The Washington Post offers tips on how to keep your EV battery running in frigid temperatures. The link at the end of this graf is supposed to be a "gift link" (from me, Marie Burns, the giftor!), meaning that non-subscribers can read the article. Hope it works: https://wapo.st/3u8Z705
Monday
May022022
May 3, 2022
Late Morning/Afternoon Update:
Olafimihan Oshin of the Hill: "Former President Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama issued a strong statement criticizing the draft Supreme Court opinion knocking down the Roe v. Wade decision, saying it would limit U.S. freedoms just like other past actions by the court. 'Today, millions of Americans woke up fearing that their essential freedoms under the Constitution were at risk,' the couple said in the joint statement on Tuesday. 'If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to overturn the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, then it will not only reverse nearly 50 years of precedent -- it will relegate the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues,' the Obamas added."
President Biden addresses the implications of Alito's draft decision:
John Kruzel of the Hill: "Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday directed the marshal of the Supreme Court to launch an investigation into the source of a leaked draft opinion showing that a majority of justices were poised to overturn Roe v. Wade. 'This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here,' Roberts said in a press release that verified the authenticity of the document published Monday evening by Politico." Update: A CNN report is here. ~~~
~~~ As unwashed pointed out in today's Comments, Marcy Wheeler, with a little help from Joan Biskupic & Stephen Collinson of CNN, has speculated on Roberts' Machieavellian motives in this "shit-show." According to Collinson, "Roberts is willing ... to uphold the Mississippi law that would ban abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy...." So the game, Wheeler writes, is that by leaking Alito's radical opinion, "Roberts is trying to get his colleagues to adopt a less radical opinion."
Here's a scathing joint statement from Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer. They write, in part, "Several of these conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the U.S. Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court's reputation -- all at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they've relied on for half a century."
President Biden has released a statement responding to the purported draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade. He says, in part, "I believe that a woman's right to choose is fundamental, Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned." ~~~
Last night's stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the Supreme Court. By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left's ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law. -- Mitch McConnell, in a statement designed to distract from his pivotal part in the plot not only to overturn Roe v. Wade but also to undermine the courts by further politicizing them ~~~
is live-updating reactions to the leaked Alito opinion.
Eric Lipton of the New York Times: "The Trump family business and ... Donald J. Trump's 2017 inauguration committee have jointly agreed to pay $750,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by the attorney general for the District of Columbia, who claimed that the Trump International Hotel in Washington illegally received excessive payments from the inauguration committee. The settlement in the civil suit came with no admission of wrongdoing by the Trump Organization, the former president or the inaugural committee." MB: Well, of course it did.
New York. Luis Ferré-Sadurní & Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times: "Gov. Kathy Hochul announced on Tuesday she had chosen Representative Antonio Delgado, a Democrat from the Hudson Valley, as her new lieutenant governor, the second-highest ranking position in New York State. Mr. Delgado is expected to serve as Ms. Hochul's running mate as she campaigns for a full term this year. He will replace former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin, who was indicted on federal bribery charges last month, leading to his abrupt resignation. A group of New York Democrats empowered with formally replacing Mr. Benjamin endorsed the choice of Mr. Delgado, 45, as Ms. Hochul's running mate Tuesday morning, ensuring that he will be on the ballot in June's party primary, according to three people familiar with the process."
