TUESDAY, MAY 3, 2022
Plus, was Roe correctly decided? Presumably, American politics will turn on a dime if Roe is overturned.
Such a ruling would create a rare situation, in which our blue tribe's position on a major dispute would conceivably boast a substantial majority in the realm of public opinion.
That said, abortion would quickly become illegal in a significant number of states. There's no way to know how subsequent political debate would turn out, whether in the various states or on the federal level.
This will quickly become the latest war of the tribes. Presumably, the fight would concern a search for the wisest public policy. Presumably, we wouldn't be asking if the right to terminate a pregnancy is guaranteed in the Constitution.
We'll be discussing wise public policy, not constitutional penumbras. That said, it might not be a bad idea for pro-choice liberals to remember that there have always been questions about whether Roe was correctly decided way back in 1973.
Was Roe correctly decided? Was it sound, well-reasoned constitutional law? Michael Kinsley was the brightest center-left public figure of the 1980s, and he always said the answer was no. Here's something he wrote in a Washington Post opinion column in 2004:
KINSLEY (11/14/04): Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision, and has been in retreat for longer than it lasted.
Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway. Three decades later, that awakened giant controls the government.
Kinsley was pro-choice as a matter of policy, but he believed that Roe had been poorly reasoned. He also believed that it was Roe, more than anything else, which ignited the religious conservative movement which came to play such a dominant role in our national politics.
Other figures of the center left, up to and including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have voiced concern with the way Roe was reasoned. If the Court decides to overturn Roe, it will return abortion rights to the political stage—and it will give our struggling blue tribe a political issue on which we might conceivably find a way to win.
Or not! Over here within our self-impressed tribe, the spirit isn't all that willing and the flesh is often quite weak. When it comes to finding a way to win, it may be too late for that.
We'll be seeking the wisest public policy. Will our tribe be able to find a way to win on that?
"Such a ruling would create a rare situation, in which our blue tribe's position on a major dispute would conceivably boast a substantial majority in the realm of public opinion."ReplyDelete
Do you actually believe, dear Bob, that abortion is legalized by the US constitution? And if you do (do you, really?), do you also believe that a substantial majority would agree with you?
In that case, dear Bob, you really are some sort of insane, we're afraid...
I think Bob is saying exactly the opposite: abortion wll soon be in the political arena, absolutely outside constitutional protectionDelete
Ah, okay. We stand corrected.
But still, how is it that his tribe would "boast a substantial majority"? Abortion is not a yes or no question. We feel that many a pro-abortion fanatic in dear Bob's tribe would probably cause a far stronger backlash than a few anti-abortion fanatics among the ordinary folks...
There are really no "pro-abortion" fanatics, by definition; but there are for sure anti-abortion fanatics.Delete
That aside, in the long term it's a good thing to have abortion in the realm of public policy debate. It'll lead to more participation in politics and in the end to more reasonable, non-rabid-right-wing policies.
Oh yes, dear, there are plenty of liberal late-term-abortion-on-demand pro-abortion fanatics.Delete
It sounds like you see nothing fanatical about it, but most normal ordinary people do.
You have to admit, it really is on brand for the totalitarians on the Right to force women to do something against their will, That's for sure.
Hmm. "the totalitarian Right" is the liberal tribe, we get it. But what are these 'wimmin' you speak of, dear psycho-dembot? Even the smartest of you all, one Ketanji Brown Jackson, doesn't know who the wimmin are...Delete
You know the 9 year old girls Republican politicians love raping? They turn into women at 18.Delete
Oh. Did you, dear psycho-dembot, read this in a letter signed by over 50 former intelligence officials?Delete
...right after informing you dembots that there's never been a single senator from the state of Delaware...Delete
No. I just paid attention.Delete
Of course. To the directives from the new Federal Disinformation Agency.Delete
No one is trying to compel anyone to have "late term abortions". Rational people, like yours truly, simply want to leave that to each individual pregnant person. Anti-abortion fanatics -- and they are dime a dozen -- think that god breathes life and/or soul into every fertilized egg -- although, inexplicably god chooses to terminate 50-70% of those lives.Delete
Mao, that Federal Disinformaton Agency is not new and it was established by Trump.Delete
"No one is trying to compel anyone to have "late term abortions"."Delete
Oh, whoa! This is so admirable of you, liberals.
