The Dems should take responsibility for what they do.
Totally covered Supreme Court nominees. Weird you didn't mention the explicit carveout there.
And also how you ended history in 2013.
Huh.
There was a carveout because there was no vacancy.
There's no point stealing a horse when you're driving to the airport. You wait till you need a horse.
Ah yes. So ignore the facts, assume bad faith, and you can get to the conclusion you want.
Meh.
You would have a case if Democrats hadn't all but promised to end the Supreme Court Nominee filibuster the first chance they got. They are only angry because they thought they would be in power when it happened -- but they were not.
What good is it to be "principled" when your enemies aren't, and will only hold your own principles against you?
And I say this as someone who appreciates the filibuster, and would like it restored -- but can clearly see that it can only exist if both sides agree to it, or if it's entrenched as a rule that neither side could remove.
NG,
Exactly. I also give Bernie Sanders a ton of "credit" for this. Trump's election is enough to make one believe in a (perverse) God. About 5-10 things had to happen, in order for Trump to win. And they all did happen. If not for all those dominos falling, It's Hillary who gets 3 SCOTUS appts, and our world looks very different.
Whatever you want to say about Trump, and however much you want to complain about his rapes and sexual assaults, his pathological lying, his decades of racism, cheating, stealing, his sucking up to Putin. His enduring legacy is and will be putting ultra conservatism in full control of the Sup. Ct. This will have ramifications for decades.
Liberals will think this is terrible; conservatives will think this is wonderful. But it's all part of our American political process. Elections indeed do have consequences.
Is there anything which *can't* be blamed on Orange Julius Caesar?
I suspect that Trump couldn't have won the first time around if the left weren't so maniacally determined to assume he's a shambling collection of negative traits, rather than a amazingly successful person with a lot of strengths. It's led you to underestimate him at every turn.
Locker room trash talk is stupid enough, but basing your game strategy on it is stupider still.
He's an amazingly unsuccessful person, whose only real success in life — besides choosing the right person to inherit money from — was as a game show host.
That does kind of omit the fact that he'd been managing his dad's businesses for him for about a decade before inheriting, which is why there was so much to inherit. And that he grew that fortune while living high on the hog. And that he ran for President and won.
Really, it's just stupid trash talk, and you're doubling down on it.
Indeed. It's an issue where they start believing their own mistruths...
Dave has a terminal case of TDS. Logic isn’t going to win the argument, because it wasn’t logic that got him to that point. How many logic-deficient attorneys do we have practicing in this country.
He had been doing no such thing. And his father had to repeatedly bail him out when his own businesses failed.
As for the last point, setting aside the really really really bizarre notion that getting elected is a contest of intelligence or skill, he ran for president and did worse than Mitt Romney. He just picked the right person to run against, one of the most disliked people in the country.
What's bizarre is the notion that getting elected isn't at least in part a contest of intelligence and skill. Trump didn't just beat Hillary, to get to that point he had to beat all the Republican potential nominees, just as Hillary had to beat all the potential Democratic nominees.
Hillary might have been uniquely disliked and corrupt so far as Presidential nominees go, but she nabbed that nomination anyway, because she had other advantages.
"amazingly unsuccessful person"
Sure, President Nieporent.
He could have been an unknown moderately successful litigator like you. Not a cultural icon for decades, rich person and successful entertainer. Oh, and President of the freaking US.
whose only real success in life — besides choosing the right person to inherit money from — was as a game show host
I love that "only" 🙂
Gary Grant's only real success was as an actor. Not to be compared with becoming a lawyer, obviously.
"Elections indeed do have consequences."
Except when the winner is a black man. Cf. Obama, Garland.
Did you miss that the Senate has elections, too?
Only so that they can do their jobs. Which they didnt
The Senate gets to make its own rules. If they want to require that every nominee gets a vote, fine. If they don't want to require that, also fine.
Sotomayor and Kagan?
Santa,
I read the 2016 election a bit differently, as a story of manipulation gone astray...
First, a bit of background. The Democrats were disfavored going into 2016 on general grounds. They'd just had the presidency for 8 years. The economy had been...meh....for a long number of those years. Those background figures favored for a change
Then you need to start with the GOP nomination. Trump shouldn't have won. There were many quite good GOP nominees in it. They read the background (and ended up splitting a lot of support) But what drove Trump's early momentum was the media support. The media "loved" Trump in 2015. That drove Trump's numbers, when he should've been ignored in favor of other establishment candidates. But the establishment was splitting support, and the media was internally giddy over the prospect of having Trump as an opponent in the general election. So two factors: Establishment splitting support and media favoring Trump.
