Protesters are helping. Conservatives are illiberal by definition and therefore reject the very concept of inherent rights that are fundamental to our republic, even though the liberals of the founders' day created the travesty that we know as the constitution by accepting the conservatives' demand to allow slavery. Conservatives are the enemy and these conservative justices are threatening to infringe on a woman's inherent and inalienable right to control her own life without state interference until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind.
Inherent, inalienable rights are not up to the justices to deny, they are not up for a vote, they simply exist and are to be acknowledged. Conservatism has no place in a liberal society as shown by their willingness to infringe on rights to serve their petty purposes, such as in ignoring the sovereign rights of black people when they claimed to own them for their own good. They are doing it to women because conservatives do not believe that women have the ability to live well without male control because, after all, they are the reason that we were cast out of Eden.
I highly recommend Akhil Amar's excellent appearance on Bari Weiss's podcast (link below) as an antidote to the rampant fears about what's next from this Court. I agree with Amar -- a political liberal, unconvinced by Roe, among America's sharpest and most accessible legal scholars, read many of his fine books -- that this does not portend a reversal on gay rights.
For one thing (one fundamental, very important thing), gay rights involves the explicit right to equality before the law in a way Roe does not. The long tradition stuff Alito mentioned and that you highlight is about *unenumerated rights* -- it's what courts look to when a proposed right isn't found within the text but is rather thought to be implicit. But gay rights does not rest on that justification alone -- it rests on equal protection jurisprudence as well, which is a whole different deal and very much not dependent on ancient norms or customs.
Amar pointed to one more reason why we shouldn't fear. Kavanaugh was Kennedy's law clerk and will likely be concerned with maintaining Kennedy's legacy (the gay rights decisions he authored) -- and you would need his vote for sure. It's possible Alito would turn back the clock on gay rights given this druthers, but his are not the only druthers.
A couple more points he didn't mention: Gorsuch authored a highly pro-gay-rights decision himself, a bit of a stretch even for liberal lawyers, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's invested in maintaining these protections as well. Finally, the stare decisis factors weigh more in their favor -- there has been a great deal of reliance placed on gay rights decisions. What would happen to people's marriages, for example?
In addition, Amar is not very worried about contraception. He notes that only one state -- Connecticut -- outlawed it at the time of Griswold, the decision that struck down such laws, suggesting that there was indeed a tradition of respecting privacy in this area, while almost no state's 1973 abortion laws were constitutional after Roe. He thinks even Alito accepts privacy rights, but would not extend them to abortion. (Abortion, after all, does make an awkward fit under a "right to privacy." It's not really about privacy as such, is it?)
Eric, a few thoughts on protesting at the homes of public officials:
1. The statute you cite references picketing "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice." That does not apply in this case. This is a free speech issue. And no, disagreeing with a ruling or position and making your voice heard is not "interfering with, obstructing, or impeding."
2. The Supreme Court Building has been barricaded with a massive fence, to thwart potential protestors. Oh, you don't want us at your place of work? Fine then, we'll come to your home.
3. Is it *never* appropriate to protest at the home of a public official, in your opinion? What's your "moral red line?"
4. The outrage is righteous. The anger is real. "Be nice" isn't gonna cut it.
“But if you subscribe to the principle that when an issue is important enough to people, they should have the right to go to people’s homes and try to persuade them with signs and chants and disruptions, you can’t complain when anti-abortion zealots hold protest vigils at the homes of nurses and doctors who provide abortion care.”
I wonder if anyone has ever said, “I DID support this behavior when it was our guys doing it; I guess I can’t complain now that they’re doing it.”
There are a few folks, such as Eric, principled enough to recognize the need for consistency BEFORE supporting or criticizing tactics, regardless of side.
From the time I was a kid in the 1960s, it has been apparent to me that the biggest threat to our country has been, and still is, mob rule. Streets full of protesters "peaceful" and otherwise, creating fear and intimidating law-abiding citizens while infringing upon their rights to drive on those streets, walk on the sidewalks their taxes pay for and do business in their cities. The implication is always that the system of government we have is somehow inadequate to deal with whatever the issue is without people shouting and engaging in uncivilized behavior in "demonstrations", rather than exercising their right to vote and choosing decent leaders who will represent them. Meanwhile, the majority of the public, non-radical by nature, is forced to watch while the people who shout the loudest are taken seriously by uncritical media.
