AOC is correct for once, Justices should be Impeached
Trump did not do this, McConnell did.
The Borg from Star Trek would be Proud of the GOP
I hope the DEMs can use this egregious assault on personal freedoms to get their voters to the polls
I hope the GOP somehow breaks free of the control of the Religious Right. Though I am a fiscal Conservative. I will not vote for a party that supports robbing citizens of their personal freedoms.
59 comments:
The Republican Party has made their deal. What they have gotten is a Republican Supreme Court which will in practical terms govern the country for at least two generations when Democrat win the White House. That was Mitch's goal and he has reached it.
--Hiram
That was a terrible decision. I think it will help Walz win Minnesota and may help in legislative races as well.
Hiram,
I don't think Clarence Thomas will make it that long...
Laurie,
Maybe if the Progressive Dems can moderate some and keep their mouths closed... :-O
I think Walz has a very good chance at reelection. The house and senate I am less sure about. I agree it would be metter if the liberals/ progressive were not the loudest voices in the dfl. I view myself as a moderate democrat.
I will happily vote for Walz.
The problem is that at this point no senate majority will confirm a Supreme Court nominee from the other party. I expect Republicans to control the senate for the remainder of the decade so Thomas will not be replaced by a nominee from a Democratic president.
---Hiram
I am not that worried about the governorship at this point. What does worry me is the legislature.
==Hiram
Well the DEMs had better stop focusing on the fringes and start offering the majority reasonable and popular solutions.
Maybe then they can win the Senate.
"Well the DEMs had better stop focusing on the fringes and start offering the majority reasonable and popular solutions."
Joe Biden is the President, not Bernie Sanders. Chuck Schumer is Senate Majority Leader, not Elizabeth Warren. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House, not Ilhan Omar. The moderate wing of the party is firmly in charge, unlike the other party.
There are no popular solutions to inflation. That's why the party out of power doesn't offer any, at least not serious ones.
Inflation and employment are interrelated, at least in popular, Econ 101, economics. In political terms, that always presents a nasty two edged sword. It always gives the party out of power something to complain about. The tricky part comes after the election when one party wins and has the job of dealing with whichever part of the problem seems worse.
What I think is interesting is how public attention is focused on just one side of this problem. We hear about inflation, but not the low unemployment, thriving economy that is generating it. And no one is talking about the standard solution to inflation, high interest rates, a slower 3conomy accompanied both by job loss and the lack of job creation.
--Hiram
Sean,
However every time the Progressives start talking about easing border security, defunding cops, big social programs, no limit abortions, etc... The GOP are given a sound bite that can be used and abused.
Somehow the DEMs need to paint themselves as the supporter of working Americans and small business. Not just the supporter of the illegals, LGBTers, poor, criminals, etc.
Hiram,
I agree the GOP & DEMs created quite a mess with that huge of government borrowing and "free" money.
The DEMs are going to have a hard time selling that they are not responsible after they tried to pass more big spending bills.
"However every time the Progressives start talking about easing border security, defunding cops, big social programs, no limit abortions, etc... The GOP are given a sound bite that can be used and abused."
1.) I would argue very few actual Democrats with any power take the positions you ascribe above. For instance, the Minneapolis City Council is the supposed epicenter of "defund the police", yet they increased the police budget by over 10% this year.
2.) Compare the "radicalness" of these positions to where the mainstream of the Republican party is today. It's a party that has literally lined up behind the 1/6 insurrection.
Why are the Democrats having a hard time getting credit for lifting the econonomy out of the state of collapse in which Republicans left it?
--Hiram
I've been grappling with this nightmare SCOTUS ruling, and have wondered about a couple things:
1) Not all religions believe that life begins at conception. What would happen if, say, a Jewish sect opened a faith-based abortion clinic in a State that outlaws abortion? One would hope that the courts would side with those expressing their religious beliefs, no?
2) If a zygote, embryo, etc. is a person, is a pregnant person not allowed self-defense against it? In what other situations do we not allow a person to defend themselves against uninvited guests?
Moose
There has been a lot of freedom of religion litigation involving drugs, but I don't know if that means anything with this court now. For a lot of reasons, I don't think claiming a religious exemption would work with this court.