Then you need to go to the Democratic nomination. They needed to run a moderate without baggage in the nomination. Instead, the Democrats had been driven to the left by extremists....and Sanders and Warren had major followings. Against them was Hillary. She had the inside favors to "leverage" key national politicians...but also had the baggage with it. She undoubtedly "persuaded" major moderate Democrats not to run. Jim Webb may have been an option. So again, two factors. Democratic extremism and a flawed-baggage laden candidate.
So, in the general election you had two flawed candidates. Trump and Hillary. People didn't really like either candidate. A large reason for Trump's win was Hillary. If Democrats had put up a moderate option without baggage...Jim Webb, Steve Bullock, Tom Wolf....Democrats win. But Hillary's ambition won out.
I've said that myself, that the Democratic media were actually promoting Trump as a Republican nominee who they thought would be easy to beat. A result of their not understanding how right-wing voters think.
Even after he secured the nomination, and they predictably switched to attacking him, their lack of understanding caused them to engage in attacks that were actually helping him; Publicizing police stands that they didn't understand were actually popular!
They did eventually realize that they had to attack him on character, not issues, but by then it was too late.
So, after Trump secured the nomination, an interesting thing happened that the media missed.
A large number of "apolitical" people who had felt left out started to engage. These were working class people who had been abandoned by the Democrats, but not yet picked up by the Republicans. Trump saw that opportunity there, and picked them up. And what this did is, it accelerated the reversal in the party bases.
This really can't be overstated. The Democrats used to be the party of the working class. The GOP used to be the party of the business class. And this has, in essence, reversed. Democrats now promote big business and globalization, especially tech. The GOP represents the working class and working class values. You can see it in their relative bases now.
Look at this "bizzaro" world. You have Marco Rubio supporting unionization of Amazon workers in Alabama. While Amazon is hiring Democratic Polling firms to suppress unionization in Staten Island. Amazon has 1.6 million workers worldwide, the 3rd largest in US private employers. You think unionization would be a major driver there for Democrats. But you have....relative silence.
"the Democratic media were actually promoting Trump as a Republican nominee who they thought would be easy to beat."
Right there.
I have to agree with Armchair below. Only a few things needed to happen for Trump to win.
1. The media had to give Trump a lot of free publicity in a misguided attempt to steer the Republican nomination to an "unwinnable" candidate.
2. The Democrats had to nominate the most unwinnable candidate they could find on their own side.
It didn't help that Clinton compounded the problem by making the unforced error of choosing not to campaign in certain states that turned out to be critical.
Oh, I don't think she was the *most* unwinnable candidate. She may have all the charisma of a moldy tomato, and a terrifying reputation for corruption, but she balanced that with a Machiavellian political skill that's hard to overstate. She was really the reason Bill didn't remain a local figure, he supplied the charisma, she supplied the political chops.
They didn't give her the nomination, she seized it with a ruthless and well executed plan.
I think she could have won against most of the people competing for the Republican nomination that year, because most of them would have left the Republican base totally apathetic.
I'll agree with to the "I think she could have won" part.
Many of the other GOP candidates (Rubio, Cruz, even Kasich) would have more handily beaten Hillary.
When they couldn't even beat Trump?
So, I addressed this, but a few points on it.
1. The general electorate is significantly different from the GOP primary electorate. That does need to be understood. And many of those who voted for Trump would just have as happily voted for Rubio in the general election
2. One of the major issues in 2016 is that the GOP "establishment" candidates split the primary vote and primary attention. It wasn't a 2-way race. Trump didn't even win a majority of the primary vote, even with the advantages towards the end of the primary season.
3. The other major issue was the massive media boost Trump got. That can't be understated.
If you're not going to understate the media boost Trump got during the primaries, you must not understate the media headwind he faced once he had the nomination. It was basically unprecedented, no nominee in history had previously faced such uniformly hostile coverage.
And yet he won anyway.
Hell, if not for the historical accident of Covid, and it being used to crash the economy shortly before the election, he'd have won in 2020, too.
She has no political chops. None.
That idiotic joke told by Dan Rather created the myth of Hillary.
She’s never been good at anything. Not a good lawyer. Not even a good speaker
It didn't help that Clinton compounded the problem by making the unforced error of choosing not to campaign in certain states that turned out to be critical.
I always thought that was one of her shrewder moves.
