“maybe it’s your fault for creating such a slippery baby”. I don’t get it. I’m sure it refers to something but I don’t know what cultural reference I’m missing. At least I got the Talking Heads reference.
I always enjoy the wide range of Eric's vocabulary. It's going to be a challenge to work "panjandrum" into a sentence but I'm sure going to give it a good try.
Also, I would like to extend a hearty middle finger to the "sanctity" of the Supreme Court. Great perspective on the abortion battle. Pay attention people! We've got to vote in every single election.
Understand that the denial that rights exist includes ALL unenumerated rights that indeed includes the right of self defense, voting, interracial marriage, etc, every single one as shown by Alito's statement in the leaked opinion:
"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision"
Replace "abortion" with any other supposed right and search the constitution for it and if it is not explicitly stated, states can deny it and the conservatives on the SCOTUS can deny it with the same argument. Conservatives deny inherent rights and therefore deny the Ninth Amendment that ironically was written by James Madison to protect all unenumerated rights!
Understand that conservatism simply denies inherent rights, such as the right of a woman to control her own being that includes abortion without any state interference until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind.
Women have NO rights in the mind of Republicans and conservatives and must be controlled to force them to live in accordance with god's will and that will be their drive for all other rights that liberalism brought us because we believe in inherent rights. Vote Republicans out of office to protect our rights.
Eric, You may be right about Republican politicians preferring Roe as a simple target. But the pro-life people have always looked way beyond that. Overturning Roe is only instrumental to the real work, which they are more than eager for. When it comes to firing up anti-abortion grass roots energy, this is just the starter’s gun.
Right on with your Roe analysis -- well said! A couple of quibbles, though:
I think it likely that a law codifying Roe nationwide would be held unconstitutional by this Court as not within Congress's interstate commerce power. Few are talking about this. Here's one article:
I don't see it working. Therefore, I don't see it worth ending the filibuster. Your view is that they will abolish the filibuster in a second when they have the chance regardless, so we might as well do it now. My view is that that they didn't do that in the very recent past when they had the chance and Trump was telling McConnell to do it, and so I wouldn't be so sure of that, and that the filibuster will be an important defense for us when they take power, as they surely will eventually.
I guess I have no serious opposition to Democrats' advocating for a nationwide codification of Roe anyway.
On the broader point, though, I bristle at assigning zero political value to consistency and norm-following. It's a dog fight, they've made it a dog fight, so let's fight like dogs -- no other choice. I get that, and I certainly endorse that approach in cases like gerrymandering and campaign finance, where one side's unilateral disarmament would be merely stupid. (It's not inconsistent to say, I don't like the rules, I want to change the rules, but, until we do, we have to play by the rules. Ask them why they won't agree to change them, because we will.)
But stretching that logic to positions on issues and rhetoric surrounding them -- to embrace hypocrisy on the theory that nobody will punish you for it, to become, in the most extreme case, Trumpist trolls except of the left -- strikes me as a mistake that will yet further alienate persuadable voters. So: instead of pushing for a nationwide codification of Roe that is likely to be overturned if successful and seen by many as overreach, I think it would be great now to require Republicans to go on record on the narrower issue of protecting interstate travel to receive abortions where it's legal. Ask them, in other words, to commit to their supposed federalist idea and hammer them when they don't -- create the specter of nationalizing the most conservative view, show up their extremism. That works better when you're not so extreme yourself, it seems to me.
Second quibble, I don't really get this: "It’s become just another grubby, agenda-driven political body, only one with suffocating power populated by members who never have to answer to the electorate." "Grubby" suggests corrupt, disreputable, etc. Why? Because there's a conservative majority? Conservatives have been saying something similar these past 60 years when decisions have not gone their way. Now that they're not going ours, all of sudden the court "become[s]" ideological in a dirty way, a way indistinguishable from politics? I don't buy it. As you acknowledge, Roe's reasoning was not exactly rock-solid. They think that was the decision indistinguishable from politics but shielded from democratic accountability and that was the real outrage. I don't think either decision is an outrage. They reflect two differing and yet both plausible, respectable views about what the Constitution requires and the extent to which it protects individual liberties not listed.
