The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
One Year Later
The sky did not fall after the Supreme Court exited the abortion debate.
Exactly one year ago, the Federalist Society held its National Lawyers Convention. And exactly one year ago, the Supreme Court was enmeshed in the abortion debate on two fronts. First, Jonathan Mitchell, also known as "The Genius," foisted the impermeable fetal heartbeat law on the judiciary. Second, Mississippi's fifteen-week abortion ban was slated for oral argument. At the time, we were warned about the parade of horribles that would fall if the Supreme Court allowed either of these laws to go into effect.
One year later the story looks very different--especially after election day. In Kansas, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have reversed a state supreme court decision that protected abortion. And all the justices who joined that opinion, as well as several other justices appointed by the Democratic governor, were retained. Voters in several states also rejected efforts to scale back abortion rights. In Kentucky, 53% of voters rejected a referendum that would have stated there was no right to abortion under the state constitution. In Montana, 53% of voters rejected a "born alive" amendment to the state constitution. In Michigan, 56% of voters approved a referendum that protects a right to abortion, and wipes out a 1931 law that banned the procedure.
Justice Scalia's clarion call in Casey rings true three decades later:
Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.
Justice Breyer should be proud that Dobbs is making democracy work.
As a general matter, I no longer pay attention to predictions that the sky will fall after a conservative Supreme Court victory. The sky did not fall after Heller. The sky did not fall after Citizens United. The sky did not fall after Shelby County. The sky did not fall after Hobby Lobby. The sky did not fall after Rucho. And so on. The sky will not fall after Dobbs.
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
The sky may not have fallen, but a ten year old in Ohio who had been raped was nearly forced to carry the resulting pregnancy to term. A woman in Texas with advanced cancer wasn't able to get an abortion and died. These sad stories are piling up.
Just because the sky didn't fall for the entire country doesn't mean it didn't fall for unfortunate individuals. I mean, the sky didn't fall for the entire country either when the Supreme Court decided Kelo, but that's kinda not the point.
Yeah, things look pretty ugly if you look only at one side of the ledger, totally blow off the people who didn't get their brains suctioned out.
Doesn't really matter. It wasn't a constitutional issue, and that's the only matter the Court should have decided, and they did. They got out of what was none of their business in the first place.
These decisions are all based on feelings, biases, side of the bed, hangry or got a sandwich. They are garbage decisions reversing garbage decisions by garbage people. All should be replaced by GPT 4 algorithms that would bring equity to the legal system, and take out the garbage profession now running it. The sole validation is some men with guns. The lawyer profession is just a glorified crime crew that infiltrated our government.
In the case of the Texas woman with cancer who died because she couldn't get an abortion, even if I were to agree with you that the fetus is a person, somebody was going to die and the question was whom. And since there is zero question as to the personhood of the pregnant woman, I'd think her rights should take priority.
And, again, it wasn't a constitutional issue, and that's the only basis the Court should have been deciding on.
You're making the sort of policy argument that should be directed to state legislatures, not to courts. Well, guess what: Now the state legislatures can actually make those decisions, and then face the voters over it.
I expect that once things settle out, neither of us is going to much like the balance that politics dictates.
Yes it is. Your originalism (which you're not even that consistent about applying) is not the only constitutional interpretation. Except among members of the Federalist Society it's probably the minority interpretation.
The Court simply does not agree with your view.
Might I suggest working within your state to change any abortion law to something more to your liking. That is where the abortion 'battle' (if you want to call it that) will be fought out now.
I am perfectly Ok with the people deciding what abortion restrictions they will live with, themselves. They have to live with it.
" I am perfectly Ok with the people deciding what abortion restrictions they will live with, themselves. They have to live with it. "
Like Herschel Walker?
Yup. That is the way it works, Arthur. 😉
Commenter_XY, if we were talking about something that had no real implications for the most deeply personal and private bodily integrity a person can have, I would be fine with leaving it up to the states. But this cannot be left to the states for precisely the same reason slavery could not be left to the states: It deals with issues of deeply personal and private bodily integrity. I would argue that a free society that gets that one wrong has failed at the most basic level of being a free society.
Of course, the analogy breaks down in part because there is wide disagreement which side of the abortion debate corresponds to the slaveholder and which is the abolitionists. But nobody seriously thinks this is just another political question.
Doesn't abortion also involve "real implications for the...bodily integrity" of the unborn baby?!
It's like talking to a sociopath...
Ed, you don't get to win the argument by redefining a fetus as an unborn baby, because it's far from clear that that's what a fetus is.
"...by redefining a fetus as an unborn baby, because it’s far from clear that that’s what a fetus is.
Oh what absolute fucking bullshit.
The outcome of a human pregnancy successfully carried to term is a human baby.
There may be "in good faith" arguments proffered by those who approve of abortion on demand, but trying to sell that bullshit as fresh clean cattle fodder merely indicates you're trying to provide yourself some sort of moral cover.
That thar is a load-bearing 'successfully carried to term.'