...by the way, speaking of 'compel': what compelled you to volunteer this seemingly extraneous observation?
"Rational people, like yours truly..."
Thanks for the laughs, dear dembot.
Assuming that Roe is overturned, it would seem that abortion would become a bigger political issue. But, maybe not., Most states have substantial majorities one way or the other. States like CA will enact strong abortion protection. States like Mississippi will enact strong life protection.ReplyDelete
The big remaining areas of contention will be
1. States where pro-choice and pro-life are close to equal
2. People on either side who see this a a moral choice, even if it's settled to their satisfaction in their own state.
Why would Roe be overturned? It's decided law. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch said so under oath.Delete
@1:13 I spent an hour last night reading the leaked decision. It's voluminous and appears to be well-reasoned. It answers answers in detail why Roe would be overturned.Delete
Abortion clinics on federal land and native reservation lands will be set-up in every state.
After all, Republicans aren't bigoted against women, as far as you know.
@1:19 Being pro-choice, I like your thinking. I don't know whether federal land would be exempt from state laws, but Native American reservation lands would probably be. A number of states previously enacted restrictions on abortion. Do you know whether the gimmicks you suggest were tried anywhere?Delete
Anyhow, I'm glad to know that people are thinking about ways to make abortion available to women in all states.
The F.B.I. state office would be a good location. Right next to the Enhanced Interrogation room. It's pretty much the same set of instruments anyway...
@anon 1:19: It hadn't occurred to me, but abortion clinics on Indian reservations should still be legal. That will be quite interesting.Delete
Yes, don't worry - the black market stands ready to help women suck the unborn babies out of their wombs. The mass murder can continue - just not on the legal market.Delete
A medical procedure is between a woman and her doctor. Your use of crass language doesn't change that. Speaking of mass murder, where was Trump when covid was ravaging the country?Delete
Yes, the medical procedure used in the violent child killing is between a woman and her doctor. The mass murder of young, unborn children is her right. If it feels good, do it!Delete
Women are free to puncture their uterus's and suck that unwanted live baby out of there anytime they want. God bless our freedom!!Delete
Nope. The fascists Republicans put on the Supreme Court are have to ruin it or everyone.
Mother's will still be able to find a way to kill their children on the black market.Delete
Let's hope so.
Is a preteen girl a "mother" because her dad or her brother rapes her? When she drops out of school to have her baby, how will she support herself, given that Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene think she should marry her beau? I suppose Republicans think she should stay in the same family environment that got her pregnant, have a few more kids until she grows up and can leave? Or do Republicans not understand that such things happen? These draconian abortion laws are permitting no exceptions. Even if the "mother" has cancer and must forgo chemo to prevent birth defects in the child, thus forfeiting her own life and leaving her other kids motherless. Is that the only choice she can have?Delete
Republicans are such black-and-white thinkers that they have no good answers for these situations, except that it is God's Will. That is their way of kicking complexity upstairs so that they don't have to deal with the realities of why women have abortions.
Abortion is part of God's divine plan. If you aren't a narcissist, you don't get to question God.Delete
If those unfortunate events were to occur, mothers should have the right to hoover that live baby right out of their uterus's. It can be thrown in the same trash can with all the other murdered children from mothers who have not be as unfortunate.Delete
Nice job cosplaying an Evangelical bigot, but the Right is too dense to get your sarcasm.
If Roe is overturned, stare decisis will not longer be grounds for the Court to uphold the right to abortion. Will this matter? I don't think so,ReplyDelete
For liberals, the SC's job is to uphold the right to abortion regardless of legal arguments. As soon as the Court again has 5 liberal justices, I think Roe will be reinstated,
The first three atheists put on the expanded court will see to it.Delete
"For liberals, the SC's job is to uphold the right to abortion regardless of legal arguments."Delete
Yes, for liberals, legal precedent doesn't matter if it obstructs their aims. LOL.
