“ ’Chi-Town,’ a cutesy term used almost exclusively by people who don't live here or by writers and advertising people straining for variety. Employing it marks you as a poser from elsewhere, in my view — San Franciscans say the same thing about “‘Frisco” — and my Facebook post on this topic drew nearly 400 comments, nearly all of them echoing my disdainful indignation, some wishing to add “Windy City” to the list of forbidden phrases.” --Zorn
What we need is some good, home-grown legislation banning these detestable words.
What a first world problem this is. Why not start getting worked up about whether the Bears will need to change there name to the Arlington Heights if or when they move to that community?
There are a number of pro sports teams who play at stadiums in cities other than the ones in their names. MetLife stadium at the Meadowlands in New Jersey is one example. I still remember when the great environmental need was to protect Hackensack Meadows. That need was scuttled.
These examples tell me the team can still be the Chicago Bears while playing in Arlington Heights. Nothing to get worked up about!
My out-of-thin-air airball was a couple of steps below d and f, but the interval was correct. As for Chi-town, my first exposure to it was in college in southern Indiana where a friend of mine from Glen Ellyn said he was from Chi-town (which, of course, he wasn’t.) His speech pattern generally included more trite phrases than most people’s, so my aversion to Chi-town was instant. Now that I’ve lived here for 45 years, I’m more used to it.
What about the 'Chi-town Hustler'? I was a huge fan of the Farkonas, Coil, and Minick NHRA funny cars. They were south siders. I think they first used the name on a '67 Barracuda but were the big-time stars in the '69 Charger. Blindingly quick, Hemi powered, aerodynamic beauty. I built the model kit (Revell?) for my room. So, the name is ok with me.
Eric hit on two key issues in his description of 'civics class' and a 'quasi-legislative' Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a legislative body in any sense. This was the core issue that coined 'judicial activism' as a description of the Supreme Court creating new law, and It is the core philosophical argument regarding 'textualism'. The Congress is supposed to write new law and can also amend the Constitution. We are not stuck in 1778 because the Constitution has been amended 27 times (most recently in 1992). The Congress should do their job and politicians should stop deflecting and pretending that the Court is the proper source for changes in rights and laws. The separate powers of the branches is an essential part of the governmental structure that cannot be casually shrugged off. Congress has also spent the last 60 years ceding legislative powers to the Executive and administrative agencies, which is another issue. As to abortion, the Democrats had super-majorities under Carter, Clinton, and Obama and failed to use those opportunities to pass abortion legislation. The landscape is probably more difficult because the issue is now also freighted with LGBTQ and other progressive issues.
Well said. Those who want constitutional protection for abortion should lobby for an amendment. Otherwise, if Roe is reversed, they can lobby their legislature or, if they stand with Lori Lightfoot, they can take up arms and mob the streets.
Yeah, it can be amended, but it's very difficult to do so, and arguably the most important amendments required a bloody civil war and the subsequent disqualification of the traitors to achieve. The Constitution sets forth vague principles. It requires, for example (in one of those amendments), equality before the law. But literally every law treats people unequally. The law against murder, for example, discriminates against murderers. It thus falls on judges to interpret what is meant by equality before the law. Views will inevitably change on that, as they should. An originalist would look to what the authors had in mind -- discrimination against black people -- and limit it to that. But that's not very textualist -- the text itself is not so limited. They didn't write, "Discrimination on the basis of race is hereby prohibited." They instead chose, to their credit, to announce a general principle of equality. A textualist will ask, "What did 'equal protection of the laws' mean to them at the time?" But that inquiry will either beg the question (it meant laws shouldn't treat people unequally, so?) or lead you to once again codify ancient prejudices. The Constitution was meant for the long haul. To understand that the principle applies to other classes of people similarly unfairly and systematically disadvantaged by the ordinary workings of democracy strikes me not as legislative or political, but simply as a better, more consistent, more defensible interpretation and vindication of the principle -- a principle that, it's important to note, is counter-majoritarian -- whatever its relatively narrow-minded authors may have thought.