So the choice in periods between elections is for less vocal, but no less passionate citizens to contact their representatives and make their views and numbers known that way, or to adopt the same tactics as the mobs in the streets. Neither seems terribly effective, but ultimately, if we wish to preserve any kind of cohesive society, working within the system would be the best way. The challenge for public officials on both sides is to have some integrity, and stop with the trend toward simply ignoring laws they don't like. Continuing on the current path of "let's just try it and wait for the courts to rule even when we know it's illegal and then if we don’t like their decision, we’ll call them illegitimate,” only speeds us on the way to anarchy.
Steve Schmidt's comments is a bit mystifying, repeatedly saying how abhorrent and abusive Meghan McCain was to him, but not giving one example of such behavior.
When you have socked away your first $10K from the PS, consider investing it in an editor / design consultant to make PS more readable, especially on the iPhone. My first target would be: fonts. Then, some kind of navigation. But like Steve Jobs would do. Maybe it will take more than $10K.
I like your separate ToTW for political Tweets, but your special Dad Joke Tweets are REALLY bad. I realize that most Dad Jokes are groaners, but your selections truly leave a lot to be desired.
And I whole heartedly agree with your comments on demonstrations but I disagree on the core ratioanle. This is not an issue of good or bad tactics. They are bad for public order, safety, and preservation of a civil soviety. Unfortunately, these tactics are endorsed, encouraged, or accepted by many of the people that should be denouncing them and working to preserve public order. Since the 60's politicians have been progressively cowed by activists and the media into acceptance of intimidation and overt disruption as forms of 'peaceful' protest. Politicians have directed police to move to a minimal or zero enforcement and even absorb criticism for basic security precautions (e.g. Fort Lorie). I can't even imagine Mayor Lightfoot attempting to invoke Gregory v Chicago. Schumer and the Administration endorse 'peaceful' protests at the judges residences and the Justice Department remains mute, in spite of the violation of federal law, and no one at network news of PBS make a peep.
I think that your comments on 'irresponsible sex' are reductive and incorrect in attempting to reframe the entire anti-abortion movement. First, I believe the core issue for the 'religious right', is their belief that life begins at conception. There are many religions and cultures that share the belief that the soul is created at conception, that it is the essence of life. and that it is not a matter for scientific definition. It is wrong to claim that these beliefs are secondary or a cover for fear and repulsion at female sexuality.
I like your thought experiment and would love to see it used as the basis of a poll. I think that the vast majority would see your hypothetical as a net positive. It isn't 1873, acceptable sexual behavior has evolved in all social groups. But there would certainly be many that were concerned that it would contribute to the continued erosion of morality, the family, and endorsement of promiscuous behavior that was harmful to society beyond merely disease. We might also be surprised at the number of minorities that viewed the program as a method for limiting the population of minorities, and just a veiled move towards eugenics.
The Latino Caucus got rolled and we all got screwed. The best possible outcome would have been a referendum that included the Peoples Map. But even just the Black Caucus and Latino Caucus maps would have been good and the uglier and stupider the campaign the better. We would all have gotten a much better view of how politics works in Chicago, who is pulling the strings, and who the alderpersons really care about. We would be less reliant on the Sun-Times peak behind the curtain. We might have gotten the better map, and the more disgusted the population was with the alderpeople the better in the long run.
I looked again at the interchange between Rick Pearson and Richard Irvin. It occurred to me that this would have been an excellent opportunity for Judge Judy to do the questioning - with a tape delay on Irvin's mic, with a kill switch on it that she controlled. Meaning: if she asked Irvin a straight question, and he didn't answer, his non-answer would not be reported. The public would neither hear nor read it. He'd have to actually answer a question for his response to go out to the public in any mode.
