It’s no longer possible to avoid recognizing the extreme radicalization of the United States Supreme Court. As an email from the Center for Inquiry accurately characterized the latest ruling, it was “not the act of a secular court but of a religious tribunal.”
Since the ascension of Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked culture warriors, we have seen a steady stream of decisions laying waste to the legal underpinnings of American liberties. I have written before about the terrifying implications of the abortion ruling, and why it threatens a much broader array of personal liberties than reproductive autonomy. (In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Thomas made that threat quite explicit.) The Court has continued its assault on genuine religious liberty, which requires separation of church and state. And its wholesale abandonment of previous precedents on gun legislation–including even the pro-Second-Amendment decision in Heller written by “originalist” Antonin Scalia–is further evidence of a Court majority intent upon rewriting and re-imagining two hundred years of constitutional jurisprudence.
A reader asked me to comment on a report from the Brennan Center proposing changes to the way jurists are elevated to the high court. It is worth emphasizing that the Center issued this paper in 2019, and that it is only one of numerous proposals published during decades of scholarship addressing increasing concerns about the Court’s operations– the analysis was not written as a response to the recent blitz of appalling decisions.
Perhaps the thorniest issue raised by the current operation of the Court involves what the Brennan paper calls “democratic accountability.”
Judicial accountability is different from legislative or executive accountability; the whole purpose of lifetime appointments to the federal bench was to insulate the judiciary from the political passions of the moment–to avoid the sort of “accountability” to political pressure that the other branches quite properly experience. The Executive and Legislative branches were created to be (more or less) directly answerable to “we the people,” but judges were expected to make thoughtful and considered decisions based on the law and facts as they saw them. (Electing judges, as some states do, is a repudiation of that foundational intent.)
On the other hand, the courts certainly weren’t meant to be untouchable quasi-legislative bodies. (Remember when Republicans screamed about “Judicial Activism” and “Imperial Courts”?) There are several ways to insure appropriate democratic accountability without abandoning the original purpose of lifetime appointments.
As the Brennan report noted,
Two fundamental flaws in the Constitution’s appointment system must be fixed. First, there is no regularized system for Supreme Court appointments. Because presidents can appoint new justices only when a sitting justice resigns or dies, justices are appointed unevenly, so that some presidents have many appointments, while others have few or even none. In addition, because justices now serve longer on average than their predecessors, there are significantly fewer appointment opportunities. These developments fray the only formal link between the court and the people — nomination by an elected president and confirmation (or not) by elected senators. In the early days of the republic, when the court was viewed as weak, such defects caused little harm. But today, with the court holding immense power, the lottery appointment system undermines the court’s constitutional legitimacy and erodes the court’s connection to our democracy.
Second, life tenure permits justices themselves to strategically time their retirements so that an ideologically like-minded president can appoint their successor. Recently, this has become the norm. Such ideological control of a Supreme Court seat was never contemplated by the founders. In addition, some justices have remained on the court after a severe decline in their mental or physical capacities, in hopes of lasting until a president who shares their legal and policy preferences takes office. Such ideological control of a Supreme Court seat was never contemplated by the founders when they wrote the Constitution.
In the current system, some presidents appoint an outsized number of justices, some justices outlive the officials who appointed them by many years, and justices can time their retirements to ensure the ideology of their successors. Worse still, a majority of Justices on the current Court were appointed by Presidents who had lost the popular vote.
As a result, today’s Court lacks democratic legitimacy.
Correcting the two flaws described in the linked report would require a constitutional amendment prescribing regular appointments coupled term limits. (Constitutional scholars argue that 18-year terms should be adequate to insulate judges from political pressure.)
Given the daunting barriers to passage of constitutional amendments–not to mention the lengthy timeframe of even successful efforts– several legal scholars advocate enlarging the Court. Changing the number of Justices can be done by statute, and in fact, has been done before. Suggestions for enlarging the Court long preceded the current Court, and were prompted primarily by workload concerns–more recent Courts hand down far fewer decisions than previous ones did.
The author of the Brennan report dismisses that remedy as too partisan, but–as I noted previously–his paper was written before Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court, bringing to five the number of radical religious culture warriors (with the frequent concurrence of the Chief Justice) intent upon dismantling years of constitutional jurisprudence. And five is enough to get the job done.