So the entire European Union is "fail[ing] at the most basic level of being a free society" to this very day?
I think abortion is legal, at least through the end of the first trimester, pretty much throughout the EU. You may find an exception here or there.
As you may recall, your claim wasn't that the "most basic level of being a free society" merely required (some measure of) abortion access: it was that such freedom had to be constitutionally guaranteed. Which is not, to my knowledge, the arrangement anywhere in Europe.
Abortion rules per country. The time limit for "abortion on request", elective abortions?
You've got Lichtenstein, Malta, and Poland, where it's flatly banned.
At the other end you've got the UK and Netherlands where it's 24 weeks.
Sweden is at 18 weeks.
France, Romania, and Spain at 14 weeks.
Austria at 13 (13 is 1 "trimester".)
Everybody else (21 countries) is in the 10-12 week range, with most of them at 12.
So, nah, the majority are a bit under the trimester mark.
An "interpretation" that manages to 100% align with the policy preferences of the judges making the "interpretation" is not a legitimate one.
"Not Legitimate" ... unless they agree with the dead baby side of the discussion? Funny, how that was OK for 50 years for all the RBG fans. "Situational ethics" aren't.
So you agree? Samuel Alito has an illegitimate interpretive method?
No. If he was following his policy preferences, he would have interpreted the 14th Amendment to mandate abortion bans.
Many of those sad stories existed in largely the same way pre-Dobbs, but there was no political benefit to reporting on them. I had a conversation with my wife right after Dobbs about how people think Roe created some impenetrable wall of abortion rights that made it as easy to get an abortion in Texas as it is in New York, but that was never the case.
Like when you'd hear about how such and such a new law would "close the last abortion clinic" in some state, people focus on the new law, but ignore the fact that the whole state only had one clinic to begin with.
"woman in Texas with advanced cancer wasn’t able to get an abortion and died"
Stop lying.
"Yes. Texas’ ban on abortion makes exceptions for cases in which an abortion would save the pregnant patient’s life or prevent “substantial impairment of major bodily function.” Texas Tribune [lefty publication] June 24, 2022
And who decides when that occurs and how close to the line do they have to get? Lawyers? Or doctors? Who is going to risk criminal charges or their license? Do they have to go septic or not?
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/23/texas-abortion-law-doctors-delay-care/
"Doctors reported that they have postponed abortion care until a patient’s health or pregnancy complication has deteriorated to the point that their life was in danger, including multiple cases where patients were sent home, only to return once they were in sepsis."
This law is literally risking women's lives. I mean how would you feel if you didn't get treatment until you were septic? Do you know how dangerous that is?
So maybe you should stop lying. And in any event, between OP and you, only one of you has openly embraced situational ethics and openly praised the use of lying to get what you want in politics and life, and it isn't him.
“Doctors reported"
Comments to the left press are not evidence.
You literally just relied upon the same source for your assertion, dumbass. And why would they lie?
"why would they lie?"
Why does anyone lie? To gain something.
You know not everyone is as immoral as you are, right?
You know that some people lie in what they think are noble causes, but they're still lying?
Are you claiming to be noble here?!
Brett, you realize by selectively choosing who to trust you get to curate a smooth and unchallenging reality, unconnected with the real thing?
Fascinating critique. How do you do it instead?
What I don't due is just deny reported events happened unless I have a countervailing source, as Brett did above.
Equally fascinating deflection. What DO you do?
Sheesh. I was literally just pointing out that sometimes people lie for reasons they think are noble, rather than base. As a general proposition do you deny it?
As a matter of fact, I think what's going on here is that some doctors who had really swallowed to pro-choice Koolaid genuinely believed the new laws were worse than they actually were, and acted on that belief, to the detriment of their patients.
No Brett, you said: "Comments to the left press are not evidence." That's not just people lie, that's 'I've decided that this guy is lying because leftist.'
A smooth, curated reality.
LoB, I think I've made issue with Brett pretty clear in this exchange. I won't engage with your sealion pedantic ass any further.
Yeah, haughtily puffing yourself up during a tail-tucked retreat is a delicate tightrope indeed.
It just might save time, face, and subsequent flailing around if you take an extra second or two before posting to think about whether your cutesy, high-minded criticisms are just painting yourself into a corner and making you look silly.
"No Brett, you said: “Comments to the left press are not evidence.”"
No, that was Bob. Can't tell us apart?
Oh fuck right off, Bob.
You don’t have the authority to decide what is or isn’t evidence based on your own partisan delusions.
The culture war will take care of Bob from Ohio.
Already has, to large degree. That's why he is so disaffected, desperate, and bitter.
Do you have some evidence that this incident actually happened? Because even Krychek_2 can't seem to find anything to substantiate it.
Hmm, don't know of any cancers that are cured by Abortion.
No, but there are plenty of treatments will will most likely kill the fetus.
Bob:
https://19thnews.org/2022/10/state-abortion-bans-prevent-cancer-patients-chemotherapy/
And do not assume a doctor, who has to worry about losing his license if he guesses wrong, is going to err on the side of ending a pregnancy even if the law allows it.