The Supreme Court's ruling raises a huge number of questions. In our history, we don't have a lot of experience with the taking of rights and as a result, I don't think we appreciate how complicated and expensive it is. We are all in for a learning experience.
--Hiram
Sean,
Agreed. The half the GOPers have lost their mind.
Unfortunately the DEMs have a similar but different challenge.
Which leaves people like me picking between 2 crazy groups or just not voting.
Hiram,
Not sure if the DEMs did anything to "lift the economy"?
Moose,
This is not necessarily a religious issue. The DEMs policy of rarely talking about fetal rights and when abortion should be illegal, and obsessing over women's rights alienates a lot of people. Therefore as a social norm, they want a say in it.
Maybe the Native Americans could set up clinics on the Reservations?
Well I would say that the woman gave an open invitation when she spread her legs. "Uninvited guest" ... Really? :-O
On FB we have been wrestling with:
why should this be decided at the State level?
why should this be decided at the Federal level?
But it CAN be a religious issue. The current laws against abortions are based on a Christian belief that life begins at conception. In the former democratic U.S., codifying that belief would run counter to the First Amendment. Not sure how that would be ruled in today's United States, but it would be fun to watch the religious right twist themselves into pretzels trying to say that other religions don't get to have their First Amendment rights.
Why would "obsessing over women's rights" (women make up more that half of the population) alienate anyone but misogynists?
"Uninvited guest"...yes. Did the woman consent to being impregnated by the man? Does a woman's one-time consent mean that she gives consent for all time, or even 9 months? Why does the woman not get to revoke consent to the "person" using her body? At what stage of development is a "person" no longer able to override the woman's lack of consent?
Moose
I am sure there are many non-Christians who do not support the ending of a human life for the convenience of a woman.
I think you are forgetting that many of those who are against abortion are women.
That is for society's to decide. The life was started, usually with permission of the woman. What rights that growing life has and what rights / responsibilities the Mother has is up to the citizens of that society.
"I am sure there are many non-Christians who do not support the ending of a human life for the convenience of a woman."
So?
"I think you are forgetting that many of those who are against abortion are women."
Again, so?
Moose
Moose,
Well you seem to think this about religion and misogyny...
Maybe you are incorrect.
It's clear that the economy was "lifted". That's what pouring all that money into it that Republicans are now complaining about did. Let there be no doubt, if Democrats, and of course Republicans too, had not poured money into the economy, huge numbers of people would be out of work but we would have little or no inflation, and Republicans would have been complaining about that. Some time economic conditions are good, sometimes bad, but amidst all the contradictions the one thing we can count on is that Republicans will complain about them.
--Hiram
Why should a Jewish woman whose faith permits abortion be subject to Christian (and not ALL Christians, BTW) morality?
Moose
Hiram,
Yes people are like farmers... The weather is almost always not quite right.
Moose,
Because she lives in this country and is subject to it's laws.
Same as why Muslims are not supposed to harm the genitalia of their girls.
"Unfortunately the DEMs have a similar but different challenge."
Do they? House Democrats have literally had the same top 3 leaders since 2003 (Pelosi, Hoyer, and Clyburn). Hoyer and Clyburn are mainstream Democrats. Pelosi is more liberal, but she's clearly a traditionalist unlike say "The Squad" who wouldn't be caught dead praising Reagan or wishing for a "strong Republican party" the way Pelosi has recently. Schumer and Durbin have been in the top 3 of Senate Democratic leadership since 2005, and they're both mainstream Democrats. Joe Biden is the President.
Meanwhile, the median Republican in the Senate is Mike Crapo (per Voteview). Crapo got a DUI while in office, has been endorsed by Trump in his 2022 reelection campaign, voted against creating an independent 1/6 commission, opposes rape and incest exceptions for abortion, voted against the post-Uvalde gun bill and has vowed to filibuster any gun control legislation. Just a totally normal dude!
That abortion is a freedom of religion question seems right to me. I have always thought of it this way. The religious right should not impose their religion on the rest of us. I think protecting a developing fetus in the third trimester is ok. A very high percentage of abortions occur in the the first trimester
Sean,
I am pretty sure McConnell has been around for awhile...