We live in an era of significant social change, yet the last truly consequential amendment -- the 19th, granting women the right to vote was ratified in 1920, more than 100 years ago. The repeal of prohibition (1933) and the expansion of voting rights to those 18-to-21 (1971) were arguably important but less consequential, but the prospects for amending the Constitution for anything remotely controversial today seem remote.
That may be true, especially given the country's fracture over abortion. Yet the legislatures are remarkably proactive in protecting abortion. Net net, if Roe is reversed, abortion will stand in a majority of states.
The controversy is over by the time an amendment is passed and ratified because they require very broad support. A federal law is a better place to start and then an amendment that can garner the very broad support required. I think an amendment should be limited to defining when a 'person' begins, which is most likely to garner the broadest support.
I agree, better to let legislation play out first. I see a lot of similarities with cannabis law, which must ultimately change at the federal level. I think that all significant change in federal law works its way up from the states.
I would quibble on your civil war comment. The civil war was due to the refusal of the slave states to accept the inevitable demise of slavery. The country was already well on its way to abolition - democracy and the Constitutional government were working. A war was not required. The traitors removed themselves from the process and the war accelerated the change.
Marc, I sense a contradiction between "refusal of the slave states to accept the inevitable demise of slavery" on the one hand, and "democracy and the Constitutional government were working" on the other. If half the country goes to war with the other half over any dispute, it's hard to see how that system is "working." I agree with you that we would have seen the end of slavery eventually if the rebel states had decided to accept the idea on offer at the time that slavery may continue in states where it's legal but not in new states, although when exactly it would have ended, I'm not sure. I'm frankly doubtful the 14th would have ever passed, and the 15th would have been very long-delayed.
Chi-Town - No. Windy City - definitely an outsider, especially if you mention the windy weather. Chicagoland is Chicago and surrounding counties - maybe the NE tip of Indiana. Jumping to filibusters - it does seem to be the cold war option. Whoever chooses to eliminate it - knows it will be used against them. (Side comment: McConnell, Pelosi and several others... why do they stay in power. Rhetorical I know) Abandoned Ideas. Is Elon still building our bullet train?
The Pew poll that Eric published shows the probable reason that Democrats have failed to address abortion rights. They have always been concerned with any possible erosion in their base of minority and blue-collar voters. The 'illegal' percentages in those groups are high enough to give the average politician pause. But the poll is also an example of a strikingly ambiguous and therefore useless question. A person can be defined by sentience or viability. The definition of sentience is between 18 and 30 weeks. The definition of viability is 22 to 24 weeks. A more useful questions would be: Abortion should be legal in all cases in the first:
12 weeks - yes or no
18 weeks - yes or no
24 weeks - yes or no
30 weeks - yes or no
36 weeks - yes or no
The health of the mother takes precedence in the first:
(same choices)
The desires of the mother take precedence in the first:
(same choices)
These questions would sort out the 'rabid' on both ends of the spectrum and provide a clear perception of the 'mushy middle'. It would also accommodate the basis for all possible restrictions. Again clearly segregating the ends and the middle.
I've looked for polls that really try to pull apart how people really feel about abortion at such stages. You'd probably need about 25 or 30 questions to pin people down, and I suspect -- just a hunch -- that you'd get majorities for up to 18 weeks no questions asked and up to 30 weeks in cases of severe fetal abnormalities and threats to physical health; after that only severe, life-threatening danger to the mother. But I could be wrong.
"I don’t think McConnell demurred out of principle [in keeping the filibuster]. I think he demurred because the stakes weren’t high enough, the advantage not obvious enough, in part because Roe still stood and a nationwide ban on abortion — the right’s goal, let’s be honest — might well have been overturned. ... With Roe gone — as we assume it will be — and with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate the White House — which they will one day be — eliminating the filibuster to pass a nationwide abortion ban would be worth the risk."
I agree that McConnell didn't support keeping the filibuster out of principle. I don't support keeping it on principle either. I don't think there can be a principled, consistent position on the filibuster because of the outrageous malapportionment (2 votes per state) in the Senate. When the filibuster aggrandizes that malapportionment (as it does now, by diminishing the power of the Senators representing a majority), it's horrible. When it mitigates that malapportionment (as where Republicans not representing a majority hold the Senate), it's a corrective.