An interesting opinion, as usual, by Eric. But I think his final paragraphs come closest to addressing the immediate issue. If Democrats want to continue to claim that they are the party of pro-choice then the current House should pass a bill that defines when a 'person' legally begins existence and prohibits interference prior to that time. The Senate should then introduce the bill and force a vote. Then they can legitimately run on a specific issue that is unambiguous to voters and candidates can be asked specifically their position.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical. Their decisions, supporting arguments and dissents are always published. Opening up their deliberations and drafts to concurrent public review does nothing to improve the process. Defending the function, purpose, and structure of the institutions of government is not trivial or a distraction. It is possible to defend the institution and also demand remedy from the Congress.
Eric, possible error in graf from Adam Serwer, who you quote "... Aside from rights specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution, Alito argues, only those rights “deeply rooted in the nation’s history in tradition” deserve its protections." But Alito appears to be quoting Wm. Rehnquist: ". . . the Court has regularly observed that the [Due Process] Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." And tradition. Makes more sense.
From my conservative perspective, I am happy that Roe v Wade was finally overturned, as it was premised on an imaginary right that was invented to arrive at the desired ruling. Regulation of abortion is now returned to the states as appropriate. Even 2nd Amendment rights which are explicitly enumerated, are subject to regulation by the states, so long as they do not seek to impair the core rights (as Illinois unconstitutionally did for decades).
Politically, I believe conservatives owe a debt of thanks to the leaker of this drafted decision so that it burst on to the scene now, 6 months before the midterm elections. While there is unquestionably manifestation of outrage in the streets by the hair-on-fire predominantly women furious over this news, does anyone seriously believe that any material percentage of these rabidly proabortion individuals were ever going to vote for any Republican candidates?
The battleground for hearts and minds on the abortion issue is predominantly in the suburbs among moderate voters, and especially women voters. While arguably a significant percentage of them may not be in agreement with this decision, I strongly believe that another 6 months of feeling the pain daily at the gas pump, grocery store and every aspect of life under the Biden Democrats will continue to lead them to vote Republican in November. So I do not believe the Democrats are going to realize any electoral lifeline in this decision despite all the noise it is presently generating.
In closing on a side note, I cannot help but take note of the fact that the avalanche of protestation about women's rights with regard to abortion seems to have caused Democrats to rediscover biological gender identity!
If I might make a comment about the filibuster: Many people in the media are talking about it as if the only choices are "keep it" or "get rid of it." I want to remind people that the last I heard, one could effect a filibuster merely by phoning in a threat to engage in a filibuster. I want the rule changed to require what's called a "talking filibuster" - you actually have to be physically present in the Senate and TALK about the bill up for discussion. And talk. And talk. And please don't waste others' time by going off-topic and bragging about how your town's high school sports team won the State championship - if that has nothing to do with the bill. Require the talking filibuster before taking up any other proposed changes.
We could classify a phoned-in filibuster threat right there with sabre-rattling. Anyone who's been slashed by a sabre can tell us there's a difference between a sabre rattling and a sabre cutting.
Venue and jurisdiction rules governing lawsuits between people and organizations in different states have been fixed for over a hundred years. First, I can't sue you for something that did not directly affect me. Second, I have to sue you in the state where you live or where you committed the tort. Third, I can't sue in state or Federal court for something that is not a tort in that state or federally. A claim that cannot be brought in my state also cannot be enforced in my state. I also think that any state law that attempted to fine or restrict travel across state lines would be unconstitutional. We will have to see if the Texas type intra-state law holds up, but I think it will also ultimately fail.
Big props to the Tribune and the Better Government Association on their exciting Pulitzer win for local reporting! I recall reading the compelling story on fire code scofflaws and their horrendous consequences with interest and my usual critical/skeptical eye of local news exposes and thinking, yeah, they really got the goods here.
It's too bad that this news comes amid not only ongoing questions about whether the problems it identified will be solved, but also amid the Trib's "tumultuous time," aptly and sadly symbolized by the conversion of its once glorious home into luxury condos and the replacement of its mighty printing plant and current home with a casino. It's encouraging not only to see folks doing such strong, solid work through all that but also to see it rewarded in this way.
“maybe it’s your fault for creating such a slippery baby”. I don’t get it. I’m sure it refers to something but I don’t know what cultural reference I’m missing. At least I got the Talking Heads reference.
Thanks for THE best piece I've read about the abortion issue and the Supremes-perfection!