If the addition of justices is seen as partisan, so be it. The current Court is a thoroughly partisan religious tribunal–and a clear and present danger to the Republic. Ignoring that fact is not an option.
35 thoughts on “What Can We Do About The Supreme Court?”
There’s nothing that anyone on this blog can do. Try as we might, the nation keeps electing Republicans. As Maddow said last night these last two decisions are EXACTLY what the evil heart of the Republican party has desired since Reagan came to office as the GOP’s puppet-in-chief. All the lying, ideological Justices have been appointed by Republicans, the last three by – without a doubt – the most criminal President and the most criminal Senate – in our history. In saner and less “civil” times, McConnell would have been dispatched. Trump wouldn’t have made through is first 100 lies. And yet, here we are.
Corporate/banking America has funded this takeover by the evil minority for decades. Well, they finally got their wish. Yes, our liberties will continue to be eroded by the flood of lawsuits coming to the court that will rubber stamp the nation’s demise.
Well done non-voters. Well done, political loafers. This is what you get for staying home and whining about gas prices and such. I hope your daughters, girlfriends and wives will appreciate the lack of support from not only white men, but daughters, girlfriends and wives who aren’t aware of their civic duty. Will people of color, ironically, step up to save our democracy from the worst political and civic divide since 1850? Probably not. SCOTUS will overturn their right to vote soon…no doubt.
Good background. The immediate concern however is how to deal with McConnell’s intentionally packed court. The first thing is to quit thinking of what Democrats and Progressives need to do as “packing the court” The court has been packed. The task at hand is to ‘unpack’ this rouge court ASAP.
Did Justice Thomas really say that law under the Constitution “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”? Hmmm. Then when will he have his marriage to a mighty white wife annulled before he dares to rule on gay marriage! Perhaps I am being too picky.
Can’t you feel it; in your gut and in the air you breathe? We are living in foreign territory; America is no long our homeland, it isn’t only SCOTUS which lacks democratic legitimacy. I have never understood the desperate clinging to a religion, as if it is a life-giving force, and allowing it to rule your thinking and your actions. That is NOT “faith”; that is opening yourself to brainwashing. Human nature gives us good and bad instincts; it is the ability to think before acting that raises humans above the animal kingdom. But those who are Bible scholars who believe scripture never refer to the creation of the animal kingdom before humans; what is the lesson to be learned from that Genesis chapter and verse?
Watching the protests this morning on CNN, MSNBC and on local Fox59 news, my thoughts went back to reading “Lord Of The Flies”, which as an adult I found frightening. The strength and power of those worshiping at the shrine of the dead pig can be found in SCOTUS rulings and the need for the January 6th Investigation Committee we are watching but unable to act to aid or to change. The Flat Earth Society rules now as did the dead pig worshiping children but I see no rescue in sight as was found in “The Lord Of The Flies”.
As for SCOTUS and the ruling Republicans, I can only ask “WHY?” Do they believe they are creating a source of future Republicans? Like Putin’s war on Ukraine; what will they do with the remaining shambles when the war ends? What of value will they hold power over? The movie “Soylent Green” provides a possible picture of our future; destruction of the entire environment and over-population resulting in the strong dining on the
weak who didn’t survive.
Strangely, none of the commentators on cable news yesterday mentioned that five of the six Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe are Catholic. Not once. As if their religious beliefs had nothing to do with the ruling. What no one seems to want to admit is that we have lost our democracy and are now living in a theocracy. And we cannot vote our way out of this.
Theresa: We CAN vote our way out of this. An overwhelming victory for Democrats in the midterms wouldn’t just send a message repudiating the cult that has replaced the GOP, it would allow Congress to emerge from its gridlock and act–including taking actions reforming the Court.
Will that happen? Probably not.
Thank you Professor
When the number of 9 justices for the Court was arrived at in 1869 there were 9 Circuit Courts, thus one justice per Circuit Court. There are now 13 Circuit Courts, and I would argue the number of justices should be increased accordingly. And it should be done now, while the Democrats have a majority with the Vice Presidential vote, and it should be done by ending the filibuster, which is a relic of Jim Crow (consider ending the filibuster the equivalent of taking down a Confederate statue). Chuck Schumer needs to stop trying to be collegial with an opposition party that wo T play, and just shove through what needs to be done.