By that standard, no doctor will ever do an abortion if it's not 100% legal in 100% of circumstances.
Do you a source with some more details? I couldn't find anything through a (quick, admittedly) search.
I just did a quick search and couldn't find it again either; it was in an article about several women who've been unable to get abortions even though they badly needed them for medical reasons.
I did, however, find this from right here at reason:
https://reason.com/2022/10/20/a-texas-woman-claims-that-she-nearly-died-of-sepsis-after-being-denied-an-abortion/
That's the one where it turned out to be the mom's boyfriend, yes? Who the mom tried to defend, and who apparently was falsely reported to be underage in the mandatory reporting?
Might could be that going out of state was motivated by something other than inability to get an abortion in-state. Particularly since the Ohio DA seemed to think the laws wouldn't have banned that particular one.
No, basically those claims are like Pelosi’s husband being attacked by a gay lover in his underwear: stuff made up by the far right wing media and amplified by gullible people.
The woman, caught by a reporter in a hallway outside her apartment, was quoted as saying, “everything they are saying against him is a lie,” but what that meant or referred to was unclear, and there’s nothing to show he was her boyfriend, and nobody reported him to be underage.
More importantly, none of that has anything to do with the abortion issue, one way or the other.
Just FYI that wasn't the only case of this occurring:
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/09/27/affidavits-2-more-raped-minors-were-denied-ohio-abortions/69520380007/
The fact that the Ohio AG thinks it wouldn't have banned the procedure is immaterial. He doesn't control all state prosecutions and a county prosecutor could disagree could charge under it. It is also at odds with the text which explicitly does not contain an exception for this scenario. You would have to prove risk to life of mother or a substantial risk to bodily function. When and how is that determined? Who knows. It would need to be case by case depending on the kid to see if it meets the standard. So the fact that he says something after the fact to CoA after denying it even happened is not strong evidence that the Ohio law would allow this.
“The sky did not fall after Heller. The sky did not fall after Citizens United. The sky did not fall after Shelby County. The sky did not fall after Hobby Lobby. The sky did not fall after Rucho. And so on. The sky will not fall after Dobbs.”
That depends on your gender, your race, where you live, and how secure your economic situation is. It certainly didn't fall for Josh, I agree with him there.
Different sides disagree on support for each of those, in the situational ethics manner of political hackery. The first three uphold individual rights against encroachment by government. Dobbs does the opposite.
“Citizens United”
“Shelby County”
“Rucho”
Wow, Josh sees no problem with court cases specifically designed to entrench conservative political interests. I’m so surprised.
While you are probably correct about Blackman not seeing a problem, but for most people there is still quite a bit of daylight between "no problem" and "the sky is falling"
"That depends on your gender, your race, where you live..."
Well, no matter where you live, you can't get pregnant unless you're the same gender as a majority of the electorate. Finally, post Dobbs, a predominately male judiciary will no longer dictate to majority-female electorates how to regulate women's bodies.
Oh, I hear they're still doing it in some states, on the basis of state constitutions.
This is a pretty weak way to say women are responsible for the loss of their own rights.
Stop trying to infantalize women. We make up a majority of the population, and we are perfectly capable of advocating, campaigning, and voting on the issues that matter to us. The problem you won't face is that "women" are not some monolithic class who vote in lockstep. There are many women who don't believe that restrictions or even bans on abortion rob them of their rights but consider it protection of other human life. And there are plenty of men who oppose abortion restrictions. Stop acting like men oppressing women is the only possible way abortion could ever be restricted and let people have honest debates on the issue.
Actually, Rucho, combined with SCOTUS decisions leaving probably unconstitutional gerrymanders in place in a number of states may well help hand the House to the GOP.
Josh and I differ on the consequences of that.
"unconstitutional gerrymanders in place in a number of states"
Like Illinois, Maryland and Mass.?
Were those challenged in front of Scotus?
I'm talking about cases where lower courts explicitly found the redistricting unconstitutional and ordered maps redrawn, and the Supreme Court simply stayed the orders.
Look, Bob. We have a Supreme Court with a majority made up of loyal Republican operatives. It really is that simple.
Right, you only care about GOP gerrymanders, Dem ones don't matter.
Gerrymandering is just politics. Politics is not "unconstitutional".
Guess we're working in the Court of Bob now.
"Court of Bob"
It would be a court, not a super-legislature.
It also wouldn't have the power of judicial review, so it's operationally about the same as complaining on the Internet.
It would still decide private disputes and interpret statutory provisions. Just not impose its politics on the other two branches.
I would happily shut down all gerrymandering that benefits either party; I don't like it even when my side benefits. Though I think the GOP benefits more often because the states with Democratic gerrymanders tend to be states that Democrats do well in no matter what. District lines should be drawn by an evenly-divided non partisan commission.