She had to cope with the sad fact that she actually declined in popularity every time she started campaigning somewhere, she was that repulsive. So she didn't dare campaign outside places she had nailed down beyond any chance of loss.
however much you want to complain about his rapes and sexual assaults, his pathological lying, his decades of racism, cheating, stealing, his sucking up to Putin
Yeah, he bullshits a lot (though not any more than any other prominent politician..he's just not as artful about it as most). But you're stating as fact other things for which there have been no compelling evidence, and in some cases no evidence at all save for unsubstantiated allegations made by leftist activists and other political opponents. If that's not reason to not take you even remotely seriously than nothing is.
I'm not going to address the rest of your comment, but as for "his sucking up to Putin":
If President Trump were really Putin's friend, wouldn't he have kneecapped American energy independence, green-lit the Russia-Europe pipeline, and announce to the world that the United States would ignore "minor incursions" into Ukrainian territory? Would he have suggested to Putin that if anything happened to Ukraine, he'd bombed Moscow?
The current Pretendant did all these things, except the last (which Trump did). Seriously, if Biden was Putin's bedmate, what would he be doing differently?
You forgot to thank the Bernie Bastards
"I hope that Jill Stein and her 2016 voters are happy with the upheaval they have wrought."
The woman who is directly responsible is not Stein but Notorious RBG, whose vanity and ego led to Amy being the decisive vote.
Thanks Ruth!
Josh is celebrating the fact that the Court is being proudly irresponsible, not caring about the effect of its holding.
The effect of its holding (if it holds what has been leaked) will simply be to return the matter to the States. Since most polls suggest that most Americans are pro-choice, but with time limits, and not pro-choice anytime, or pro-life anytime, that's likely to be where States finish up.
Even "red" States where if the GOP continues to insist on "abortion never" candidates, the redness of the State may become considerably less dazzling. Even in 2022 there are at least half a dozen tight Governors races that could be swung by abortion*.
Of course abortion is only one issue among many, and of greatest concern to a demographic that leans Dem already, so how much of a boost to local Dem candidates the death of Roe might be, depends on how voters perceive other policies too. Even "abortion never" does not catapult you to the top of the crazy pole.
* And, Mr Chief Justice, the political implications of this should be irrelevant to the legal finding.
Being cynical, I think most voters are too dumb to punish anti-choice candidates. But I see the inevitable next step (for conservative extremist politicians...not the mainstream super-conservative ones) to push for murder or manslaughter charges against women who get abortions and/or their doctors. And maybe laws that try to prevent a pregnant woman from traveling to a state that still will be fully protecting a woman's control over her body and reproductive choices. I see a backlash to these laws. But that's at least a decade away, according to my trusty crystal ball.
"protecting a woman's control over her body and reproductive choices"
First, I'll call you out for using the term "woman" for birthing people. Since you're a dues-paying progressive, I'll assume this transphobic usage on your part was inadvertent and not a permanent blot on your woke bona fides.
Also, the laws against rape secure wom-I mean birthing people- the control over xir bodies and reproductive choices. The main thing they *don't* secure in a prolife regime is the right to kill children for the sins of their fathers...I mean sperm donors.
too dumb to punish anti-choice candidates
As evidenced by those who are so dumb that they're still using braindead euphemisms like "anti-choice" (and "pro-choice", and "pro-life", etc).
They're not supposed to care about the effect of their holding, they're supposed to care if they're upholding. Somebody else wrote the Constitution, their only job is to honestly apply it.
Might as well complain that an umpire doesn't care who wins the game.
If abortion was really as much of a "women's issue" as the left claims, women would be far more likely to support abortion rights than men. Polls show that this is not the case.
While women are slightly more likely to support legal abortion in all cases, it's not nearly the disparity you'd expect if it truly was a "women's issue."
Pro-life 'women' aren't really women, in much the same way that conservative blacks aren't really blacks. You judge whether somebody is a member of a group by whether they hold the views the left assigned that group.
That's exactly right.
As usual, your telepathy is telling you some stuff that is not exactly on the pulse of real life liberals.
If I judged the right by it's twitter trolls, the GOP would be a party of race-war seeking anti-Semitic incels.
Are you a biologist? If not, how can we trust your identification of other people?
Are you an idiot? Because that strawman fools no one.
Some of us think that nominees to the Supreme Court are good indicators of "real life" and how "real life" people behave. I guess you know better.
Most of us understood that exchange. Some of us choose to misunderstand it.
Ah, but who gets to decide who understood it, and who didn't? I don't particularly trust your judgement in this matter.