I stand by what I wrote.
I have a confession. In spite of how awful yesterday’s decision was, I still gleaned a bit of satisfaction knowing that all the people in reliably blue states got a taste of what it’s like to be a progressive in a red state like Indiana.
Destiny Wells, Dem Candidate for Indiana Secretary of State, claims that Indiana is purple, not red, and that it has a gerrymandering problem and a voter turnout problem. The tactics of her campaign plan is founded on GOTV. She just got a big boost from Chief Justice Robert’s yesterday.
I found the article below both depressing but also eye-opening. People in reliably blues states as well as rights-based-progressives in purple states need to work together to form a movement to restore the union and then put it on a path to become a more perfect one.
I believe it is time to sue the two justices most recently appointed to the supreme clown court for committing perjury at their hearings. They both blatantly lied when asked about Roe v Wade. While winning that lawsuit might be a longshot it would certainly send a clear message that we mean business.
We Democrats must go on the offensive to stop this theocratic and undemocratic takeover of our country. We must stop sitting idly by as the Radical republicans hit us with one beating after another. Those thugs have proven over and over that they will not stop their horrific behavior until we stand up to them and fight back. Bullies won’t back down unless their victims stand up to them and fight back.
Fighting fire with fire works. We must switch to being the aggressors that constantly lob curve balls at them.
Not to mention the nose of religious schools peeking into the tent of public funds.
I am curious to know which rights “retained by the people” under Amendment IX our justices can see their way to approving. If Mr. Alito thinks there isn’t a history of the practice of abortion, maybe he can explain why Benjamin Franklin provided instructions for home abortion in his math text.
I have long felt that the best way to attack these rulings is on religious freedom grounds. At least that way, if the results were the same as yesterday’s, we would have the clearest evidence yet of a nascent theocracy.
We know that the Senate, as it is currently constituted, won’t make the necessary changes, such as adding justices and requiring the Supremes to abide by the ethics rules prescribed for all of the rest of the Federal judiciary, so I am begging everyone I know to VOTE Blue. If you can’t bring yourself to do that, at least vote for candidates who would caucus Blue, like Bernie. A side effect of a 66 vote majority in the Senate would be that we could then impeach Thomas for his violation of 28 USC SS 455.
Can Republicans harvest the country and end the great experiment in liberal democracy? Yes, they can. Can we protect it from that attack? Again, yes we can. We can do that as individuals. We can do it collectively. We can do it with love and with anger, with noise and with quiet, with indignation but not with resignation, apathy, or ignorance.
We are the only ones who can save the Republic.
the idea we can vote our way out of this is near a edge of no return. for 40 years the buisness world of suits, the rich and politics have bought all the whores they can for their bennifit. looking over the presidential line up, all were corprate owned while touting some sort of BS to the working class. prime time propaganda and social media bots,and,real life thugs, have devided us well. the working class that i stand in has become a wierd world of expression with no idea what the hell they are aligning with. ive spoken the word, when you have distroyed democracy,you will have no consititution,and when the new authortarian goverment sees you as a threat, yea, a threat, they will deny you a voice,and warehouse you and probably any asscociate in a well run prison system.
well maybe not well run,by then it will be no appeal and just a chinese style legal(if you call it that) system. 30 days your dead. or maybe from economic slavery to slavery itself.. seems the civic duties of education has taken a fall and continues to be undermined by georgia counties like cobb and cherokee. the fact this nation still tollerates people who undermine ones freedom, has become its own enemy. look upon the republican party as whole,and a few corp manchinns.and its obvious the rich just took a long way around to taking our nation as a whole and using it as a door mat for their needs, and their following being used a cheap whores,with a big hole to fall in when its done.. this is greed,plain and simple,
unfortunatly,it requires the distruction of a proven goverment..if the people stayed aware and informed,then the likes of murderdoch,would be some sort of tabaloid in the checkout isle.. as my immediate world sees a dim future, im finding it easier to spit on these ignorant asswipes…
“I believe it is time to sue the two justices most recently appointed to the supreme clown court for committing perjury at their hearings. They both blatantly lied when asked about Roe v Wade.”