Last time I looked at an actual mathematical analysis on the topic, using simulated redistricting compared to the actual districts, they concluded it was a wash. Democrats were gerrymandering as many seats as Republicans. That was a few years ago, of course, but this year the Democrats have the advantage of the Census having done some of their gerrymandering for them by mal-apportioning some states.
That's not to say that the gerrymandering was without effect; It was actually mostly aimed at making sure incumbents were secure, reducing how competitive elections were, with partisan advantage being a secondary consideration.
I don't trust nominally non-partisan commissions to actually be non-partisan in practice. That's why my favorite proposal doesn't rely on anybody being non-partisan, but just relies on computer generating a huge number of maps, and letting all the ballot qualified parties eliminate the ones they really dislike. Then pick one of the survivors at random.
Last time I looked at an actual mathematical analysis on the topic, using simulated redistricting compared to the actual districts, they concluded it was a wash.
From the broad studies I've seen, YMMV - metrics of advantage turn out to be harder to agree on that one might think.
But it doesn't matter if it's a wash - the policy still sucks and should end.
I don’t trust nominally non-partisan commissions to actually be non-partisan in practice.
Lets leave it explicitly partisan, because Brett thinks everyone and everything is partisan.
FFS.
the Democrats have the advantage of the Census having done some of their gerrymandering for them by mal-apportioning some states.
Another anti-Brett conspiracy?
Six red states had their populations undercounted (by a statistically significant number) and eight mostly-blue states had their populations overcounted. As a result, Minnesota and New York got seats in the House that should have gone to Texas and Florida.
You can argue whether that was due to conspiracy rather than incompetence, but it happened.
Man, what is your source for such a discrepancy?
The Census itself, you say? Via sampling data, you say?
Those clever bustards!
…welp, better go back to calling the Census a Democratic conspiracy for the next 10 years and then wonder why Republicans aren’t reporting as highly yet again in 2030!
It's not like they had to engage in sophisticated statistics to avoid being more than 5% off in Delaware, for instance. This was by far their largest set of errors, they were actually doing better than this by far before even having computers.
Absolutely! An exhaustive enumeration is burdensome and not really very accurate for all that time money and trouble.
But that's the requirement.
It's dumb, but not a conspiracy.
Yeah, and Sarcastr0, we're just shocked, SHOCKED, that all of the errors favored Democrats.
No, Noorondoor, that's not quite true. One of the errors marginally favored Republicans.
No, Bob. Not true.
I'd just outlaw it.
In fact, I'd prefer House members be elected at large by all state voters, using some sort of PR.
I mean everything is politics. And some politics can be unconstitutional.
US is a far sicker society than I thought.
Bob, given the realities of our anti-democratic institutions, you may succeed in a nationwide abortion ban. But do not pretend that you speak for the majority. When you can't get abortion banned at the ballot box in Kansas and Kentucky, that's pretty telling.
"do not pretend that you speak for the majority."
Infanticide is still wrong, even if a degenerate majority supports it.
It is, but we're talking about abortion.
Bob,
You want to execute juveniles for non-homicide offenses after farcical trials without lawyers. At the very least you want to send more juveniles to detention where they are at great risk of sexual assault or in the alternative torturing them through the use of extended solitary. Don't you dare pretend like you give a damn about what's right and wrong or that you're standing up for kids.
You don't care about infanticide, you just oppose abortion as a form of moral balancing to justify your terrible morals in literally every other aspect of human life.
"You want to execute juveniles for non-homicide offenses after farcical trials without lawyers."
Multiple lies. Not very moral to lie like you do.
You've said you're fine with executing juveniles.
You've advocated for a huge increase in the scope of who gets put to death (not just rape, IIRC, property crimes too).
You've said indigent criminal defendants don't deserve public defenders, including for death penalty cases.
Which of these do you believe is a lie?
"(not just rape, IIRC, property crimes too)."
Another lie
Which part is wrong: the rape or the property crime?
No you are absolutely lying about what you support and I can bring receipts too.
Here's you on executing juveniles:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/23/why-did-montgomery-v-louisiana-even-reference-a-finding-of-fact-regarding-a-childs-incorrigibility/?comments=true#comments
Couldn't even deny that it would bring you joy and pleasure to see a kid executed. You put kids in quotes. To be fair those were murder cases.
But then another time I asked point blank whether the Scottsboro case was correctly decided, and you said, and I quote "I can live with it." Not yes. "I can live with it." "I can live with it" means you would prefer a different outcome but you can basically accept the result without too much stress. The outcome you prefer? kangaroo trials of juveniles for rape in the South. You were to the Right of Justice Sutherland.
Further I have asked you point blank multiple times when you say "overturn the Warren Court" what you mean by that and if it included execution of juveniles for non-homicide offenses without counsel. This is indisputably the result of overturning Warren Court precedents on criminals justice:
No Trop which means by extension No Roper and No Kennedy. And no Gideon. You went to law school, what's the jurisprudential result of that?
You have always demurred. You have never ever once said that would be wrong. I'll ask once again: does overturning Warren Court precedent mean to you that kids can be executed after trials without lawyers for non-homicide offenses? Yes or no. Further, would you think this outcome is morally just? Yes or no.