No, it's entirely a question of strategy and what worries you more -- not passing controversial legislation we want on the one hand, or the other side passing horrible legislation on the other. I would rather have Republicans write horrible rules under the Clean Air Act when they have the White House than have them be able to rewrite the Clean Air Act itself.
I think that both sides have agreed to the filibuster for all these years largely because they fear what the other side will do with a simple majority + House + White House. Democrats have extra reason to fear given that the big sort suggests that Democrats are, at least these days, structurally disadvantaged and less likely to hold the Senate over time.
I find it hard to believe that they would scrap the filibuster to institute a nationwide abortion ban. It would be extremely unpopular. I know that some hold that view with religious zeal. But I think McConnell types would resist calls to eliminate the filibuster for it, and he would hold up the specter of what Dems could do when they're in charge.
I agree that the Big Sort as well as our anti-Democratic apportionment in the Senate has tilted the table toward the Republican party, which is why when the potential victory in big enough, Mitch McConnell and his ilk will simply grab it. They were SHAMELESS in denying Garland a hearing and then rushing Barrett through confirmation. No principle at all, just brute power tactics. If not McConnell, then some hothead behind him will bow to the wishes/demands of Trump or some Trumpian president and start carving out exceptions to the filibuster. Of course this argument is moot because Sens. Manchin and Sinema won't go along with it. The Democrats don't know how to fight.
What bothers me most about Garland and Barrett is Republicans' shameless hypocritical rhetoric, invoking non-existent rules to suit them and ignoring them later, but, honestly, if the shoe were on the other foot, and you had the power to stop the Supreme Court from becoming what it's become, wouldn't you have been foolish or worse not to use that power? We go on about denying Garland a hearing, but hearings are mere theater. Bottom line is that, as you say, when the Court's at stake, you're not going to fill a seat unless the Senate and White House are of the same party. McConnell could have simply been honest about that -- it would have been less grating and achieved the same result.
We agree that they will use their power to the maximum extent to pursue their aims. But what are their aims? You assume that most Republican senators either personally want or could be politically forced to vote for a nationwide abortion ban, a policy lots, lots, lots more extreme than overturning Roe. Abortion will remain very widely available in the U.S. after Roe's demise. If you had to leave the country, wow, that's a different story. Am I crazy to welcome their trying? I mean, if you think overturning Roe can energize Democrats, wait until a nationwide ban! (And, yeah, we should scare the bejesus out of everyone about that prospect.) But I don't think they actually want that. I don't even think a majority of Republican voters want that (see link to poll below). There's a very good chance that even this Court would find such a law unconstitutional anyway as not within Congress's Art. I powers.
So, you're saying that McConnell or his successor would find this policy -- this extreme, highly unpopular voter repellant that not even most of his own voters want, that not even Trump would want I bet, that not even a lot of these Trumpist populists would want I bet -- so important, so critical, so politically necessary -- more than any other policy they care about (guns, regulation, you name it) -- that they would take the step they just refused to take last time and thus open the floodgates to everything they most hate when their time is up? I don't know for sure, of course, but I doubt it, and so I think we're better advised -- as a matter of strategy, as better suited to *our* aims, not as a matter of principle -- to, at most, make the filibuster a difficult chore.
I see no possible benefit to opening Supreme Court deliberations/negotiations to public review. The Justices each have a staff. The clerks help the justice prepare for the case hearing. The staff then support them with research and position discussions. These discussion result in a position that is discussed with the other justices. They then take a straw vote and agree on the writing of majority and dissenting opinions. These opinions are also supported by the staff of the writers and drafts are circulated and revised. The decision, opinion, and dissents are published. What part of that process would benefit from the input of pundits, activists, lobbyists, protestors, kibitzers, and politicians? From a legal and legislative standpoint everything that matters are in the published opinion and dissents. Would all meetings and writings of the court and staff be open? These things are open in elected bodies to inform voters, discourage illegal influence, and encourage political participation to influence the officeholders. Unless one envisions a benefit to political impeachment of justices (or forcing resignation of their staff), I don't see a comparable rationale.
I concede some potential drawbacks, but just about every argument you make could apply to the legislative process... "What part of the process benefits from the input of pundits, activists, lobbyists, protestors and kibitzers....everything that matters is in the published law once it is signed."