Nancy; this would probably be considered a frivolous law suit. We knew they were lying, the Senate knew they were lying, the Senate knew we knew they were lying, we knew the Senate knew they were lying, the Senate knew we knew they were lying and they knew everybody knew they were lying as the lied.
How many women will die because they can’t terminate their pregnancy?
By botched abortions?
By murder from their partner that didn’t want that child?
By ectopic pregnancies?
By fetal death?
By births on bodies too young to bare them?
By septic pregnancies?
Men should join us in this fight. But will they? They have never once been held responsible for all the pregnancies they make.
I’m so disgusted and angry because women are now second class citizens in my home country! I will not return. Guns have more rights then women. Go to hell Moscow Mitch.
I’ll give a different perspective and tick off more than a few people commenting on this blog.
Liberals have for years looked to the US Supreme Court to enact their preferred policies into law through the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Probably the most extreme example of this is the Roe v. Wade decision, the reasoning which has been panned by both conservative and liberal judicial scholars.
Not all our rights have to flow from an interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution is a FLOOR on our rights. Elected legislatures are free to add additional rights through the democratic process.
In Roe, the SCT plucked an extremely controversial issue from the democratic process and mandated its preferred policy choice by “finding” it in the Constitution. That judicial policy choice adopted in Roe is that states must allow abortions through the first and second trimesters.
Even Justice Ginsburg, although she supported Roe v. Wade, criticized the Court’s 1973 decision to take the issue away from the political process, where reasonable compromises were being made. Roe inflicted a never healing political wound on the country. Because Roe all but removed the issue of abortion from the political process, neither side needed to worry about compromise to achieve majority support. They could adopt the most extreme positions to placate their base.
Yes, polls show a strong majority of Americans supported Roe v. Wade. But polls also show a strong majority of Americans do not approve of the second trimester abortions that Roe protected as a constitutional right. The obvious conclusion is people don’t realize how far Roe v. Wade actually went in its holding. Roe was not a compromise decision. Roe’s trimester approach protected more than 99% of the abortions that take place.
We’re returning to the pre-1973 era in which the people, through their elected representatives, are deciding what is the best policy choice with respect to the abortion issue. In the abortion debate, both sides try to pretend that the other side doesn’t have a legitimate point of view. But they both do and that’s exactly why the abortion issue is so problematic. A woman’s bodily integrity and right to make choices that affect her body is not a talking point…it’s reality. But so too is the undeniable scientific fact that abortion involves a developing, distinctive human being. A fetus is not a meaningless blob of cells.
I expect that early on the extremes on both sides of the abortion debate will dominate the debate at the state level. After all, you’re talking about 50 years of pent up political pressure that has to be let out. But in the end, you’re going to see reasonable political compromises made in most states. My guess is that those political compromises will come close to matching public opinion in most states, i.e. to allow abortions early, say for the first 3 or 4 months. I would point out that 90% of abortions take place in that window.
I’ve always said that the issue of abortion involves not when life begins but at what point do you protect it. Both the mother and the developing human being have legitimate interests. It makes sense that as the fetus develops it acquires more legal protection and the question is when does its right to life surpass the woman’s right to bodily integrity. Roe tried to answer this question by very clumsily putting it at viability (the ability to live outside the womb with or without assistance) which was then approximate the end of the second trimester. The focus on viability was completely arbitrary and, unfortunately, for the Court not a static point in gestation. Viability has moved earlier in the pregnancy as medical science has advanced. I would point out that the viability line at the end of the second trimester for abortion is also far later than most Americans are comfortable with. And most countries do not allow abortions as late as the United States was required to allow pursuant to Roe.
In short, I’m confident at the end of the day reasonable compromises can now be made on the abortion issue. Roe was not a “reasonable compromise.”
Finally, as far as the Supreme Court goes, I would implore my liberal friends to stop looking to unelected federal judges to enact their particular policy preferences into law. Judicial activism undermines democratic institutions. And it can swing both ways. What happens when conservative justices start twisting the Constitution to start enacting their policy preferences? For example, the right to contract is in the Constitution. It’s not a reach to say that that provision prohibits minimum wage laws. In this conservative judicial climate, it would be wise for liberals to look to the democratic process to enact their preferred polices rather than continue to depend on judicial activism.
Agree with Aging.Girl…….”Guns have more rights than women.” Produced objects not humans have gained the lead in our consumer and biased society.