FIFY.
If I judged the left by its elected officials, the Democrats would be a party of white-hating, gun-grabbing, groomer communists.
If I judged the right by it's twitter trolls, elected officials the GOP would be a party of race-war seeking anti-Semitic incels.
FIFY.
You' make Blackman look positively well-adjusted by comparison.
The opinion ends with rational basis review. The question is, what abortion bans would not pass rational basis review? Some would not pass for sure.
It also lays out a framework state legislatures should use to allow anything to pass.
"The question is, what abortion bans would not pass rational basis review?"
Bans the judges conducting the review didn't like. Rational basis is a very flexible standard, depending on whether the judge wants a law to survive or not.
Jesus, Brett, if you're so cynical, why even have courts?
Because not everything decays to rational review, some parts of the law actually get enforced as written.
How? What language forces judges to abide by it?
A motivated judge can find a distinction to wiggle out of even strict scrutiny - they're good at arguments and wordsmithing as a group.
Once you allow a world without honor, the justice system is pointless.
It's not a world without honor, it just has a shortage of it.
Your rebuttable presumption seems to be no honor, at least if it's not someone who agrees with you.
Which still means any system based on intellectual consistency is not going to work.
There is something important you need to understand about laws and government: none of it exists. Government is an illusion, and literally everything is anarchy.
Granted, it's useful to pretend otherwise, because it helps us predict how other people will react to our actions. If I murder someone, there's a good chance that people will want to hunt me down and do horrible things to me. Indeed, chances are, everyone around me has pitched in money to pay guys with guns to hunt me down, and when they catch me (assuming they don't kill me first), they'll drag me in front of a bunch of people who will look at "evidence", presented by "lawyers" and refereed by a "judge" all allegedly within the bounds set by "legislatures" and "governors", to determine whether or not I actually committed that murder, and whether or not it was really murder because it might have been justified, and depending on how they rule, I may be put in a cage for some time (perhaps to the end of my life), or even executed.
Now, each and every step of the way is controlled by individuals making individual decisions. In each and every step, a particular individual may decide to arrest, or not, to collect evidence, or to plant it, or to push charges, or dismiss them, or to lie, or to tell the truth. It's all a crapshoot. And the only limitations on all of this, are each individual's decisions, which may be influenced, for good or bad, by the people around them, and which are far from guaranteed to match anything we might call "justice".
This is something very important to understand, because while government is nothing but an illusion, if too many people become disillusioned, bad things happen, and it's hard to restore the illusion.
(And justice itself is one of those make-believe things that doesn't actually exist. Well, maybe it does, if there's a just God, as some of us here believe, but there are others here who would just as quickly dismiss that notion, for better and for worse.)
So, in the end, we have a "justice" "system" because it seems to be a pretty good job of providing the illusion of justice and government, and so far, it seems to be a pretty good job -- but let's not pretend that judges can't just make any random decision that they think they can justify, because they can do that, and they do it all the time, and they do it at all levels. It's just that they have a certain amount of "leeway" that they can get away with this without generating too much disillusionment.
Perhaps we could call this "leeway" a "willing suspension of disbelief" ....
Jesus, Brett, if you're so cynical, why even have courts?
Yes, because if one legal doctrine is bad the only answer is to eliminate the courts!
I think the opinion makes it pretty clear that complete abortion bans with very limited exceptions of the sort that existed pre-Roe are rational. It discusses and explicitly refutes claims that pre-Roe abortion bans were based on non-rational motives, pointing out arguments on the other side suggesting that abortion proponents had racist and eugenic motive. The opinion said that neither sides ad-hominem arguments should be relied on by courts. Interest in fetal life is rational. Imterest in women’s liberty is rational. Since the arguments and interests on both sides are rational, whatever balance between them gets struck is rational.
Fuck a Papa Doc!
Fuck a clock!
Fuck a trailor!
Fuck everybpdy!
Fuck y’all if you doubt me!
I’m a piece of fucking white trash
I say it proudly!
And fuck this battle
I don’t wanna win
I’m outie!
Here tell these people something
They don’t know about me.
— Eminem, 8 Mile
Meanwhile 15,000 comments on the Washington Post column about this are predicting The Handmaids Tale for every woman, not to mention the outlawing of contraceptives, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, being anything other than heterosexual, etc.
No lack of hyperbole amongst the Progressive commentariat.