The difference is in the nature of their respective jobs. Politicians are supposed to represent the people. They should face popular pressure at nearly every turn. Judges are supposed to be free of just that sort of influence. It's not hard to imagine such sunshine imperiling decisions we agree with. It's why I think we should get rid of the absurd spectacle of voting for state judges. I think I maybe have more, I won't say "faith" because that's irrational, but, let's say, reasonable reliance, on judges' professional ethos than you do.
But I agree with you that the leak (while, I think anyway, regrettable) is hardly the main story here, and I'm inclined to pull out my tiny fiddle about it as well. What's interesting is how Republican commentators were so quick to bury the lede. Why not celebrate and dance in the streets? Because, I actually think most of them don't really welcome endless and giant political fights over abortion, on which they cling to a minority view.
I agree with JakeH, the difference is their role and the way it is supposed to work. Legislators and executives are supposed to be getting the input of all interested parties and be able to justify their decisions before they act. They are political actors, subject to political influences. Judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law independent of political influence. There is no rule of law where judges are actively lobbied during deliberations. When the people are unhappy with the law, it is their legislators' job to determine and make the necessary changes.
Thanks for the comments about "Chi-Town" and "Windy City." I use neither.
As for "Chicagoland," I learned the origin and sometimes use it. The vagueness, if you wish, is okay; it's preferable to the precise definition of Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area [SMSA]. Also, "Chicagoland" has some analogous words in other parts of the USA. These are needed.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, a "trans-man" who is pregnant or gets an abortion is a chromosomal female with an XX pair of chromosomes. I call this person a "woman."
Chris Strangio said "people like me, who are not women, may become pregnant." He didn't say in what way, exactly, these pregnant people are not women."
Why did you put "him" in scare quotes? Do you not respect transgender people or their identities? XX or XY doesn't tell the whole story. You might want to listen to this if you are really interested. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852274857/karissa-sanbonmatsu-what-can-epigenetics-tell-us-about-sex-and-gender I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt--that you are not a TERF. If I am wrong, and you just disrespect transgender people, just let me know.
Refusing to recognize trans identities is not "common sense," Michael Neubauer. It is what little people do who feel the need to try to punch down on people who are different from them and who are already marginalized by a significant swath of the culture. We get it. You're a transphobe.
SCOTUS deliberations were designed to be held in private specifically to shield them from influence by third parties. In fact, Federal criminal Statute 18 U.S.C.,1507 explicitly criminalizes attempts to influence the judicial process with regard to judges, jurors and witnesses.
Also, the same statute makes the current demonstrations in front of the SCOTUS justices' residences patently illegal and subject to prosecution. The statute reads in part,
"2. With the intent of influencing any judge...in the discharge of his duty...
3. Pickets or parades in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge..."
But of course, the Biden Justice Department has absolutely no interest in enforcing laws against street activists who are furthering their partisan narrative . There is plenty of attention to prosecuting concerned parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists, but a total blind eye toward these ongoing very public criminal acts at SCOTUS judge residences. (And I will add that I believe demonstrations at the residences of any public officials are fascistic in nature and should be banned all together.)
Not a big fan of "Chi-Town", and prefer it not be on the jersey, but disagree that it's an outsider thing. I've heard it regularly used for decades, maybe being from the south side. It's in the name of songs, books, music fests, restaurants, races, softball teams, movie theaters, etc.
“ ’Chi-Town,’ a cutesy term used almost exclusively by people who don't live here or by writers and advertising people straining for variety. Employing it marks you as a poser from elsewhere, in my view — San Franciscans say the same thing about “‘Frisco” — and my Facebook post on this topic drew nearly 400 comments, nearly all of them echoing my disdainful indignation, some wishing to add “Windy City” to the list of forbidden phrases.” --Zorn
What we need is some good, home-grown legislation banning these detestable words.
Add "Chiberia" to the list.
Correct. No "Chi-Town". No "Windy City'. Those expressions are for rubes and brainless journalists. "Chicagoland" is OK.
What a first world problem this is. Why not start getting worked up about whether the Bears will need to change there name to the Arlington Heights if or when they move to that community?