Sheila, I hope you will attempt to hold onto some hope that the Blue Vote just might swing the midterm and 2024 elections.
Paul; in this country, liberals and conservatives as well as those who have no opinion or party or religion, have expected the Supreme Court Justices to be learned and wise enough to settle differences which lower courts could not or would not resolve. The Judicial System is the third branch of our government; coming after Legislative and Executive branches and this triad of governing this county are expected to work together as leaders of “We the People of the United States”, none can be found as a book in either the Old or New Testament of the Bible.
You gave “a different perspective and tick off more than a few people commenting on this blog.” But, your perspective, like all of us is garnered in small bits and pieces of information which seem unimportant but makeup the lexicon of conversation which make up the basis of communication. You make assumptions, as each of us here do, to share or prove OUR perspective. You, being a Republican participant of this primarily Democratic blog, will always tick someone off but, simply due to the “law of averages” you have occasionally been right (no pun intended). As you stated, both sides have a legitimate point of view. Opposite points of view regarding abortion is not like which type of pizza you prefer; women are the only subject and the target of abortion, pro or con. It is a medical issue which has been latched onto by politicians and the church claiming Christianity with God and Jesus as their decision makers but they are only politicians seeking votes and especially donations.
Theresa, I must agree with your “plan.” So many good comments, and yes, isn’t it interesting that no commentators mentioned the
overwhelming religious makeup of the court, as per Sheila?! Just as so many reporters never ask the obvious follow-up questions.
I have referred to St. Reagan, here previously, and offer the NYT opinion piece in hopes of showing how that traitor’s legacy brought
us to the horrid theocracy in which we now live: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/opinion/clarence-thomas-abortion-supreme-court.html
Suing, as referred to above, sounds good to me.
There is so much more to say, but my B/P won’t allow it!
Margaret Atwood for POTUS!
Whatever we do about the Supreme Court, we should definitely remove Clarence Thomas. He is thoroughly tainted by his wife’s extreme right activities, and we need to remember that his term on the Supreme Court began after a sexual harassment situation involving Anita Hill. Since then he has mostly sat there like a lump. Suddenly he has opinions about things that are actually none of his (or anyone else’s) business, like contraception and gay marriage. So far I haven’t read that he’s concerned about the Loving decision.
Sorry, Mitch D. Margaret Atwood is Canadian, i.e. ineligible.
I hope all of the men on this blog contribute to funding for travel to states for legal abortions. It’s the least you can do.
Why is it Republicans espouse big government about women’s issues, and want government out of macho image issues like gun control? Sexist thinking is prevailing in Orthodox Religion, Supreme Court and Legislatures. The unfair practices that allowed for this Supreme Court are currently permeating through their decision making. If Merrit Garland was on the Court & Barrett wasn’t there would be a diierent outcome.
Saying that States can decide women’s most personal health decisions is making her a second class citizen, and will have detrimental results. I know someone who’s babies heartbeat stopped of natural causes later in pregnancy, and she had to carry it until term( over a month) due to the abortion laws. That’s insane cruelty!
The fix is simple! The level of violence in this country is unprecedented in a Time supposedly of peace.
Executive martial law, suspend habeas corpus, reconstitute the judiciary, put in place competency guidelines for judgeships, erect irrevocable boundary lines between church and state. Not just words, but actual enforceable boundaries.
Put the teeth back into punishment for treason and subversive activity, remove the countless weapons from the streets, enforce laws that penalize conspiracy theorists and liars, rebuild the infrastructure and many other things on most everybody’s wish list, including women’s rights and gay rights! Then, restore government with its new marching orders! Maybe it will function like it’s supposed to for a change. Although, I doubt if anyone has the taste for that, and, if it happens it would be surprising.
This is the kind of thing that happens when everybody is a know-it-all. You don’t have to worry, you can fiddle around and act like you’re above the fray, until you get kicked in the stones! You can see what a minority can do when they’re unified and when they play the long game! I remember after Obama was elected, everyone said the Republican party was dead, gone the way of the Whigs! Oooops……… A little premature proclamation, lol!
To be out foxed by a band of fascists, is really really sad, you have to be about as dumb as a bag of hammers! And, that is not at all far from the truth.
