Friends, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and thus of a woman's supposedly constitutional right to an abortion, was expected, but that doesn't make it any less historic. Constitutionally and judicially speaking, we conservatives view this action as the righting of a gross wrong, committed by the high court in 1973 when it decided to manufacture the concept of abortion rights, or rather to pull it out of thin air. We are, first and foremost, a federal republic, and, if you ask me, the ONLY part of the Constitution that impinges on the issue of abortion is the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Pretty simple, really. Abortion is an issue that ought to be in the hands of the people's elected representatives, and it ought to be decided at the state level...and now it will be again. That's all to the good.
Practically speaking, this decision will lead to many states enacting restrictions on abortion, and even outright bans. On the other hand, as we've already seen, many states, localities, and corporations are taking steps to ensure that no woman will be denied her "right" to terminate a pregnancy. There are plans afoot to subsidize women's travel to states where abortions are legally performed, and to pay for the resulting abortions. Can states criminalize the behavior of women even if their receipt of abortions takes place outside of their jurisdiction? I don't know, but I doubt it. And, if they can't, it's possible that the number of abortions in America might actually increase in future years, because the Left will create a vast infrastructure to encourage the practice. Ergo, anyone who thinks "life" is now secure should think twice.
Lastly, I think it's prudent to reflect on the political fallout from this decision. Will Dems ride the furor over abortion rights to victory in 2022? I very much doubt it. Public attitudes on abortion are murky, at best, and the Dems would be wise not to overplay their hand on the issue. In a more long-term sense, however, decisions like Dobbs will strengthen the hand of those Democrats and progressives who assert that the Supreme Court, as an institution, has become "right-wing" and has thus lost its legitmacy. As you'll see below, Maxine Waters says, "The hell with the Supreme Court, we will defy them." Keith Olbermann was calling for the abolition of the Supreme Court the day before the Dobbs ruling, in reaction to the Court's decision to strike down a gun control law in the state of New York. "It has become necessary to dissolve the Supreme Court of the United States...", according to Olbermann. Failing that, he advises progressives simply to ignore the Court's rulings: "Hey SCOTUS, send the SCOTUS army here to enforce your ruling, you House of Lords radicals pretending to be a court." The fact is that such voices of scorn and defiance are becoming more normative on the Left, as frustration mounts with a federal judiciary that is behaving more conservatively than at any point in human memory. It is by no means inconceivable that, as Olbermann suggests, a blue state could defy SCOTUS. It is also depressingly plausible that, at some point in the near future, the executive branch might do so. Conservatives would be outraged, but the likelihood is that Democrats would be unfazed, because, to them, "democracy" means getting their way, period. And, as Olbermann so perceptively indicated, the Supreme Court has no practical means of enforcing its decisions, except the hitherto near-universal compliance that flowed from the prevailing assumption that its rulings are legitimate and decisive. In a nutshell, therefore, any political advantage that the right possesses because of the current composition of the Supreme Court and other federal courts is fragile, especially so in any age when none of our institutions are respected as they used to be. The $64,000 question now is: how far right does SCOTUS need to drift before the entire Democratic Party, and its standard-bearer, President Biden, endorse a strategy of undermining it? Indeed, have we reached that point already? And, if so, will the Democrats and progressives arrogate to themselves the Court's powers gradually, or all at once? We may, I fear, learn the answers to these questions sooner rather than later.
Below, you will find an article about the overturning of Roe v. Wade, some speculation from Clarence Thomas on how Dobbs ought to cause SCOTUS to second guess other decisions about birth control and homosexuality (don't hold your breath), some early indications of corporate solidarity with abortion rights advocates, and the ramblings of Maxine Waters and Keith Olbermann, already described.
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/justice-clarence-thomas-opinion-due-process/2022/06/24/id/1075959/
In other news, fortune is no longer favoring Ukrainian forces on the battlefield in Donbas, and questions are being raised about the long-term viability of Ukraine's strategy of resistance. In addition, Russia is upping the pressure on Germany by reducing its supply of natural gas. This is a potentially very effective tactic, because public support for Ukraine in the West is already softening. A few months ago, it looked like the conflict was a massive humiliation for Russia and a big win for the West, whose unity in the face of Russian "aggression" impressed many. The bottom line, however, is who wins and who losses the war, and, if our clients are on the losing end, we may have to retract all the boasting we did back in the spring. More to the point, we might have to start giving new and more circumspect advice to our Ukrainian allies, like: "Cool your jets, Volodymyr. Sooner or later, you and the Russians are going to have to make nice and live together as neighbors again."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-casualties-spike-frustration-rcna33268
https://asiatimes.com/2022/06/russia-chokes-gas-flow-germans-fear-lehman-moment/
Finally, although the Beltway crowd is obsessed with the January 6th Committee hearings, the fact is that few Americans are watching them. This poll is interesting, but the real question is: who is paying attention, and are any genuine swing voters likely to swing based on this one issue? I would be shocked if they did.