Michael Smith wrote one of my favorite love songs: The Ballad Of Elizabeth Dark.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O1aUqMO_zgo
Protesters are helping. Conservatives are illiberal by definition and therefore reject the very concept of inherent rights that are fundamental to our republic, even though the liberals of the founders' day created the travesty that we know as the constitution by accepting the conservatives' demand to allow slavery. Conservatives are the enemy and these conservative justices are threatening to infringe on a woman's inherent and inalienable right to control her own life without state interference until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind.
Inherent, inalienable rights are not up to the justices to deny, they are not up for a vote, they simply exist and are to be acknowledged. Conservatism has no place in a liberal society as shown by their willingness to infringe on rights to serve their petty purposes, such as in ignoring the sovereign rights of black people when they claimed to own them for their own good. They are doing it to women because conservatives do not believe that women have the ability to live well without male control because, after all, they are the reason that we were cast out of Eden.
I highly recommend Akhil Amar's excellent appearance on Bari Weiss's podcast (link below) as an antidote to the rampant fears about what's next from this Court. I agree with Amar -- a political liberal, unconvinced by Roe, among America's sharpest and most accessible legal scholars, read many of his fine books -- that this does not portend a reversal on gay rights.
For one thing (one fundamental, very important thing), gay rights involves the explicit right to equality before the law in a way Roe does not. The long tradition stuff Alito mentioned and that you highlight is about *unenumerated rights* -- it's what courts look to when a proposed right isn't found within the text but is rather thought to be implicit. But gay rights does not rest on that justification alone -- it rests on equal protection jurisprudence as well, which is a whole different deal and very much not dependent on ancient norms or customs.
Amar pointed to one more reason why we shouldn't fear. Kavanaugh was Kennedy's law clerk and will likely be concerned with maintaining Kennedy's legacy (the gay rights decisions he authored) -- and you would need his vote for sure. It's possible Alito would turn back the clock on gay rights given this druthers, but his are not the only druthers.
A couple more points he didn't mention: Gorsuch authored a highly pro-gay-rights decision himself, a bit of a stretch even for liberal lawyers, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's invested in maintaining these protections as well. Finally, the stare decisis factors weigh more in their favor -- there has been a great deal of reliance placed on gay rights decisions. What would happen to people's marriages, for example?
In addition, Amar is not very worried about contraception. He notes that only one state -- Connecticut -- outlawed it at the time of Griswold, the decision that struck down such laws, suggesting that there was indeed a tradition of respecting privacy in this area, while almost no state's 1973 abortion laws were constitutional after Roe. He thinks even Alito accepts privacy rights, but would not extend them to abortion. (Abortion, after all, does make an awkward fit under a "right to privacy." It's not really about privacy as such, is it?)
https://podcasts.apple.com/gr/podcast/the-yale-law-professor-who-is-anti-roe-but-pro-choice/id1570872415?i=1000560474755
Eric, a few thoughts on protesting at the homes of public officials:
1. The statute you cite references picketing "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice." That does not apply in this case. This is a free speech issue. And no, disagreeing with a ruling or position and making your voice heard is not "interfering with, obstructing, or impeding."
2. The Supreme Court Building has been barricaded with a massive fence, to thwart potential protestors. Oh, you don't want us at your place of work? Fine then, we'll come to your home.
3. Is it *never* appropriate to protest at the home of a public official, in your opinion? What's your "moral red line?"
4. The outrage is righteous. The anger is real. "Be nice" isn't gonna cut it.
“But if you subscribe to the principle that when an issue is important enough to people, they should have the right to go to people’s homes and try to persuade them with signs and chants and disruptions, you can’t complain when anti-abortion zealots hold protest vigils at the homes of nurses and doctors who provide abortion care.”
I wonder if anyone has ever said, “I DID support this behavior when it was our guys doing it; I guess I can’t complain now that they’re doing it.”
There are a few folks, such as Eric, principled enough to recognize the need for consistency BEFORE supporting or criticizing tactics, regardless of side.