If you don't answer either question with a no, then you can't call me a liar for assuming it is a yes.
You would like more kids in juvenile detention. I have pointed out to you that juvenile detention results in a greater risk of sexual assault? You response? Put them in isolation. Kids, Bob. In solitary. During the most formative years of their lives. That's shocking cruelty that you endorse.
This is who you are. Deal with it.
"Here’s you on executing juveniles:"
None of my comments involve "non-homicide offenses", liar.
Again, You didn't answer any of my questions. So I think the inference is clear. And btw. Scottsboro was a rape, not a murder and you think that decision was wrongly decided. Not ONCE when asked have you concede that it is correct. Just that you "can live with it."
Asking again:
Overrule Roper v. Simmons: Yes or No. Pick one.
Overrule Kennedy v. Louisiana: Yes or No. Pick one
Overrule Top v. Dulles: Yes or No. Pick one.
Overrule Gideon: Yes or No. Pick one.
If you answer yes to all four. I have you dead to rights on what you want. If you answer no to any, I will retract. If you demur and decline to answer I will assume it is a yes and you have no standing to call me a liar.
"You didn’t answer any of my questions. "
I don't give in to demands of a toddler.
"You didn’t answer any of my stupid questions, I win the argument!"
Grow up
You've had multiple chances. You demur. This is what you believe. I am not a liar then.
"Grow up"
The last cry of a cowardly loser whose lies have finally caught up with him and he cannot escape the truth. Enjoy your pathetic "adulthood" where you delude yourself into thinking everyone is shitty as you.
And they're not stupid questions btw. They're straightforward questions about which precedent you think should be overturned. If you think they should, then my characterization of you is accurate. If not, then I was wrong. You don't want to prove me wrong by answering no to any of them, but for some reason what's left of your soul tells you you shouldn't say yes. I caught you in a trap and now you're lashing out with a childish and very unclever retort. Kind of like a toddler tbh.
These are "kids" who are violent criminals. Not unborn babies.
These people don't see the difference! Talk about morally sick!
That's the thing about living in a republic - we get the government we deserve.
At least you're not yelling fraud.
We all get the government the plurality deserve, anyway.
Look, it was pretty much baked in that overturning Roe and returning the matter to the states was not going to produce an outcome I personally liked. I'm an extremist on this issue, (And several others, too!) and I know it. The voting public is mostly in the muddled middle.
But, so what? It wasn't a federal constitutional issue, and that's that. Now state level politics can decide the balance, and in most states that's going to be more pro-'choice' than I like, and more pro-life than you like. A minority of states will go so far in the pro-'choice' direction even you will likely be horrified if you can bring yourself to recognize what they're doing, or so far in the pro-life direction even I will think they're going overboard.
But that's what happens with political questions whose outcomes aren't dictated by the Constitution. Maybe you can push for a constitutional convention, and get Roe the legitimate way.
No - the whole fucking point of a republic is 'we' is everyone, not just those who voted for the winners.
Neither you nor I is entitled to a government that agrees with us. Believe me, that sucks for me as well as you, with abortion being part of that.
You can cope by saying this is the price you pay for Roe, but that peak had already turned - instead, election-by-election the GOP put up unappealing candidates because the base insists on full demonizing Dems 2020 denial and the general electorate has no taste for such nonsense.
So you get empty suites like Oz or denizens of planet insanotron like Kari Lake.
"empty suites"
Oz is pretty skinny, not as big as an entire set of rooms, that's the winner, Fetterman's Monster.
Your side ran Crist and "Beto". Empty suits indeed.
Beto sucks, but as much for the positions he actually takes as his lack of charisma.
Crist I don’t know beyond his name, which means you’re probably right.
You can mock Fetterman’s appearance, but dude is definitely not an empty suit.
Empty suits usually at least have normal brain function.
His wife will be the senator within the year.
Whatever, not taking the bait of your performative assholery.
NY was as gettable as it's ever been - maybe it's that we're all aging, but I've never seen my friends so anti-Democrat *to the point of being pro-Republican* out there.
But y'all put up a loon and biffed it.
It's not Dodds; it's the GOP is locked into a purity cycle that is a huge headwind at best, and could become existential over time.
I think Oz is less about party purity (although he eventually leaned into that) and more about Trump's obsession with celebrity and con-artists.
That's a fair analysis - I think Oz was just not enough of a politician to walk the pro-Trump but not insane tightrope and not come across as an empty suit.
Doesn't help that an empty suit is basically what he is at core; he never developed the story of why he was running for office, which is like step 1 for any campaign.
Sarcastr0....NY was never gettable for Team R. Fuggedaboutit. 🙂
There were north of 500K PA mail-in ballots already returned before Fetterman's debate debacle. Would some of those votes have changed? Perhaps. We will never know. Pointless to speculate.
I'll be surprised if Fetterman actually makes it through his term. He is at huge risk for another event. For his sake, I hope he recovers fully.