It's almost like every Right-wing accusation is really a confession, without the "It's almost like" part.
Octogenarian David in Cal is pro-choice and an atheist, don't you know. That is why he votes religiously for those turning this country into a Christo-Fascist Theocracy. As you can see, he is not worried at all.Delete
Not only am I pro-choice, I am pro-gay. I've probably donated more money to the NAACP and other black organizations than most other commenters.Delete
Well then, you are "not allowed to exist" David in Cal. Because our commenter in chief doesn't have a place for you in their world view.Delete
We're more pro-lesbo. But only if they're hot. Mmm-mm.Delete
3:04, I understand David perfectly. LOLDelete
Octogenarian David in Cal is pro-choice and an atheist. That is why he votes religiously for those turning this country into a Christo-Fascist Theocracy. As you can see, he is not worried at all. His withered prick hasn't been hard in a long long time.
A bigoted comment from the self-appointed arbiter of bigotry who is blind to their own bigotry. Quite poetic.Delete
David's views are incoherent. It suggests he is either lying or not serious. The mind strives for consistency across attitudes and beliefs. David's don't hang together and that makes them suspect.Delete
@7:34 Perhaps you find my views incoherent, because you bought into Democratic claims that Republicans are bigoted against various groups.Delete
@8:34 Or perhaps your views are incoherent.Delete
@8:42 IN what way do you find my views incoherent?Delete
@David they are projecting again.Delete
First they wrote "I understand David perfectly. LOL" then they went on to state that your views are inchorent, which are not compatible ideas at all. This from the person that lectures others on correct usage of language.
They are projecting both their own bigotry and incoherence onto you, and they will write whatever is convenient in the moment to attack the right wing without much concern for presenting a consistent position.
You are very confused about who has been commenting here. Someone who writes as Anonymous is not responsible for all previous anonymous comments.Delete
I pesonally find David's views incoherent because they change as convenient. First he is a former liberal with a liberal wife who changed his mind because the Republicans are so damned convincing. Then he has a black relative so he cannot possibly be racist himself but he says so many bigoted things, especially about the native intelligence of black people and their lack of get-up-and-go, like Jewish immigrants and Asians, never mind that they were never slaves and never subjected to laws against literacy historically and have strong communities to support them, unlike black people. And now David supports gay rights and choice, despite never having said a word in that direction in all the time he has commented here, and not even spoken out about anything affecting them, such as banning books or gay marriage. And yet today we have seen more from David that in the past 6 months, in a single day! And he has never supported a single candidate who is in favor of his so-called opinions, but lots of support for Trump who is the antithesis of everything David says he stands for, except the racism.
As someone who has a consistent position, do you agree with Republicans, who believe Biden Is a Marxist commie, who wants to destroy corporations and America, or do you instead agree with Republicans, who believe Biden is in the bag for corporations and wants the people to be slaves to the corporate Establishment?
David is a self-hating Jew, who supports America's fascist party.Delete
Don't overthink it.
Michael Kinsley was a "liberal" in the vein of Glen Greenwald or Jimmy Dore or Bill Maher, ie he was a right leaning opportunist, and he argued in bad faith (in more ways than one). It is telling Somerby speaks highly of him now (he did not always).ReplyDelete
Somerby knows but won't tell you that Roe was passed mostly by the Republicans on the Supreme Court (five of them) at the time. Back then Republicans supported abortion rights.
This "rare situation" Somerby speaks of is also bunk. The policies that the Left works for enjoy broad and mostly majority support, from medicare for all to forgiving college debt/free college to employee governance to Congress not owning stocks to paid leave to weed to publicly financed pharmaceuticals to higher minimum wage to higher taxes on the ultra wealthy, etc on and on.