From the time I was a kid in the 1960s, it has been apparent to me that the biggest threat to our country has been, and still is, mob rule. Streets full of protesters "peaceful" and otherwise, creating fear and intimidating law-abiding citizens while infringing upon their rights to drive on those streets, walk on the sidewalks their taxes pay for and do business in their cities. The implication is always that the system of government we have is somehow inadequate to deal with whatever the issue is without people shouting and engaging in uncivilized behavior in "demonstrations", rather than exercising their right to vote and choosing decent leaders who will represent them. Meanwhile, the majority of the public, non-radical by nature, is forced to watch while the people who shout the loudest are taken seriously by uncritical media.
So the choice in periods between elections is for less vocal, but no less passionate citizens to contact their representatives and make their views and numbers known that way, or to adopt the same tactics as the mobs in the streets. Neither seems terribly effective, but ultimately, if we wish to preserve any kind of cohesive society, working within the system would be the best way. The challenge for public officials on both sides is to have some integrity, and stop with the trend toward simply ignoring laws they don't like. Continuing on the current path of "let's just try it and wait for the courts to rule even when we know it's illegal and then if we don’t like their decision, we’ll call them illegitimate,” only speeds us on the way to anarchy.
Steve Schmidt's comments is a bit mystifying, repeatedly saying how abhorrent and abusive Meghan McCain was to him, but not giving one example of such behavior.
When you have socked away your first $10K from the PS, consider investing it in an editor / design consultant to make PS more readable, especially on the iPhone. My first target would be: fonts. Then, some kind of navigation. But like Steve Jobs would do. Maybe it will take more than $10K.
EZ -
I like your separate ToTW for political Tweets, but your special Dad Joke Tweets are REALLY bad. I realize that most Dad Jokes are groaners, but your selections truly leave a lot to be desired.
First, I liked the Dad tweets. Good fun.
And I whole heartedly agree with your comments on demonstrations but I disagree on the core ratioanle. This is not an issue of good or bad tactics. They are bad for public order, safety, and preservation of a civil soviety. Unfortunately, these tactics are endorsed, encouraged, or accepted by many of the people that should be denouncing them and working to preserve public order. Since the 60's politicians have been progressively cowed by activists and the media into acceptance of intimidation and overt disruption as forms of 'peaceful' protest. Politicians have directed police to move to a minimal or zero enforcement and even absorb criticism for basic security precautions (e.g. Fort Lorie). I can't even imagine Mayor Lightfoot attempting to invoke Gregory v Chicago. Schumer and the Administration endorse 'peaceful' protests at the judges residences and the Justice Department remains mute, in spite of the violation of federal law, and no one at network news of PBS make a peep.
I think that your comments on 'irresponsible sex' are reductive and incorrect in attempting to reframe the entire anti-abortion movement. First, I believe the core issue for the 'religious right', is their belief that life begins at conception. There are many religions and cultures that share the belief that the soul is created at conception, that it is the essence of life. and that it is not a matter for scientific definition. It is wrong to claim that these beliefs are secondary or a cover for fear and repulsion at female sexuality.
I like your thought experiment and would love to see it used as the basis of a poll. I think that the vast majority would see your hypothetical as a net positive. It isn't 1873, acceptable sexual behavior has evolved in all social groups. But there would certainly be many that were concerned that it would contribute to the continued erosion of morality, the family, and endorsement of promiscuous behavior that was harmful to society beyond merely disease. We might also be surprised at the number of minorities that viewed the program as a method for limiting the population of minorities, and just a veiled move towards eugenics.
The Latino Caucus got rolled and we all got screwed. The best possible outcome would have been a referendum that included the Peoples Map. But even just the Black Caucus and Latino Caucus maps would have been good and the uglier and stupider the campaign the better. We would all have gotten a much better view of how politics works in Chicago, who is pulling the strings, and who the alderpersons really care about. We would be less reliant on the Sun-Times peak behind the curtain. We might have gotten the better map, and the more disgusted the population was with the alderpeople the better in the long run.
I looked again at the interchange between Rick Pearson and Richard Irvin. It occurred to me that this would have been an excellent opportunity for Judge Judy to do the questioning - with a tape delay on Irvin's mic, with a kill switch on it that she controlled. Meaning: if she asked Irvin a straight question, and he didn't answer, his non-answer would not be reported. The public would neither hear nor read it. He'd have to actually answer a question for his response to go out to the public in any mode.