If he recovers fully at this point, somebody's going to be writing it up in a medical journal. It's that unlikely.
Doctor Brett weighs in!
Sarcastro, you don't need a doctorate in Neurology to be aware of the general odds. If you're going to recover completely from a stroke, you're going to do it fast.
I didn't respond to Commenter's post because I did not know the risk, so I cede to his opinion till I hear otherwise.
But your post went way further than that. Melodramatically so.
And yes, you would need more knowledge of the specifics of his vitals and treatment, as well as more expertise than being an engineer to make the statement you did.
I mean, you kind of do. But in any case, what do "general odds" have to do with a specific patient? No actual doctor would offer a prognosis for a particular individual who he has never examined.
"But in any case, what do “general odds” have to do with a specific patient?"
Yeah, if the specific patient happened to be a different species from the rest of us, you might have a point.
Look, read up on what happens during a stroke. Seriously, do it.
Look, read up on what happens during a stroke. Seriously, do it.
What is this? An appeal to WebMD? To our intuition over medical science?
Really bottom tier wishcasting to death of those you don't like, Brett.
Dude, I hope no one you care about ever has a stroke.
I hope that Hochul does have a stroke or gets a tumor in her ovaries, either would make me happy.
Of course you do. You’re not a good person.
I am. But only with respect to other real, good people. Liberal Democrats are not in that category. They're monsters, no better than Dr. Mengele.
Dude. You are openly hoping someone gets a devastating cancer. Someone with family and friends and people who care about them. Good people don’t do that. And good people don’t paper over their obvious badness by saying it’s okay by other people are monsters.
"ever has a stroke"
He hid it until after the primary and then his wife and staff lied and covered up until after early voting was well under way.
A fraudster.
A fraudster.
Sometimes you just say shit, don't you?
So you totally missed the point where making fun of someone's abilities after a stroke is an asshole thing to do? Again, I hope no one you care for has a stroke, so that they don't have to put up with you making dickish jokes.
"Sometimes you just say shit, don’t you?"
Withholding relevant and material facts to gain an advantage is a fraudulent act.
Bob, as always, is a liar. Here's the headline of a Philly Inquirer story from two days before the primary:
So he didn't so much hide "that" he had a stroke, as lie about how bad it was.
Beto also sucks because he's a damn money pit for Democrats. The guy just runs for whatever, soaks up contributions, and loses.
Oz is a disgrace of a human being.
Here he is, a good physician, by all accounts, and he decides to go and sell BS supplements - which he knows and admits, when questioned in Congress, are useless - to make a pile of money, because of a reputation he built on Oprah's show.
He's a dishonest scumbag.
BS medical pills? Are you sure you're not talking about the COVID "vaccines?"
This seems to be some sort of weird/hopeful composite of 1) Oz selling supplements, and 2) Oz testifying before Congress about different supplements he discussed on his show but wasn’t involved in selling.
I’ll take a cite to the contrary if you have it. But I’d have expected HuffPost to do the job properly if they could.
I may have misunderstood what he was or was not selling.
He was definitely touting some pretty useless crap on his show:
“Thanks to brand new scientific research, I can tell you about a revolutionary fat buster,” Oz said on his show in November 2012 with the words “No Exercise. No Diet. No Effort” on the screen behind him. “It’s called Garcinia cambogia.”
Revolutionary fucking fat buster.
Not sure why, if he wasn't selling it.
“No – the whole fucking point of a republic is ‘we’ is everyone, not just those who voted for the winners.”
“We” may be everyone, but everyone doesn’t vote for the winner. The people who voted for the winner deserve what they get. The people who voted for the loser, or just didn’t vote, get the same, but without the desert.
No, all of society deserves what they - all of them collectively - vote for.
We're all here Americans, under the current American administration, Brett, regardless of who you voted for.
Collective consent of the governed is the underlying basis for our republican form of government. And that means collective responsibility. And winners' responsibility is to their entire constituency, not just their supporters.
This is bedrock to the republic. Think of how that scales - if the losing minority claimed not to have any responsibility for a government they didn't vote for, we would not hold together.
Collective consent? That sounds like an antiquated term.
There is no collective anything, anymore. No common identity, no shared culture, no shared beliefs, no tolerance. There is hostility, recrimination, contempt and division. And it will worsen.
OK, doomer.
You're online too much if you think that.
That may have been true with a homogenous population. It's not with the population we have.
Like when Trump won and you celebrated liberal tears?
"Neither you nor I is entitled to a government that agrees with us. Believe me, that sucks for me as well as you, with abortion being part of that."
Um, that's exactly what Brett just said.
Actually, no, this is what he said:
We all get the government the plurality deserve, anyway.
We are all accountable for our government. The bullshit invasion of Iraq was done as much in your name as mine. So too a government that won't protect the right to choose for women.
Geeze, what does "accountable" mean to you anyway? You think just because the government I didn't vote for does something "in my name" I'm personally responsible for it? You've got a really, really warped notion of moral responsibility.