There are a number of pro sports teams who play at stadiums in cities other than the ones in their names. MetLife stadium at the Meadowlands in New Jersey is one example. I still remember when the great environmental need was to protect Hackensack Meadows. That need was scuttled.
These examples tell me the team can still be the Chicago Bears while playing in Arlington Heights. Nothing to get worked up about!
My out-of-thin-air airball was a couple of steps below d and f, but the interval was correct. As for Chi-town, my first exposure to it was in college in southern Indiana where a friend of mine from Glen Ellyn said he was from Chi-town (which, of course, he wasn’t.) His speech pattern generally included more trite phrases than most people’s, so my aversion to Chi-town was instant. Now that I’ve lived here for 45 years, I’m more used to it.
What about the 'Chi-town Hustler'? I was a huge fan of the Farkonas, Coil, and Minick NHRA funny cars. They were south siders. I think they first used the name on a '67 Barracuda but were the big-time stars in the '69 Charger. Blindingly quick, Hemi powered, aerodynamic beauty. I built the model kit (Revell?) for my room. So, the name is ok with me.
Yes, I was going to mention that reference as well.
Eric hit on two key issues in his description of 'civics class' and a 'quasi-legislative' Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a legislative body in any sense. This was the core issue that coined 'judicial activism' as a description of the Supreme Court creating new law, and It is the core philosophical argument regarding 'textualism'. The Congress is supposed to write new law and can also amend the Constitution. We are not stuck in 1778 because the Constitution has been amended 27 times (most recently in 1992). The Congress should do their job and politicians should stop deflecting and pretending that the Court is the proper source for changes in rights and laws. The separate powers of the branches is an essential part of the governmental structure that cannot be casually shrugged off. Congress has also spent the last 60 years ceding legislative powers to the Executive and administrative agencies, which is another issue. As to abortion, the Democrats had super-majorities under Carter, Clinton, and Obama and failed to use those opportunities to pass abortion legislation. The landscape is probably more difficult because the issue is now also freighted with LGBTQ and other progressive issues.
Well said. Those who want constitutional protection for abortion should lobby for an amendment. Otherwise, if Roe is reversed, they can lobby their legislature or, if they stand with Lori Lightfoot, they can take up arms and mob the streets.
We're still trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment into the Constitution.
We can do without that one as well. It just opens up a can of worms and you will be surprised at the potential it has for cutting against women.
Yeah, it can be amended, but it's very difficult to do so, and arguably the most important amendments required a bloody civil war and the subsequent disqualification of the traitors to achieve. The Constitution sets forth vague principles. It requires, for example (in one of those amendments), equality before the law. But literally every law treats people unequally. The law against murder, for example, discriminates against murderers. It thus falls on judges to interpret what is meant by equality before the law. Views will inevitably change on that, as they should. An originalist would look to what the authors had in mind -- discrimination against black people -- and limit it to that. But that's not very textualist -- the text itself is not so limited. They didn't write, "Discrimination on the basis of race is hereby prohibited." They instead chose, to their credit, to announce a general principle of equality. A textualist will ask, "What did 'equal protection of the laws' mean to them at the time?" But that inquiry will either beg the question (it meant laws shouldn't treat people unequally, so?) or lead you to once again codify ancient prejudices. The Constitution was meant for the long haul. To understand that the principle applies to other classes of people similarly unfairly and systematically disadvantaged by the ordinary workings of democracy strikes me not as legislative or political, but simply as a better, more consistent, more defensible interpretation and vindication of the principle -- a principle that, it's important to note, is counter-majoritarian -- whatever its relatively narrow-minded authors may have thought.
JakeH, you are WAY too reasonable.
We live in an era of significant social change, yet the last truly consequential amendment -- the 19th, granting women the right to vote was ratified in 1920, more than 100 years ago. The repeal of prohibition (1933) and the expansion of voting rights to those 18-to-21 (1971) were arguably important but less consequential, but the prospects for amending the Constitution for anything remotely controversial today seem remote.
That may be true, especially given the country's fracture over abortion. Yet the legislatures are remarkably proactive in protecting abortion. Net net, if Roe is reversed, abortion will stand in a majority of states.