The opinion cited Bowers v. Hardwick only once, as one of the many cases the court has overruled in its history. But the standard it articulated for when an unenumerated constitutional right should be recognized by the courts is precisely the Bowers v. Hardwick standard. The decision cites Glucksburg for the standard, but Glucksburg got it from Bowers. It’s exactly what Bowers said it is. In order to be recognized as a fundamental right, there has to be a long history of regarding it as a right. Historically, the opinion says, abortion was not a right but a crime, and even when not criminalized, it was still highly disfavored in various ways.
This is pretty much exactly what Bowers v. Hardwick said about sodomy.
The opinion says abortion is different and says the opinion doesn’t bring anything else into question. But there doesn’t really seem to be any clearly articulated reason why the Bowers v. Hardwick standard shouldn’t be aplied more generally, or why, if applied, the Bowers v. Hardwick standard wouldn’t reach the Bowers v. Hardwick result.
Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges are definitely at risk now.
It did try to draw a line, but it's so obviously retarded that it makes me think Alito has these other rights already in his crosshairs. Basically, and circularly, abortion is the line.
"None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way."
What if Alito takes them at their word and redrafts his decision Taney-style to resolve the abortion question once and for all from the bench? Fetuses are people too with rights. They are protected by laws against homicide and failure to charge abortion as murder is unconstitutional discrimination. Advocacy of abortion has to be treated as as harshly as advocacy of genocide.
That would be bad policy, but the sight of liberal heads exploding would keep me entertained for a few days. And those of us who survived the aftermath of _Dobbs_ could earn a living giving interviews to future historians. Yes, I remember those days. We bought plane tickets to Mexico up to a year in advance when our daughter started dating so in case she got pregnant we could take a provably pre-planned vacation. Because in Mexico there was a lot of unavoidable miscarriage with a sworn affidavit of medical diagnosis to take home to the gestation police. No, really, it was a thing. Birthing parents in those days carried babies inside themselves and not in vats, and had to raise them afterward too.
The business of Supreme Court justices is to interpret the constitution, not to explode liberal heads for your entertainment.
The business of Supreme Court justices is to interpret the constitution, not to explode liberal heads for your entertainment.
Then I guess it's good that he didn't claim that was their business, and in fact said quite the opposite.
Perhaps the GOP should resurrect their proposal to make oral contraceptives over-the-counter.
I think states can do that already. Illinois did last year. Under state law a pharmacist may dispense prescription medicine pursuant to a standing order from a licensed physician. The state has a licensed physician on staff who was directed to issue a statewide standing order as close to "hormonal contraceptives on demand" as his professional standards would allow.
A memorial for Justice Stevens is a happier time? I guess any time would be, given where we are now.
Hey for once Josh and I see things similarly! only where he sees all this as a bug, I think its the feature. My uninformed opinion is the conservatives leaked this to do exactly what he is describing in this post.
My uninformed opinion is the conservatives leaked this
And ignorance is always a great basis for the formation of an opinion.
Laws are downstream of culture. To really defeat elective abortion, we have to convince people that the alternatives are better: better for the unborn child, better for the mother, better for the family, better for the nation.
If indeed the Court is going to return this debate back to the people and their elected representatives, that would be a welcome opportunity to change hearts and minds, but that's all it will be.
The hard work of convincing people will still remain to be done.
Almost no one is even trying to do this. I think abortion would be a lot less divisive if it didn't seem like the right was mostly against it for vindictive and misogynistic reasons.
At least Barrett has a couple of adopted kids. I feel like pro-lifers should be required to adopt at least one in order to be taken seriously.
Instead the right's mostly like "that's what you get, whore, for sucking that poor man's penis up into your dirty vag and forcing him to involuntarily fertilize your bastard kids."
Who is making it look like the Right is against abortion for misogynistic and vindictive reasons? How did this illusion happen, when a large portion of those who oppose abortion are women?
Also, it would be nice if the laws surrounding adoption could be significantly simplified. I would adopt in a heartbeat, but I cannot afford the legal fees to do so. It's disingenuous to say that we should adopt kids, and then make it as difficult as possible to do so.
Oh, and the issue of adoption in Europe is a lot less divisive there than it is here. What makes Europe different? They don't have an overall European Union decision forcing all European countries into one standard -- and thus, there are countries that ban abortion outright, countries where it's completely legal, and the vast majority of countries where it's limited to the first 12 weeks, give or take.
With the repeal of Roe v. Wade, I expect two things to happen: FIRST, the United States will become like Europe, with some states where it's 100% legal, some States where it's completely banned, but the vast majority to ban abortion after about 12 weeks, give or take, and SECOND, that abortion is pretty much going to become a non-issue, once each State settles down to a policy they are comfortable with.