JoAnn, as I mentioned – suing Kavanaugh and Barrett for perjuring themselves during their confirmation hearings may not produce a Win, but it is more about putting pressure on conservatives and constantly putting pressure on members of their clan to stop their lies and stop their constant attacks on this so-called democracy. Newt Gingrich turned that party into the ugly lying cheating mess decades ago. It has only become worse over the years. It is far past time to turn the tables and put conservatives on the defensive.
Paul stated “ We’re returning to the pre-1973 era in which the people, through their elected representatives, are deciding what is the best policy choice with respect to the abortion issue. ”. Nope! Gerrymandering has enabled those with money and power to buy the representatives that agree to obey their commands. Indiana is near the very top of the list of the most gerrymandered states. At both the state and federal level the bulk of Indiana citizens have no voice at all in our government.
I’m sorry but the Democrats need to grow a pair and fight fire with fire. Ted Cruz was on Fox telling Garland he must “be on the watch to stop any radicals threatening mob violence” WTF – I don’t suppose he was referring to Jan 6th, was he? So what if the protesters had invaded the Supreme Court, erected gallows and chanted ” Hang Clarence Thomas”? Just another day at the court, then – nothing to see here? There would have been blood on the streets. The anti abortion crowd is in a minority – but they are organized, passionate and relentless. And unless we stop being so passive they will walk all over us. Same with 2nd Amendment zealots and the list goes on…
john p sorg; “Executive martial law, suspend habeas corpus, reconstitute the judiciary, put in place competency guidelines for judgeships, erect irrevocable boundary lines between church and state. Not just words, but actual enforceable boundaries.”
Less harsh and insulting words but you have built Hitler’s guidelines for the Holocaust with that paragraph. He enforced his words using his SS troops leading to his final solution.
Nancy; conservatives will block any pressure Democrats attempts to put on their SCOTUS members just as they have blocked pressure by ignoring Congressional orders on those of Trump’s administration who refuse to answer questions regarding the January 6th insurrection.. They can’t even get his friends to respond. There is no authority in this government to force officials at any level to uphold their Oath of Office.
With all due respect JoAnn,
Good points, but the attempted night of the Long knives was January 6th. The only reason the fascists did not take control of government, they didn’t have the military on their side! The United States has invoked executive martial law before, it didn’t result in a Nazi Germany!
Donald Trump was a student of Adolf hitler, his ex-wife even told lawyers in their divorce proceedings, he read Hitler’s musings in the evenings and kept them on his nightstand.
All in all, it’s been over 40 times, Martial law or some form of it has been declared in the United states. And, I don’t see SS troops yet. But, if a certain group gets elected to the presidency, you probably will! Night of the long knives, look it up!
Sadly, I have to agree with Sheila. The remedy is for the people who are so upset to VOTE, and then, with 52 Senators, “un-fix” the court. We can only hope and work for that outcome. (And we could add two new states, while we were at it.)
Also, I am tired of people saying “court packing”. That is what Mitch did, legally, breaking standing precedent on more than one occasion. The current Republican Party will do whatever it takes to have their way. Why the hell should Democrats be the only ones to “play nice.”
As for Justice Thomas, if he wants to stop “liberal excesses”, perhaps someone should bring a case to undo Loving v Virginia — and then throw the criminal in jail.
Peggy – Sorry, but the Ninth Amendment, like the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment seem to be beyond the reading skills of some of the Supremes.
Paul – You and I have different definitions of the term “rights”. Perhaps it is because I am not a lawyer, or perhaps it is our underlying Weltanshauung. To me, rights are inalienable. They are or are not, there is no vote. If the “States” get to vote, it is a privilege, not a right. How can a woman have a “Right to control her body” in California, but not in Texas. That ain’t a Right.
As for ‘those liberals who rely on the courts instead of the legislatures’ – sorry, but I see a bit of projection there. Brown, it was felt, had to be a 9-0 decision; Roe was 7-2. The conservative courts believe in raw power, selecting a President in 2000, and changing the meaning of the Second Amendment by 5-4 votes, among other things.
If I believed that this court had honest procedural disagreements with Roe, I might be more sympathetic to your view, but this court has the smell of an ideological collection of people bent on leaving their imprint on this country without regard to principle, turning everything back to the “proper” era — 1785 — or maybe 1214 (as long as their man is king). For them, stare decisis is to be applied based upon the ideological outcome.