The controversy is over by the time an amendment is passed and ratified because they require very broad support. A federal law is a better place to start and then an amendment that can garner the very broad support required. I think an amendment should be limited to defining when a 'person' begins, which is most likely to garner the broadest support.
I'm no pro-abort, but in your own interests, federal legislation can always be repealed while it is very difficult to change an amendment.
I agree, better to let legislation play out first. I see a lot of similarities with cannabis law, which must ultimately change at the federal level. I think that all significant change in federal law works its way up from the states.
I would quibble on your civil war comment. The civil war was due to the refusal of the slave states to accept the inevitable demise of slavery. The country was already well on its way to abolition - democracy and the Constitutional government were working. A war was not required. The traitors removed themselves from the process and the war accelerated the change.
Marc, I sense a contradiction between "refusal of the slave states to accept the inevitable demise of slavery" on the one hand, and "democracy and the Constitutional government were working" on the other. If half the country goes to war with the other half over any dispute, it's hard to see how that system is "working." I agree with you that we would have seen the end of slavery eventually if the rebel states had decided to accept the idea on offer at the time that slavery may continue in states where it's legal but not in new states, although when exactly it would have ended, I'm not sure. I'm frankly doubtful the 14th would have ever passed, and the 15th would have been very long-delayed.
Probably never. Slavery was more profitable than ever in the 1850s.
Chi-Town - No. Windy City - definitely an outsider, especially if you mention the windy weather. Chicagoland is Chicago and surrounding counties - maybe the NE tip of Indiana. Jumping to filibusters - it does seem to be the cold war option. Whoever chooses to eliminate it - knows it will be used against them. (Side comment: McConnell, Pelosi and several others... why do they stay in power. Rhetorical I know) Abandoned Ideas. Is Elon still building our bullet train?
The Pew poll that Eric published shows the probable reason that Democrats have failed to address abortion rights. They have always been concerned with any possible erosion in their base of minority and blue-collar voters. The 'illegal' percentages in those groups are high enough to give the average politician pause. But the poll is also an example of a strikingly ambiguous and therefore useless question. A person can be defined by sentience or viability. The definition of sentience is between 18 and 30 weeks. The definition of viability is 22 to 24 weeks. A more useful questions would be: Abortion should be legal in all cases in the first:
12 weeks - yes or no
18 weeks - yes or no
24 weeks - yes or no
30 weeks - yes or no
36 weeks - yes or no
The health of the mother takes precedence in the first:
(same choices)
The desires of the mother take precedence in the first:
(same choices)
These questions would sort out the 'rabid' on both ends of the spectrum and provide a clear perception of the 'mushy middle'. It would also accommodate the basis for all possible restrictions. Again clearly segregating the ends and the middle.
I've looked for polls that really try to pull apart how people really feel about abortion at such stages. You'd probably need about 25 or 30 questions to pin people down, and I suspect -- just a hunch -- that you'd get majorities for up to 18 weeks no questions asked and up to 30 weeks in cases of severe fetal abnormalities and threats to physical health; after that only severe, life-threatening danger to the mother. But I could be wrong.
I agree. And since 93% of abortions occur in the first 13 weeks that would also cover the current practices, which I believe conform to your model.
"I don’t think McConnell demurred out of principle [in keeping the filibuster]. I think he demurred because the stakes weren’t high enough, the advantage not obvious enough, in part because Roe still stood and a nationwide ban on abortion — the right’s goal, let’s be honest — might well have been overturned. ... With Roe gone — as we assume it will be — and with Republicans in control of the House, the Senate the White House — which they will one day be — eliminating the filibuster to pass a nationwide abortion ban would be worth the risk."
I agree that McConnell didn't support keeping the filibuster out of principle. I don't support keeping it on principle either. I don't think there can be a principled, consistent position on the filibuster because of the outrageous malapportionment (2 votes per state) in the Senate. When the filibuster aggrandizes that malapportionment (as it does now, by diminishing the power of the Senators representing a majority), it's horrible. When it mitigates that malapportionment (as where Republicans not representing a majority hold the Senate), it's a corrective.