I always enjoy the wide range of Eric's vocabulary. It's going to be a challenge to work "panjandrum" into a sentence but I'm sure going to give it a good try.
Also, I would like to extend a hearty middle finger to the "sanctity" of the Supreme Court. Great perspective on the abortion battle. Pay attention people! We've got to vote in every single election.
Understand that the denial that rights exist includes ALL unenumerated rights that indeed includes the right of self defense, voting, interracial marriage, etc, every single one as shown by Alito's statement in the leaked opinion:
"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision"
Replace "abortion" with any other supposed right and search the constitution for it and if it is not explicitly stated, states can deny it and the conservatives on the SCOTUS can deny it with the same argument. Conservatives deny inherent rights and therefore deny the Ninth Amendment that ironically was written by James Madison to protect all unenumerated rights!
Understand that conservatism simply denies inherent rights, such as the right of a woman to control her own being that includes abortion without any state interference until the fetus' brain develops the capacity for mind.
Women have NO rights in the mind of Republicans and conservatives and must be controlled to force them to live in accordance with god's will and that will be their drive for all other rights that liberalism brought us because we believe in inherent rights. Vote Republicans out of office to protect our rights.
Republicans and conservatives are the enemy:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/can-republicans-stop-out-of-state-abortion-patients.html
They do not accept the concept of rights, only privilege at the discretion of the powerful.
Eric, You may be right about Republican politicians preferring Roe as a simple target. But the pro-life people have always looked way beyond that. Overturning Roe is only instrumental to the real work, which they are more than eager for. When it comes to firing up anti-abortion grass roots energy, this is just the starter’s gun.
Right on with your Roe analysis -- well said! A couple of quibbles, though:
I think it likely that a law codifying Roe nationwide would be held unconstitutional by this Court as not within Congress's interstate commerce power. Few are talking about this. Here's one article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/04/roe-overturned-congress-abortion-law/
I don't see it working. Therefore, I don't see it worth ending the filibuster. Your view is that they will abolish the filibuster in a second when they have the chance regardless, so we might as well do it now. My view is that that they didn't do that in the very recent past when they had the chance and Trump was telling McConnell to do it, and so I wouldn't be so sure of that, and that the filibuster will be an important defense for us when they take power, as they surely will eventually.
I guess I have no serious opposition to Democrats' advocating for a nationwide codification of Roe anyway.
On the broader point, though, I bristle at assigning zero political value to consistency and norm-following. It's a dog fight, they've made it a dog fight, so let's fight like dogs -- no other choice. I get that, and I certainly endorse that approach in cases like gerrymandering and campaign finance, where one side's unilateral disarmament would be merely stupid. (It's not inconsistent to say, I don't like the rules, I want to change the rules, but, until we do, we have to play by the rules. Ask them why they won't agree to change them, because we will.)
But stretching that logic to positions on issues and rhetoric surrounding them -- to embrace hypocrisy on the theory that nobody will punish you for it, to become, in the most extreme case, Trumpist trolls except of the left -- strikes me as a mistake that will yet further alienate persuadable voters. So: instead of pushing for a nationwide codification of Roe that is likely to be overturned if successful and seen by many as overreach, I think it would be great now to require Republicans to go on record on the narrower issue of protecting interstate travel to receive abortions where it's legal. Ask them, in other words, to commit to their supposed federalist idea and hammer them when they don't -- create the specter of nationalizing the most conservative view, show up their extremism. That works better when you're not so extreme yourself, it seems to me.
Second quibble, I don't really get this: "It’s become just another grubby, agenda-driven political body, only one with suffocating power populated by members who never have to answer to the electorate." "Grubby" suggests corrupt, disreputable, etc. Why? Because there's a conservative majority? Conservatives have been saying something similar these past 60 years when decisions have not gone their way. Now that they're not going ours, all of sudden the court "become[s]" ideological in a dirty way, a way indistinguishable from politics? I don't buy it. As you acknowledge, Roe's reasoning was not exactly rock-solid. They think that was the decision indistinguishable from politics but shielded from democratic accountability and that was the real outrage. I don't think either decision is an outrage. They reflect two differing and yet both plausible, respectable views about what the Constitution requires and the extent to which it protects individual liberties not listed.