When it comes to a law that affects just one gender of the population of the United States that 90 percent of white men decide on how these laws are decided is ludicrous.
“Life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Liberty means freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable restraint upon an individual. Freedom from restraint refers to more than just physical restraint, but also the FREEDOM TO ACT according to one’s own will.
So we are taking away a womans right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness because she is carrying a bunch of cells that has no will and cannot experience happiness but is alive no more then an animal is alive? That is NUTS!!!!
Here lies the hypocrisy when it comes to abortion.. I guarantee you if one of our elected officials daughter, granddaughters or wife’s would get pregnant and pass the time period when the baby cannot be aborted, that baby would be aborted in a Indiana minute. She’s running track, playing basketball, in the band, on the debate team heading to or in college or the famous from a wife “This isn’t a good time in our life to have a baby.” As for their chilren the parents are not going to subject them to ridicule, embarrassment and low self esteem. No the pills will magically appear or a trip to Canada to see Niagara Falls will be in the cards.
Everyone points to killing a baby and how horrible it is. Having a abortion is more about the well off (basically anyone that can leave the state for an abortion) and the powerful having the power to abort a baby at their whim and the impoverished being punished for having sex and having no power to decide what is right for their life.
A large portion of the Republicans are only voting for this because it looks good for the older and religious voters who always show up to vote.
If the Democrats would just stop with their silly rhetoric and in their commercials hit the Republicans with the truth and people would respond. Like I have said before attack ads will not work in Indiana – you have to talk commom sense to voters if you want to win.
I expect that early on the extremes on both sides of the abortion debate will dominate the debate at the state level. After all, you’re talking about 50 years of pent up political pressure that has to be let out. But in the end, you’re going to see reasonable political compromises made in most states. My guess is that those political compromises will come close to matching public opinion in most states, i.e. to allow abortions early, say for the first 3 or 4 months. I would point out that 90% of abortions take place in that window. –
Paul there is where your argument has problems Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the country with the most servere abortion laws. More then a few states will push to have earlier then a 3 month window. The crazy’s have taken over the Republican party and you refuse to see it. There are already states that are talking about zero abortions no matter what the reason. Then we have Republicans pushing for a national law to prohibit abortions in every state. The pro-lifers won’t quit until they have their way. The funny thing is I have read at least 30 responses from Republicans politicians on Roe being overturned and not one word about what they will do to help the women that will be forced to carry a baby to term.
This has more to do with human decency. Why should it matter to anyone that a woman births a child other then maybe the father of the child and the family if the girl is a minor. Maybe all the Catholics should be insisting that priest marry after all of the child abuse cases that were covered up for years. Homosexuality was and I suspect is still rampant in the Catholic church among priests. As for the rest of the religiions please clean up your own house with your bibles before you go after people that don’t share your religious faith.
The majority of these people are actually Pro- Birth. basically the birth of the child is all they care about and walk away when the baby is born. Do these people and politicians want more mothers and their children in poverty? Do they want more people on the public dole? Many of these women will not be able to afford adequate child care or birth control and the cycle will repeat itself with their children when there is no supervision in their teenage years. Seen it more times then I care to in my 55 years of observing these human dramas.
Do these people not have the human dignity not to interfere in another persons life and choices? If they cared for a human life then they should be protesting against alcohol and drugs that are killing and seriously harming the very lifes of the babies they are trying to save. Yes these will be the children who will be have substance abuse, psychiatric problems, obesity due to poor nutrition and poor educational skills and a list of problems to long to list.
As Hank William’s sang – “Mind your own business and you won’t be minding mine!”
john p sorg; Trump refused to invoke executive martial law on January 6th to protect the Capital because he sent the Insurrectionists; President Biden is not going to invoke executive martial law against the Supreme Court or to protect pregnant girls and women. The current Democratic administration, with two exceptions of Manchin and Senima, are following the Rule of Law and upholding the Constitution which today amounts to taking a knife to a gun fight.
To Trump’s Republicans, and all Republicans are supporting Trump whether they agree with him or not, conditions today are a big joke to them. And they dropped their biggest punch line last Friday.
Comments are closed.