Dr.Waddy from Jack:We've just witnessed a staggering blow to the dem/left and its precipitately obvious and open totalitarian intent! Its certain now, Scotus is no longer their shill. That, on top of this disastrous Presidency and the distinct possibility of them getting a richly deserved electoral whupping in Nov., probably has them on the very cusp of desperation!
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Some thoughts while rejoicing because, at long last, we have a Scotus which demonstrates that it knows its place. That is: to consider properly promulgated law and construe it with professional regard as to its provenance and with principled refusal to indulge in flights of extralegal do gooder fantasy. That manifests the humiliity to leave response to popular opinion to the prime law makers, legislators.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: The left has a rare old fix on its hands now! Why even Hillary bids them duck for "cover"(not actual reform of course). They face the electoral "whirlwind" in November ( your word on the Scotus steps Charles Schumer).Their Presidental choice is pathetic. But worst, they have surely forfeited the institution which, when misconducted so, best suited their undemocratic cuckooing: Scotus itself! Being openly incipient totalitarians, they found it much easier to dominate
ReplyDelete9 votes rather than 130 million. But, characteristically, they overstepped. The real America consequently figured them out and elected Presidents determined to appoint justices who demonstrate judicial restraint and integrity with rigorously
developed legal minds repelled by fatuously antiintellectual leftist presumption. That, luck and frankly brilliant parliament which should garner the admiration of ever realpolitik leftists, have brought us to this happy circumstance.
Dr. Waddy from Jack:Now they have their platform for Nov ;their course is clear!: " the 'right' to kill unborn children at will!'Ehhh, no its the economy stupid. "Why then, its lawful gunowners!" Uhh, no its the economy stupid. " Well then its the certain human responsibilty for climate change! " Sorry, its the economy
ReplyDeletestupid! "How about Curly, Larry and Moe. . .?" Naw, its the climate stupid and crime and inflation and gas prices and the border invasion, you stupes! Good luck .
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The number of now and future " mere masses of fetal tissue "who will now, despite the best intentions of the stymied abortionists, graduate into humanity even the abortionists cannot disavow, is incalculable! Its time to REJOICE at this blessed advance in American civilization.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Can't resist this: Sorry, former Surgeon General Joycelene Elders, but we never were able to"get over their silly love affair with the fetus" which you and your sponsor , Hillary, so disdained in our real America.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: A correction to my above: " Naw, its the ECONOMY stupid . . . "(not the climate). A postscript: for decades, the left, with its totalitarian intent, viewed Scotus as the closest American equivalent to the miniscule ruling elites of already totalitarian hellholes. The Warren court encouraged their hopes. Oh yeah, they recognized the putative American division of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branchs but then they figured the best way to corrupt that was through already merely 9 member Scotus and its already demonstrated quasi executive and legislative power. For now at least and perhaps decisively, they have been disabused of that presumption. Further defeat, a distinct possibility, may drive them to terrorism. Well, since the '60s they have participated in our democracy only with misgiving and firm intent to destroy it as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Your byline : "Roe v Wade aborted" Luv the thumb it sticks in the always sneering leftist eye. But perhaps not so, yes? Abortionists reflexively react to any doubt with "self evident verities" , eg "why the right of the fetus to postbirth life is by definition preempted by the woman's irrefutable right to complete, arbitrary control of her body despite its shelter of another human with the potential to live as a born human" Haarumph! That attitude fairly invites parody and so very much MORE!
ReplyDeleteThe SCOTUS decision is the best thing to happen to Democrats for the midterms. The decision itself will fire up many suburban women and women of color. But, beyond the decision, Thomas' opinion that rights to contraception, private sexual behavior and same-sex marriage should also be eliminated should fire up both young voters and LGBTQ+ voters.
ReplyDeleteI love how the Trump party snatches defeat from the jaws of victory!
Dr.Waddy et al from Jack:Justice Thomas pointed out that the casual misuse of Due Process which sank Roe v Wade also obtained in the contraception and same sex marriage cases he cited. It was a warning: do not attempt to use such unsupportable reasoning with this Court! Look what could happen. But yes, the disingenuous left will try to present Justice Thomas's comments as firm intent. They were not. The American left had better get used to the, to them, shattering reality that we now have a principled and lawful Scotus instead of an "anything goes" dreamy tribunal. Its here to stay, especially after the Nov.Tsunami! Its the economy ------, Slick Willy's arrogant inspiration and , yes, still true.