“How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?”
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
Republican candidate JD Vance described a pregnancy following rape or incest as “inconvenient” during an interview where he came out in support of the Texas abortion law.
Yay, now you have given three quotes that Republicans themselves in general were angry at, and even disagreed with, and have painted Republicans as in 100% agreement, so that "it look[s] like the Right is against abortion for misogynistic and vindictive reasons".
Which is exactly my point: to what degree are have the Republicans been merely painted as misogynistic and vindictive by those who are trying to put Republicans in as bad a light as possible?
For what it's worth, I consider the pro-choice crowd to be literal Nazis, because I cannot tell the difference between the arguments used to justify abortion, and the ones Nazis used to justify the destruction of the infirm and other "undesirables".
But then, maybe I'm just painting Democrats in as bad a light as possible, too. I'm sure you wouldn't mind that, though, because you clearly have no problem with doing it to Republicans.
Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Actually, I do not think that traditional prayer is necessary today. I am certain that the request I will be making at the end of these remarks will please the Court. https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-justice-john-paul-stevens-bar
Whatever Eminem's personal angst, or some band back in the day saying the trouble all started with a young Erroll Flynn, we MUST, as a Republic, think as to what it is the liberal model has punted down the road insofar as an always current avoidance of the inevitable, in the hopes of eliminating the strength of: not the inevitable, rather the adherents to the same. The result is nihilism and a State without nourishment or a rudder. If you think you can do Liberty better, and you think your result will be better, how then do you think the present human activist (or government employee) will react as a widget once they can no longer personally actuate their perfidy in the same manner? Perfidy is perfidy in the human heart, and is thus pendent in their intentions no matter what milieu they may be in. It is a closed circle, and reveals their ultimate not beneficial to humanness, merely an useful idiot.
Recently a Professor was asked about HOW it could be that such a thing as a circulated Brief within our hallowed institution could be leaked, and with possible comment on the nature of our graduate students today, it simply becomes political without moral:
“They think that everything is violence. And so everything is permitted.” Let us pray that this is not what happened. Perhaps Justice Stevens would have agreed.
I have been told he would have agreed.
This proposed theocratic court ruling would strike down and deny women's fundamental natural right to bodily integrity.
Although Catholics account for just 20% of US adults, ALL five Supreme Court Justices who are conspiring to strike down Roe and Casey as unconstitutional are Conservative Catholics, who are planning to impose Papal decree to make all American women's vaginas property/slaves owned and controlled by the state.
If all Supreme Court justices who authored a controversial theocratic SCOTUS ruling were Mormons, Jews, Quakers, Pentecostals, Hindus, Muslims, Budhists, Americans would be outraged that Justices are imposing their religious views on all other Americans.
Although anti abortion extremists may be reveling now, this ruling could prompt the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November (in many US House, US Senate, Governors, State AG, State House and State Senate races), as the vast majority of voters in suburban swing districts strongly support womens right to abortion.
If GOP candidates in swing districts and states want to win in November, they'd be wise to go only support an abortion ban after 15 weeks ban, and exempt cases of rape, incest and mother's health.
GOP candidates (in swing states and districts) who call for a total ban (or near total) on abortions are likely to lose to pro choice Democrats in November (as Democrats will make abortion their primary campaign issue).
This is rather nonsensical:
First, just because these five justices are Catholic, doesn't mean only 20% of America agrees with them. Like any other issue, the agreement and disagreement is going to be different based on the issue, and thus fluctuate.
Second, there's a far greater absence of diversity that you are blind to: the fact that 8 out of the 9 justices have their law degrees from Harvard or Yale, and that if you go back further, you have to go decades before you find another non-Ivy-league jurist. Surely this is more distressing than having 5 Catholics on the court. No, make that SIX Catholics -- you are only angry at the Catholics you personally disagree with.
Third, it's amusing that you think this is the issue that's going to drive voters to the polls this November. As has been observed elsewhere, even Republicans aren't likely to call for the total ban of abortion -- and thus, they are more likely to call for what we see in Europe, a patchwork of laws that range from outright allowance to outright bans. Each State is going to decide where they stand on the issue, and in the meantime, there are much bigger fish to fry.
Maybe if Democrats didn't have such a propensity to mess things up to the point where everyone thinks Republicans should be in charge, this kind of thing wouldn't have happened in the first place.