Gov Track indicates he is a bit right
Laurie,
Why should this not be left to the voters in a State?
I believe freedom of religion is in the constitution (the bills of rights)
Rights are not granted by majority rule.
Apparently the physical well being of citizens trumps religious freedom as I noted earlier.
And I am not sure any religion is claiming that stopping abortions violates their religion?
Now back to my question:
Why should this not be left to the voters in a State?
an embryo is not a citizen
Can outlawing abortion infringe on religious liberties
I haven't actually read this link but I plan to.
here is is again as my creating links is a little rusty
https://theweek.com/roe-v-wade/1014555/jewish-lawsuit-against-abortion-bans
That was an interesting article.
Okay. Developing citizen... :-)
Should the supreme court of our theocracy let the states decide about contraception as well ? Most pro life zealots are against the pill, as it affects a fertilized egg.
One point from my link that I thought was very dumb was the example that someone could claim a religious right to litter. Which Of the following is a religious determination:
Is it wrong to litter?
At what point is a developing life worthy of protection?
btw, I also think end of life decisions are also in the realm of religious freedom.
questions of life and dealth seem pretty religious to me.
"I am pretty sure McConnell has been around for awhile..."
But virtually everyone else has rolled over. In 2003, the top GOP Republicans in the House were Denny Hastert, Tom DeLay and Eric Cantor. In the Senate it was Bill Frist, McConnell, and Bob Bennett.
Laurie,
The question to me is how granular and representative do we want our democracy to be?
Should the Red swaths of the country need to comply with the Social Norms of the Blue swathes?
Are you going to be happy if the GOP becomes able to ban abortion nationally?
Or will you be wishing states were in charge?
Well the GOPers often say they are against life long politicians...
Maybe they are voting their convictions?
"Should the Red swaths of the country need to comply with the Social Norms of the Blue swathes?"
Basic civil rights should not be state's rights issues. We settled that in 1865.
I am not sure the right to scrape a growing human off of its life support system is a "basic civil right"?
If a 23 week preemie is on a life support machine. Should the mother be allowed to dump it in the trash?
It is a complicated topic.
Making a decision as a society as to how to balance the competing interests involved in this issue are indeed basic civil rights issue -- no matter what perspective you view this from.
We have never taken a constitutional right away before, and I don't think a great deal of thought has been given to how that it is done.
Formerly, abortion policy was made by women individually as each made this important decision for themselves. The Supreme Court was dissatisfied with this approach and concluded that our state legislators, and other elected officials were better position to make these important decisions on our behalf. What this means is that we are going to have to create a large and complicated, legal, political, and economic superstructure to deal with this issue that we never needed before. Think of the money that will be going to lawyers and legislators!
--Hiram
I think by Nov there is going to b a large voting block of pissed off young women, especially if abortion stays in the news these next 4 months as states try to figure out more ways to control women, like prosecuting them for going to another state or are they going to prosecute the abortion provider. Its going to be a big mess. I find myself more pissed off now than when the decision was announced.
Sean,
This is from Britannica... Who's rights are you trying to protect?
the woman's or the preemie's?
"civil rights, guarantees of equal social opportunities and equal protection under the law, regardless of race, religion, or other personal characteristics.
Examples of civil rights include the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to government services, the right to a public education, and the right to use public facilities. Civil rights are an essential component of democracy; when individuals are being denied opportunities to participate in political society, they are being denied their civil rights. In contrast to civil liberties, which are freedoms that are secured by placing restraints on government, civil rights are secured by positive government action, often in the form of legislation. Civil rights laws attempt to guarantee full and equal citizenship for people who have traditionally been discriminated against on the basis of some group characteristic. When the enforcement of civil rights is found by many to be inadequate, a civil rights movement may emerge in order to call for equal application of the laws without discrimination."
Laurie,
It certainly is good timing for the DEMs... They were going to get killed in Nov... Maybe now they have a chance?
an embryo is not a preemie. You should try to use more accurate language.
How would you feel about one of your daughters moving to a red state. There are going to be many pregnant woman who die when they can't get the care they need for their pregnancy complications. Some abortions are medically necessary, but the zealots don't care about that.
Laurie,
I am very aware of the different stages of a human's development.