But, hey, I already knew you believed in collective and even inherited guilt, so no surprise.
I'm not arguing a superlative - that we are like sin-eaters for a bad administration.
I'm arguing, however, that the actions of our government are not something we are morally independent of. That's one of the innovations of the republic.
I think this is complicated.
Do we get credit for good things the government does, even if we didn't vote for the current administration?
If we take pride in past national achievements do we also bear guilt for shameful parts of our history?
None of this is clear to me.
"If we take pride in past national achievements do we also bear guilt for shameful parts of our history?"
I'd agree that if you think you're entitled to take pride in things other people did, prepare to be blamed for things other people did. I don't do the former, so spare me the latter.
"None of this is clear to me"
Wise words.
It seems pretty odd to say, for example, that MLK shares blame for Jim Crow. Certainly, Bull Connors and MLK don't share equal responsibility, IMHO.
Similarly, I can't see that e.g. the Volokh clan are at fault for Jim Crow, or the Indian Wars, and for that matter I don't think they deserve blame or credit (whichever you think is appropriate) for the Spanish-American War.
It gets pretty fuzzy fast. What if I wrote my congresscritters opposing X? Is that enough? What if I also march around with an anti-X picket sign? Is there anything I can do to be absolved of blame short of starting an actual insurgency? Or is even that not enough? What about von Stauffenberg? On the one hand he was a German soldier, and on the other he tried to kill Hitler. Had he survived, does he get blame, or credit, or some of both?
Lots of gray here.
I think you're tying yourself in knots by making it a binary of 'to blame for' and 'not to blame for.'
To the contrary, I don't think it's binary at all. The KKK chapter president is on the lotsa blame end of the scale, the person who agreed but wasn't a zealot deserves a little less blame, the person who went as far as they could to subvert it deserves less, and people who actively fought it deserve no blame, as do people who weren't involved either way, e.g. recent immigrants.
Lots of gray is kinda the antithesis of binary.
So then it’s not to difficult, seems to me.
Your country’s action, whether you voted for the admin or not, is an element, but not dispositive.
But still comports with my original thesis that we *all* get the government we deserve, not just the ones who voted for it.
"But still comports with my original thesis that we *all* get the government we deserve, not just the ones who voted for it."
Well, we all get the government we get - that's a truism. But 'deserve'? Consider an ardent Nazi opponent, who did everything they possibly could to oppose Hitler. And as a consequence died in a camp. Did they deserve that?
I know right. The Federalist Society has a National Lawyers Convention? That large a concentration of sicko, cretins, and perverts in one building should not be allowed.
You supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You support torture.
Looks like the Democrats are managing to steal Arizona again. Look at the shenanigans that took place in Maricopa County last night.
Well off Republican dude tells women their worries about him getting what he wants is no big dea.
Even having to make this argument is telling on yourself.
I think there’s a lot of value in taking a real look at how abortion access stands in the wake of Dobbs. It would benefit from more than a drive by shitpost, but I actually do think Prof. Blackman has a point that the democratic process has protected things more than many people hoped/feared.
There is absolutely value, and the partisan catastrophizing of both sides deserves pushback, but this is way early.
Women are more pro-life than men.
That was long true. Nowadays the percentages are about the same, probably because the pro-life movement has become more abashedly misogynist.
Just for yucks: https://fedsoc.org/conferences/2021-national-lawyers-convention
Didn't Justice Alito speak last year? I recall seeing his speech.
That was in 2020. Here’s the talk – “exactly” two years ago!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMnukCVIZWQ
I remember that speech very distinctly Nas. He sounded the alarm. Two years later, he sounds almost prescient. The pandemic really changed a lot of things.
However it pretty much demonstrated quickly overstepped the will of the populace in their race to enforce abortion restrictions with the result of failing miserably during a midterm while up against a poorly polling President and poor economy.
The sad part is many in the Republican party won't take the lesson to heart and instead will double down. Seriously they party leadership should be put out to pasture.
Republicans need to focus on getting the boot of government off the backs of the people, not putting their feet in the boot.
If women will sacrifice the economy and the nation to ensure that they have the right to kill their babies so they can skank it up, that just demonstrates why women should not have been allowed to vote in the first place.
If anyone is familiar with the killing of a single baby, the sole sensible course would be to alert the relevant law enforcement authority.
If not, the sole reasonable course would be to stop spouting superstition-addled nonsense in public debates among competent adults.
Sure, if you just wholly ignore states that have imposed draconian abortion restrictions and where abortion wasn't on the ballot.
But the legislators who voted for such draconian laws are on the ballot. The citizens can turn them out, if that’s their will.
"At the time, we were warned about the parade of horribles that would fall if the Supreme Court allowed Roe to go into effect."
FTFY...
Spoken like someone who won't have a team of lawyers debating whether to save his life while he's in sepsis.
Spoken like someone who won't endure the physical and emotional torture of being forced to give birth as a minor.
Spoken like someone more concerned about the concierge lounge at the mayflower than any of that!