No, it's entirely a question of strategy and what worries you more -- not passing controversial legislation we want on the one hand, or the other side passing horrible legislation on the other. I would rather have Republicans write horrible rules under the Clean Air Act when they have the White House than have them be able to rewrite the Clean Air Act itself.
I think that both sides have agreed to the filibuster for all these years largely because they fear what the other side will do with a simple majority + House + White House. Democrats have extra reason to fear given that the big sort suggests that Democrats are, at least these days, structurally disadvantaged and less likely to hold the Senate over time.
I find it hard to believe that they would scrap the filibuster to institute a nationwide abortion ban. It would be extremely unpopular. I know that some hold that view with religious zeal. But I think McConnell types would resist calls to eliminate the filibuster for it, and he would hold up the specter of what Dems could do when they're in charge.
I agree that the Big Sort as well as our anti-Democratic apportionment in the Senate has tilted the table toward the Republican party, which is why when the potential victory in big enough, Mitch McConnell and his ilk will simply grab it. They were SHAMELESS in denying Garland a hearing and then rushing Barrett through confirmation. No principle at all, just brute power tactics. If not McConnell, then some hothead behind him will bow to the wishes/demands of Trump or some Trumpian president and start carving out exceptions to the filibuster. Of course this argument is moot because Sens. Manchin and Sinema won't go along with it. The Democrats don't know how to fight.
What bothers me most about Garland and Barrett is Republicans' shameless hypocritical rhetoric, invoking non-existent rules to suit them and ignoring them later, but, honestly, if the shoe were on the other foot, and you had the power to stop the Supreme Court from becoming what it's become, wouldn't you have been foolish or worse not to use that power? We go on about denying Garland a hearing, but hearings are mere theater. Bottom line is that, as you say, when the Court's at stake, you're not going to fill a seat unless the Senate and White House are of the same party. McConnell could have simply been honest about that -- it would have been less grating and achieved the same result.
We agree that they will use their power to the maximum extent to pursue their aims. But what are their aims? You assume that most Republican senators either personally want or could be politically forced to vote for a nationwide abortion ban, a policy lots, lots, lots more extreme than overturning Roe. Abortion will remain very widely available in the U.S. after Roe's demise. If you had to leave the country, wow, that's a different story. Am I crazy to welcome their trying? I mean, if you think overturning Roe can energize Democrats, wait until a nationwide ban! (And, yeah, we should scare the bejesus out of everyone about that prospect.) But I don't think they actually want that. I don't even think a majority of Republican voters want that (see link to poll below). There's a very good chance that even this Court would find such a law unconstitutional anyway as not within Congress's Art. I powers.
So, you're saying that McConnell or his successor would find this policy -- this extreme, highly unpopular voter repellant that not even most of his own voters want, that not even Trump would want I bet, that not even a lot of these Trumpist populists would want I bet -- so important, so critical, so politically necessary -- more than any other policy they care about (guns, regulation, you name it) -- that they would take the step they just refused to take last time and thus open the floodgates to everything they most hate when their time is up? I don't know for sure, of course, but I doubt it, and so I think we're better advised -- as a matter of strategy, as better suited to *our* aims, not as a matter of principle -- to, at most, make the filibuster a difficult chore.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/09/even-most-republicans-dont-want-congress-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-poll-finds/?sh=6a48fa413979
I see no possible benefit to opening Supreme Court deliberations/negotiations to public review. The Justices each have a staff. The clerks help the justice prepare for the case hearing. The staff then support them with research and position discussions. These discussion result in a position that is discussed with the other justices. They then take a straw vote and agree on the writing of majority and dissenting opinions. These opinions are also supported by the staff of the writers and drafts are circulated and revised. The decision, opinion, and dissents are published. What part of that process would benefit from the input of pundits, activists, lobbyists, protestors, kibitzers, and politicians? From a legal and legislative standpoint everything that matters are in the published opinion and dissents. Would all meetings and writings of the court and staff be open? These things are open in elected bodies to inform voters, discourage illegal influence, and encourage political participation to influence the officeholders. Unless one envisions a benefit to political impeachment of justices (or forcing resignation of their staff), I don't see a comparable rationale.