The challenge is that the pro-choice folks work hard to de-humanize that little growing human by using scientific terms. Where as the pro-life folks think of it as a preemie from conception on.
The simple practical truth is that from conception on it is a human in the making.
Which brings me back to my question.
"If a 23 week preemie is on a life support machine. Should the mother be allowed to dump it in the trash?"
If it is a "fetus" reliant on her uterus for care, your answer is?
If it is a "baby" reliant on a life support machine, your answer is?
What is the difference?
I think my daughters would not choose to live in a Red state...
Your comments keep implying that women are having abortions at 22 weeks when the fetus can almsot survive. They are not.
Almost 93 percent of abortions were performed before the 13th week.
I would be ok with limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks, unless there are medical complications.
Unfortunately the DEM message seems different when I hear it.
They talk only of the woman's rights and rarely talk about the acceptable restrictions.
Now if they were to say:
- abortions before 16 weeks are up to the Mother.
- after 16 weeks the fetus needs to be brain dead or be severely threatening the Mother's life.
They may win over more Pro Life people.
Of course the nut case... Fertilized egg folks equals a human will never be happy.
What I talk about is how long women who have abortions should be jailed. And with Roe gone, that is now the issue on the table.
The point of the exceptions was to make anti abortion laws more palatable to people who were undecided on the issue. It made sense to talk about those things as long as the fate of Roe was in dispute and the matter was in doubt. But those days are over and the battle has been lost and won. There is no need now for compromises or half measures, and the winners in the dispute have been very quick to realize that. New abortion laws don't contain exceptions, and by the logic of the abortion opponents they shouldn't. If abortion is murder nothing could be less relevant that the circumstances of the conception.
It's a cliche and it's a metaphor but I do love it. The dog has caught the bus and is now responsible for everything related to it. We want to know how long girls are going to serve for the crime of abortion, and how many prisons we are going to have to build to house them. We want to know what the extrajurisdictional effect of abortion laws are going to be. As a Planned Parenthood supporter, am I going to have to worry that I might be arrested during a layover in the Houston airport? Will my name be on lists in Texas? And don't get me started on the extradition issues.
Republicans running for law enforcement jobs are talking about being tough on crime. Mostly for them, that's code for brutalizing black people more, but Dobbs add an extra layer to that, one that they are remarkably eager to avoid. They are going to be asked, at some point they are going to have to tell us how they are going to enforce abortion criminal laws in Minnesota. I can hardly wait.
--Hiram
I think you have missed the point.
These folks see the woman and baby as the victims of some group that likes killing babies?
Kind of like women who fall in with human traffickers...
They will like be coddled as weak minded women who did not know better.
These folks see the woman and baby as the victims of some group that likes killing babies?
I am sure there are people who have persuaded themselves to believe that. I try not to believe things like that. I think it's bad for everyone to believe like things. I firmly believe the mere fact of disagreeing with me does not make someone a moral monster. Good and decent and sincere people can be found on just about all sides of all issues. I don't believe Planned Parenthood is a coalition of killers just as I don't believe the Catholic Church is a cabal of child molesters.
--Hiram
Agreed. And yet the members of Tribe Far Right and Tribe Far Left often see things differently than many rational humans.
I don't accept both siding this issue. The fact is while lots of Democrats don't think Trump is a citizen, we would never have nominated one of them for president.
==Hiram
A lot of Republicans want to both sides our politics. They want to place themselves on terms of moral equivalence with Democrats, a place they have held through most our history. Historically, had no problem in recognizing the rough moral equivalence of the Republican Party in the Nixon era. I have watched the Watergate hearings where many very partisan Republica strived to do what was right.
But things are different now. I cannot accept that a party that nominated Donald Trump and that continues to support him is morally equivalent to my party or the Republican Party for that matter as it existed before the emergence of Donald Trump.
==Hiram
We were not discussing the delusion of the GOP Trump True Believers.
We were talking about the abortion / pro-Life perspectives.
When both sides issues and arguments are offered, it's important to understand that both sides are not in a position of moral or political equivalence. Both sides do not demand the reversal of American elections.
--Hiram
I guess I disagree... I evaluate based on the merits of the argument, not what the speaker looks like... :-)
Post a Comment