When people show you who they are, believe them
The sky did not fall after Shelby County.
Well, more than a few clouds showed up on earth.
Some took it as a license for vote suppression.
Wisconsin is also no longer in any sense of the word a representative democracy after Rucho. There is no amount of voting that could change who controls the legislature. Maybe the sky didn't fall, but its system of government sure did!
"There is no amount of voting that could change who controls the legislature."
That's a fairly unreasonable claim. I guess it could be argued that there's no likely distribution of votes that would change who controls the legislature, (For some value of "unlikely".) but that's only to say that it would take a serious outlier election for the Democrats to take control.
Serious outlier elections happen occasionally, ask a Democrat about 1994, and how their wall of gerrymandering held that year.
It is not unreasonable. There is no amount of voting that can occur in Wisconsin as it exists or will exist for decades that will change partisan control of the legislature in any given year. Republicans maintain around 60 seats if they win big. They maintain 60 seats if they get 44% of the vote statewide. And because Wisconsin lacks a ballot initiative the same assembly can continually update their maps to maintain their partisan advantage.
Eventually, California and New York may get around to pitching shutouts. That might disincline Republicans -- even at the Supreme Court -- to be quite so fond of gerrymandering.
This claim is literally false. They're still having votes, and the votes are being counted. Sure, it's moderately unlikely that the Republicans would lose control of Wisconsin, based on past voting behavior. But it's hardly IMPOSSIBLE.
It's about on a par with the odds of Republicans taking over California, actually.
They’re still having votes, and the votes are being counted.
You know who else was still having votes and votes were being counted? The Jim crow South. Theoretically it was possible for black people to vote in the South. But that didn't happen because Southern Democrats (i.e. conservatives) locked them out of power.
Same could be said about the pre-reform House of Commons. Or Mexico for 70 straight years under the PRI (and its possible that the Fox/Calderon era may have been an anomaly)/
The fact that your only defense to Wisconsin is that it is not literally impossible for 80% of the State to vote democratic shows how absolutely weak and foolish your position is. Face it Brett, its not a representative democracy in any sense of the word. You're just defensing it because you like the outcome, you like minority rule and you would prefer to live in a rightwing authoritarian society under a Pinochet.
PS as to California there is huge huge difference between a majority democratic state consistently giving democrats the majority and a 50/50 state consistently giving Republicans a super-majority.
Is there a single state anywhere in the United States in which it's harder to vote now than it was on June 24, 2013, the day before Shelby County was decided?
I wonder what effect those DeSantis arrests had on black voters with felony records who might be risking arrest even if they're told it's legal for them to vote?
Shelby County v. Holder is this century's Korematsu. If in the next life John Roberts meets James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, I wonder what he will say to them.
Well, in that case, are there any other rights that you would like to put up for a vote?
Most states that voted on whether or not a gay man who likes to consummate his fake marriage by ejaculating into the other's rectum should get a "marriage" license, voted no. But then the left said "You can't vote on people's human rights!"
Noorondoor is the commenter the Volokh Conspiracy courts, cultivates, and deserves.
Probably an Alito alt account
Again, if homosexual marriage is such a great thing, why do you find it offensive to talk about just what these people do to consummate their love?
I suspect Professor Blackman doesn't care whether the sky has fallen for those women, perhaps the victims of rape or incest or carrying a non-viable fetus, who have the misfortune to live in states which have outlawed abortions and which don't have the ability of voters to go to a direct ballot. Just as he, and the other conspirators, don't care about the thousands dead from gun violence due to their second amendment absolutism, or the thousands who would have been dead if their antiquated views about the constitution's commerce and taxing clauses had prevailed and resulted in the striking down of the affordable care act.
And although I doubt if my theory will be tested, I predict that:
If our national legislature were to pass a law permitting abortion in all states, Professor Blackman would declare that the law was an unconstitutional interpretation of the federal government's Commerce Clause powers.
If Senator Graham's bill or some other national law prohibiting or restricting abortion were to pass, Professor Blackman would come to the opposite conclusion, declaring that the law was within the scope of the federal government's Commerce Clause powers.
Easy to make predictions that will never be tested.
I think that IF Blackman came to the opposite conclusion about constitutionality, he could certainly find a better basis than the commerce clause.
"As a general matter, I no longer pay attention to predictions that the sky will fall after a conservative Supreme Court victory. The sky did not fall after Heller. The sky did not fall after Citizens United. The sky did not fall after Shelby County. The sky did not fall after Hobby Lobby. The sky did not fall after Rucho. And so on. The sky will not fall after Dobbs." This is not analysis of anything.
Professor Blackman, the sky may not have fallen after Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), but that decision was nonetheless an abomination. I am surprised that Justice Alito in Dobbs did not cite Buck for the proposition that a state has the right to control who does or does not reproduce. (Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade did cite Buck in regard to a state's ability to prohibit abortion after fetal viability.)
For the government to decide whether an individual bears or begets a child is the moral equivalent of the People's Republic of China's (since abandoned) one-child policy, which included coerced abortions.