I concede some potential drawbacks, but just about every argument you make could apply to the legislative process... "What part of the process benefits from the input of pundits, activists, lobbyists, protestors and kibitzers....everything that matters is in the published law once it is signed."
The difference is in the nature of their respective jobs. Politicians are supposed to represent the people. They should face popular pressure at nearly every turn. Judges are supposed to be free of just that sort of influence. It's not hard to imagine such sunshine imperiling decisions we agree with. It's why I think we should get rid of the absurd spectacle of voting for state judges. I think I maybe have more, I won't say "faith" because that's irrational, but, let's say, reasonable reliance, on judges' professional ethos than you do.
But I agree with you that the leak (while, I think anyway, regrettable) is hardly the main story here, and I'm inclined to pull out my tiny fiddle about it as well. What's interesting is how Republican commentators were so quick to bury the lede. Why not celebrate and dance in the streets? Because, I actually think most of them don't really welcome endless and giant political fights over abortion, on which they cling to a minority view.
I agree with JakeH, the difference is their role and the way it is supposed to work. Legislators and executives are supposed to be getting the input of all interested parties and be able to justify their decisions before they act. They are political actors, subject to political influences. Judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law independent of political influence. There is no rule of law where judges are actively lobbied during deliberations. When the people are unhappy with the law, it is their legislators' job to determine and make the necessary changes.
Thanks for the comments about "Chi-Town" and "Windy City." I use neither.
As for "Chicagoland," I learned the origin and sometimes use it. The vagueness, if you wish, is okay; it's preferable to the precise definition of Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area [SMSA]. Also, "Chicagoland" has some analogous words in other parts of the USA. These are needed.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, a "trans-man" who is pregnant or gets an abortion is a chromosomal female with an XX pair of chromosomes. I call this person a "woman."
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/5/9/abortion_bans_transgender_healthcare_roe_v
Chris Strangio said "people like me, who are not women, may become pregnant." He didn't say in what way, exactly, these pregnant people are not women."
How do you think he is different from women? Or do you think he is a woman?
I'd like to hear it from 'him,' complete with the chromosome readout.
Why did you put "him" in scare quotes? Do you not respect transgender people or their identities? XX or XY doesn't tell the whole story. You might want to listen to this if you are really interested. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/08/852274857/karissa-sanbonmatsu-what-can-epigenetics-tell-us-about-sex-and-gender I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt--that you are not a TERF. If I am wrong, and you just disrespect transgender people, just let me know.
Finally, some common sense.
Refusing to recognize trans identities is not "common sense," Michael Neubauer. It is what little people do who feel the need to try to punch down on people who are different from them and who are already marginalized by a significant swath of the culture. We get it. You're a transphobe.
And you're a liar.
What did I lie about, Michael Neubauer?
SCOTUS deliberations were designed to be held in private specifically to shield them from influence by third parties. In fact, Federal criminal Statute 18 U.S.C.,1507 explicitly criminalizes attempts to influence the judicial process with regard to judges, jurors and witnesses.
Also, the same statute makes the current demonstrations in front of the SCOTUS justices' residences patently illegal and subject to prosecution. The statute reads in part,
"2. With the intent of influencing any judge...in the discharge of his duty...
3. Pickets or parades in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge..."
But of course, the Biden Justice Department has absolutely no interest in enforcing laws against street activists who are furthering their partisan narrative . There is plenty of attention to prosecuting concerned parents at school board meetings as domestic terrorists, but a total blind eye toward these ongoing very public criminal acts at SCOTUS judge residences. (And I will add that I believe demonstrations at the residences of any public officials are fascistic in nature and should be banned all together.)
Not a big fan of "Chi-Town", and prefer it not be on the jersey, but disagree that it's an outsider thing. I've heard it regularly used for decades, maybe being from the south side. It's in the name of songs, books, music fests, restaurants, races, softball teams, movie theaters, etc.
According to Richard Norton Smith's book, "The Colonel,"
Chicagoland extends North to Green Bay, East to Grand Rapids, South to Evansville, and West to Des Moines.
I'd say your delimitation of "Chicagoland" may depend on where your vantage point is. That's okay by me.
Well the colonel was... something else.