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy from Jack: Well of course, the ever emotionally governed left confirms in its hyperbolic reaction to this week's decisions which go beyond their comprehension of Constitutional law. "Do you mean to say that we have not the well honed legal thought of most Scotus justices? Why that is discrimination!!!" Well gee , its probably best that accredited legal scholars and experienced practitioners be trusted to construe our law in significant cases yes? And that the present court majority was seated by a democratic process to which you had full and free access?Perhaps your discomfort with that strongly suggests your fundamental doubt for democracy, since it will not obsequiously grant your irrefutable will?! And perhaps all your intent is bent to eliminating that system and establishing your totalitarian will!? Oh c'mon now youse!
ReplyDeleteWhat the SCOTUS decision clearly stated on Friday is that what is constitutional is what 5 justices say is constitutional, no matter what the legal reasoning or precendents are. The next time the liberals have a majority, abortion will become a constitutional right. That sucks for society -- having a right being given, then taken away, then given back ...
ReplyDeleteIt would have been better for the Trump party if Roberts had prevailed. Fifteen weeks is where 93% of abortions get done, and would not have given the Dems the issue that they have now.
But, any unforced errors by conservatives are fine with me.
BTW, to say Thomas' words about other cases are not firm intent is absolute bullshit. This is what Thomas said:
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents."
A "duty" sounds like intent to me.
Dr.Waddy from Jack: Today another principled decision from this law abiding Scotus: the football coach who had to go to Scotus itself to have his right to (gasp!) PRAY on the field after games confirmed ,won his gutsy battle. Can't really blame the Bremerton, WA. school for going politically correct on him; in that now regretably leftist compromised state,they were probably trying avoid being sued by the well organized and funded left or were complying with direction from a typical state education dep't in that now blue state. What a great guy that coach is; 20 years a Marine and several years enduring five defeats in court; all on principle. He asked little money.He will have done so much justice in this lonely fight.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Two questions: had the coach faced Mecca to perform Muslim prayer would the left have pitched its bitch? Of course not. Also is not the left's concern about "separation of church and state" ,disingenuous?! Why they will"cavil on the ninth part of a hair" at the slightest suggestion of Christian influence in government, even though the founding fathers would have thought complete proscription of religion in public life, including politics, absurd and unAmerican. America was and is a fundamentally Christian country( and because of that, all other religions are welcome).So what makes the left so touchy on this? It is because of the left's resolve to suppress Christianity to destroy America's moral foundation and enable America's destruction and its replacement with a forcefully secular totalitarian state. This is just one of the many examples of the American left's proven intent in this evil .
ReplyDeleteDr.Waddy et al from Jack: Did you lefties actually think the personal insult, the presumptuous degradation, you visited upon four of the sitting Scotus justices at their confirmation Inquisitions would be forgotten by them!!?? Really!!?? They are far too principled to allow the bitter memories of these outrages to invade their legal reasoning! But they can plausibly, take into consideration when judging the case related arguments advanced by your ilk, your demonstrated INTENT in those infamous tribunals! They are human; obviously like the criminals you so closely resemble in your tortured reasoning,you consider them to be things, insects only. And being highly intellectually sophisticated, again, humans, they KNOW that of you. Can you fault them for doubt in the veracity of your florid, emotional positions in cases where they have freely, courageously and unhesitantly now applied rigorous legal reasoning?! I thought not; you are far too used to intimidating your way!
ReplyDeleteJack, I doubt the Left is feeling "desperate" just yet. Emboldened, maybe. Most leftists seem to have an abiding faith in the idea that history flows in their direction. In fact, you often hear them say that we conservatives are pathetic reactionaries whose day is done -- we just don't realize it yet. My guess would be that they view the recent SCOTUS decisions as alarming, but by no means as fatal to their political/ideological prospects. These people know how to play the long game!
ReplyDeleteAnd good point that the much-criticized parliamentary maneuvering of Mitch McConnell made the recent judicial sea change possible. Mitch, I don't always see things your way, but hats off in this instance.
Jack, as I mentioned in my recent article, I am by no means convinced that the effect of repealing Roe v. Wade will be that fewer abortions will be performed. The Left will double down on its valorization of abortion and abortionists. Vast amounts will be budgeted in blue jurisdictions to facilitate the practice. The federal government, under Biden, will try to ensure that "abortions by mail" flow freely. The question is: will more women in deep red states give up on abortion and choose life? Maybe. Maybe not.
Jack, in many ways the BEST CASE SCENARIO is that the Left's reaction to recent SCOTUS moves will be so hyberbolic and/or violent that they will drive the center further to the right... The best defense to leftist extremism is always to keep the Left far, far away from the levers of power!