An interesting opinion, as usual, by Eric. But I think his final paragraphs come closest to addressing the immediate issue. If Democrats want to continue to claim that they are the party of pro-choice then the current House should pass a bill that defines when a 'person' legally begins existence and prohibits interference prior to that time. The Senate should then introduce the bill and force a vote. Then they can legitimately run on a specific issue that is unambiguous to voters and candidates can be asked specifically their position.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical. Their decisions, supporting arguments and dissents are always published. Opening up their deliberations and drafts to concurrent public review does nothing to improve the process. Defending the function, purpose, and structure of the institutions of government is not trivial or a distraction. It is possible to defend the institution and also demand remedy from the Congress.
Eric, possible error in graf from Adam Serwer, who you quote "... Aside from rights specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution, Alito argues, only those rights “deeply rooted in the nation’s history in tradition” deserve its protections." But Alito appears to be quoting Wm. Rehnquist: ". . . the Court has regularly observed that the [Due Process] Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." And tradition. Makes more sense.
From my conservative perspective, I am happy that Roe v Wade was finally overturned, as it was premised on an imaginary right that was invented to arrive at the desired ruling. Regulation of abortion is now returned to the states as appropriate. Even 2nd Amendment rights which are explicitly enumerated, are subject to regulation by the states, so long as they do not seek to impair the core rights (as Illinois unconstitutionally did for decades).
Politically, I believe conservatives owe a debt of thanks to the leaker of this drafted decision so that it burst on to the scene now, 6 months before the midterm elections. While there is unquestionably manifestation of outrage in the streets by the hair-on-fire predominantly women furious over this news, does anyone seriously believe that any material percentage of these rabidly proabortion individuals were ever going to vote for any Republican candidates?
The battleground for hearts and minds on the abortion issue is predominantly in the suburbs among moderate voters, and especially women voters. While arguably a significant percentage of them may not be in agreement with this decision, I strongly believe that another 6 months of feeling the pain daily at the gas pump, grocery store and every aspect of life under the Biden Democrats will continue to lead them to vote Republican in November. So I do not believe the Democrats are going to realize any electoral lifeline in this decision despite all the noise it is presently generating.
In closing on a side note, I cannot help but take note of the fact that the avalanche of protestation about women's rights with regard to abortion seems to have caused Democrats to rediscover biological gender identity!
I never see the political tweets to vote on. Where are they?
If I might make a comment about the filibuster: Many people in the media are talking about it as if the only choices are "keep it" or "get rid of it." I want to remind people that the last I heard, one could effect a filibuster merely by phoning in a threat to engage in a filibuster. I want the rule changed to require what's called a "talking filibuster" - you actually have to be physically present in the Senate and TALK about the bill up for discussion. And talk. And talk. And please don't waste others' time by going off-topic and bragging about how your town's high school sports team won the State championship - if that has nothing to do with the bill. Require the talking filibuster before taking up any other proposed changes.
We could classify a phoned-in filibuster threat right there with sabre-rattling. Anyone who's been slashed by a sabre can tell us there's a difference between a sabre rattling and a sabre cutting.
Venue and jurisdiction rules governing lawsuits between people and organizations in different states have been fixed for over a hundred years. First, I can't sue you for something that did not directly affect me. Second, I have to sue you in the state where you live or where you committed the tort. Third, I can't sue in state or Federal court for something that is not a tort in that state or federally. A claim that cannot be brought in my state also cannot be enforced in my state. I also think that any state law that attempted to fine or restrict travel across state lines would be unconstitutional. We will have to see if the Texas type intra-state law holds up, but I think it will also ultimately fail.
Big props to the Tribune and the Better Government Association on their exciting Pulitzer win for local reporting! I recall reading the compelling story on fire code scofflaws and their horrendous consequences with interest and my usual critical/skeptical eye of local news exposes and thinking, yeah, they really got the goods here.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-tribune-bga-win-pulitzer-prize-fatal-fires-20220509-lxqrtaq34jc5tmtqyzmqdddxwy-story.html
It's too bad that this news comes amid not only ongoing questions about whether the problems it identified will be solved, but also amid the Trib's "tumultuous time," aptly and sadly symbolized by the conversion of its once glorious home into luxury condos and the replacement of its mighty printing plant and current home with a casino. It's encouraging not only to see folks doing such strong, solid work through all that but also to see it rewarded in this way.