Over 90% of abortions are done at the zygote/embryo stage - a non sentient clump of cells. Abortion is not curbed by outlawing it. Abortion numbers are near an all time low due to sex education and access to contraceptives and affordable healthcare.
With Roe banned, women will turn to medicinal (medication) abortions. Do not rely on states' rights though, as the SC and Republicans have stated their intention to federally ban abortion, as well as federally ban gay marriage, interracial marriage, and contraceptives. Oof!
This is what Somerby and his ilk have wrought. A country sliding into hell.
It's a shame that supporting or opposing abortion rights affects Justices' decisions on Roe. They're supposed to decide solely on legal and Constitutional principles. That's their area of expertise..Delete
Alito's thoughtful decision undermines every alleged Constitutional basis for Roe or Casey. From a purely legal POV Alito is strong and convincing.
I am not the only pro-choice person who believe that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided.
Roe v. Wade “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” That was the conclusion in the Yale Law Journal of pro-choice legal scholar John Hart Ely.
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” That's liberal legal scholar Laurence Tribe.
It’s near-consensus among legal scholars, even those who believe abortion should be legal, that Roe was a shoddy decision, not grounded in the Constitution.
“You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result,” wrote pro-choice scholar Kermit Roosevelt in the Washington Post.
“This is not surprising,” Roosevelt continued. “As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent.”
stare decisis: the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedentDelete
Decisions are also grounded in previous decisions. This has been law for 50 years. It is enormously disruptive to violate stare decisis now, no matter what your opinion of the previous decision.
I am not impressed with constitutional law professors who simultaneously hold conservative views incompatible with the well-being of the people of this country, who should be as high a priority as the law -- because the law exists to serve citizens, not vice versa.
Why should anyone be surprised that a slew of legal interpretations were created to oppose women's health rights at the time that Roe v. Wade was decided, and why should anyone be surprised that these are now being brought forward to justify this abominable brief?
@8:40 Here's another view: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2587&context=tlrDelete
Help me out as my memory ain't what it used to be. Which law school did you graduate from?
Law serves the people. This decision won't, so it will be a liability to Republicans who put those puppets in place, and it will be changed via legislation and constitutional changes in the states. It won't stand because the majority of people don't want this decision. That is the same reason why Roe v Wade happened in the first place.Delete
Arguing over legal nitpicks does not change the FACT that the majority of people don't like this change and won't put up with it.
David is pro abortion and gay rights, but hes voting Republican because they hate the ni**ers just like he does.Delete
@1:11 Yes, Republicans generally oppose abortion, unfortunately. But, it's not true that Republicans oppose gay rights.Delete
Republicans only oppose abortion because they want to keep women in their place. IOW, Republicans are the bigots you deny them being.Delete
Let us know what Tucker tells you the 1/6 riot was abut. In the meantime, I'll continue to truthfully point out it was a temper tantrum thrown by Republicans pissed off that black peoples votes counted in an election.
But, it's not true that Republicans oppose gay rights for Karl Rove."Delete
Fixed it for you.
David is full of shit. If he read Alito's decision, he'd see all the illogical flaws in it. Like Alito, David started with the desired result, then built a pile of bullshit to support it.Delete
David just dropped by to spike the football and do an end zone dance for another win by his team. He's just an enormous ass trolling this board.Delete
Of course Somerby is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. He doesn't like women much and he doesn't care about civil rights for inter-racial couples, for gays, for anyone needing the protection of law because they are different than the conservative Christian norm.ReplyDelete
Privacy = freedom.
"Privacy = freedom"Delete
Rrright. Except when liberal faucists coerce you into injecting experimental pfizer shit. In that case privacy = villainy.
Show us on the doll where putting on a mask during a viral pandemic touched you.
You sound touched yourself, dear dembot.Delete
Touched by an angel.Delete
Who cares what Michael Kinsley thinks? Does Somerby agree? He won’t say. Kinsley thinks it was wrongly decided. So? Many think it was correctly decided.ReplyDelete
Somerby must agree with Kinsley or he wouldn't have mentioned him.Delete