I see Rod perceives the Dobbs decision as electoral deliverance for the Dems. He's not wrong in his assumption that some will be galvanized by recent events. That could work both ways, however: the efforts by Dems to expand access to abortion and to subsidize it and to make it into an act of nobility could turn off the many, many voters who may not be "pro-life" but who still harbor profound doubts about abortion. But Jack has the best rejoinder: there's simply no evidence that abortion is a top-tier issue. Nor is January 6th. Read the polls. It really is "the economy, stupid", with immigration and crime also high on the list.
Thomas's comments were interesting, although even he must know that they're highly unlikely to be acted on by this court. This is the same court, after all, that found that the Civil Rights Act's prohibition of sex discrimination protects homosexuals and transgender people. It doesn't, but they still "went with the flow". Bottom line: repealing gay marriage protections, for instance, isn't going to happen -- much as I wish it would -- so the proxy outrage that Rod is hoping to generate is going to be hard to achieve.
Rod, you seem to have a problem with the simple fact that five is a bigger number than four -- that, as Jack pointed out, sometimes legitimate democratic processes can lead to your side being thwarted. Welcome to democracy! If you don't like the recent decision, elect Dem presidents long enough and you'll have a SCOTUS majority of your own. Then, I have no doubt that you'll impose whatever judicial abominations you wish...
ReplyDeleteTo be clear: Dobbs has nothing to do with religion, per se. Are some pro-lifers Christian? Sure. Many Christians are also pro-choice. Should their views on abortion be ruled out of bounds as well, simply because those views have some religious underpinings? We never hear the Left calling for the expulsion of black pastors from American politics, for some reason. Actually we all know the reason: there isn't any such thing as principle on the Left, or rather the only principle they observe is the one that says that their views, however changeable and facile they may be, are always the right ones. Anyway, I repeat, you can be as pro- or as anti-abortion as you like in this country, and you can be as Christian or as atheist as you like, and you sitll get one vote, just like everyone else. Plus, I would observe that valuing LIFE isn't fundamentally "Christian". One might even call it humanistic!
Jack, the courage of the present SCOTUS majority is quite impressive. One wonders how they will react to their further degradation by the Left... Will they buckle, or will they decide "in for a penny, in for a pound"? I mean, what are the chances that the Left will speak respectfully of SCOTUS again in the next few decades? Pretty low, I'd say.
Now, where it could get really interesting is...if the Left ever follows through on its threats to pack the court, will the court itself try to intervene to stop them? Hmm!
Nick, I never knew you were homophobic. I learn something new every day.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that the Dobbs decision came down the way it did was McConnell's illegitimate blocking of Obama's nominee. Had that not happened, the decision would have been 5-4 to uphold the MS 15-week ban, not the taking away of a woman's right to an abortion.
But, I have never had a problem with 5 being greater than 4. What I don't like is the hypocrisy. Thomas is willing to go after Obergfell, but not Loving, though the legal foundations of both are almost identical. Of course, Clarence and Ginni don't really have an interracial marriage. Clarence's skin might be melanin-enriched, but I, with my translucent skin, is far more of an African American
Dr.Waddy from Jack:Fully agreed! The only way to defeat the left is to deny them the levers of power! They are far, far beyond persuasion! We are well on the way to denying them such power in Nov.! That is the object now!!!
ReplyDeleteRod, I'm not crazy about homosexuality and the normalization thereof, but that doesn't make me guilty of "homophobia", which is "dislike of or prejudice against gay people". I don't assume that, because someone does, says, thinks, or possesses a characteristic of which I disapprove, that I therefore understand everything about them or have an inherent right to condemn them as a human being. People are complicated. I don't like that you're a leftist. That doesn't mean that I don't like you. In fact, I do like you, and I get along fine with plenty of homosexuals too. I just wish they weren't gay, because I have moral/biological issues with homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteAh, so the conservative majority on SCOTUS is illegitimate, kinda like Biden presidency's is illegitimate because the 2020 election was rigged? Now I understand where you're coming from..
I agree with you: the Loving decision probably is bad constitutional law, and it is a bit self-serving of Clarence Thomas to overlook that. I still don't think you get to decide who's black based on an ideological litmus test, though. You lefties do have some funny ideas about race! I mean, Bill Clinton promoted himself to "our nation's first black president"... I guess his shining example is your moral lodestar.
Nick, are you not crazy about Black people because they possess a different skin color? I would hope not because people don't choose their skin color. In the same way, people who are gay, lesbian or transgender don't choose that status -- people are born that way.
ReplyDeleteNews flash - despite all the court cases, recounts and post-election reviews, the 2020 election was not rigged.
News flash 2 - The Black community was the first to use the label of Clinton being the nation's "first black president," not Clinton himself.