~~~~~~~~~~
If you think The Handmaid's Tale is "just fiction," you have not accounted for Sam & the Supremes: ~~~
~~~ ** Josh Gerstein & Alexander Ward of Politico: "The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, [link fixed] according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by Politico. The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision -- Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- that largely maintained the right. 'Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,' Alito writes. 'We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,' he writes in the document, labeled as the 'Opinion of the Court.' 'It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.'" ~~~
~~~ ** Politico has published the draft ruling here. This is the first time a draft ruling ever has been leaked to the public. ~~~
(BUT. James Robenalt of the Washington Post: "... the result in Roe v. Wade itself was leaked by a Supreme Court clerk to a Time magazine reporter in January 1973. The issue of Time, with an article titled 'The Sexes: Abortion on Demand,' appeared on newsstands hours before the decision was announced by Justice Harry Blackmun." The leaker was Larry Hammond, who clerked for Justice Lewis Powell.) ~~~
~~~ Gerstein pulls out "10 important passages in the draft opinion." ~~~
~~~ Marie: Some day, somebody will zero in on the precise day the United States shifted from a democratic republic to an authoritarian kakistocracy. In the meantime, the day this decision comes down will be a benchmark in our decline. When up to half of Americans who are of school and working age again are constrained from determining their own freedom to attend school & establish careers, we can no longer consider this country a democratic republic. The ruling, of course, also will have profound effects on women's partners. ~~~
~~~ Because Earlier That Same Day. Caroline Kitchener of the Washington Post: "Leading antiabortion groups and their allies in Congress have been meeting behind the scenes to plan a national strategy that would kick in if the Supreme Court rolls back abortion rights this summer, including a push for a strict nationwide ban on the procedure if Republicans retake power in Washington. The effort, activists say, is designed to bring >a fight that has been playing out largely in the courts and state legislatures to the national political stage -- rallying conservatives around the issue in the midterms and pressuring potential 2024 GOP presidential candidates to take a stand." ~~~
~~~ Update: In discussing the draft opinion, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is a Constitutional scholar, noted that Alito's opinion is framed in such a way that the landmark 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision -- which protected married couples' right to use contraception -- also would fall. Raskin further noted that wingers are opposed to contraception, too, so it's likely a GOP-controlled Congress would attempt to outlaw most forms of contraception. AND, as Lawrence O'Donnell said last night, this will be the first time in most of our lifetimes that the Supreme Court has taken away a Constitutional right. (This would not be true for me, because about six weeks after my birth, the Supremes handed down Korematsu v. U.S., which validated the internment without cause of Japanese-Americans.)
A Washington Post story, by Robert Barnes & Mike DeBonis, is here.
Under an online banner headline this morning that at least temporarily has thrown the war in Ukraine off the top of the page, the New York Times is live-updating reactions to the Alito draft.
Instant Demonstration. Zach Montague of the New York Times: "Just hours after reports emerged that a majority of justices had voted to strike down Roe v. Wade..., scores of protesters began to assemble outside the Supreme Court, flowing into the area well into the early morning hours on Tuesday. The mood outside the court was a mix of anger and mourning, with some demonstrators sitting silently in front of a long line of candles, while others formed a roving circle, shouting defiant chants about the news."
Scott Lemieux in LG&$: "Whoever leaked this is a hero, and the more the Court become demystified in general the better. Interesting to assign the opinion to Alito rather than ACB; they just don't give a fuck any more and don't need to. The opinion is incredibly thin and unpersuasive -- Alito actually used the junior high school debate society 'durr, the Constitution does not mention the word "abortion," durr' argument twice in the first few grafs of the opinion. It even starts like a bad generic freshman essay: 'The debate about abortion is as old as the history of history itself.'... It's also worth noting that Alito's incredibly narrow conception of due process would logically require all of the major privacy cases to be overruled[.]" Lemieux also notes that the Alito rationale would signal the reversal of the Obergefell & Lawrence decisions. So gay rights, gay marriage -- out! ~~~
~~~ Marie: In fairness to Sam, extreme disdain for women is not a likely indicator of intellectual rigor.
Jill Filipovic in a Substack post: "This case, contrary to what the Court claims, won't push abortion back to the states. It's going to open up a whole circus of restrictions, court battles, and pitched fights. And in the meantime, thousands and thousands of women will be forced into motherhood against their will. Some won't live through it. And three members of this Supreme Court majority were appointed by a president who didn't win a majority of the vote, claims the last election was rigged, and attempted to stage a coup.... So here's what we know is coming if Roe goes, from a wealth of research on what happens when women are denied abortions...: Maternal mortality rates will go up (by as much as 21%, according to one estimate).... More women will die at the hands of men.... Women will wind up poorer.... Kids will do worse.... More women will be abused and for longer.... Women will go to jail. Contraception access will be at risk.... Women will be less free." ~~~
~~~ As Lawrence O'Donnell noted last night, thanks to our peculiar way of electing presidents, none of the so-called justices who will likely vote to repeal Roe was nominated by a president* who won a majority of the vote. Alito & Roberts are Dubya appointees, and Filipovic has already mentioned the Three Dancing Trumpettes. What we have here then is minority rule. On everything. Update: Oops! Thomas was appointed by Bush I, who did win a majority of votes in 1988. (In 1992, when Bush I lost to Clinton in a three-way race, he got only 37.4% of the popular vote.)
The New York Times' live updates of developments Tuesday in Russia's war on Ukraine are here: "Despite early-morning shelling, the halting evacuation [from Mariupol], overseen by the Red Cross and the United Nations, was seen as the best and possibly last hope for hundreds of civilians who have been trapped for weeks in bunkers beneath the wreckage of the Azovstal steel plant, and an unknown number who are scattered around the ruins of the mostly abandoned city.... Heavy fighting in the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions has yielded minimal gains for the forces of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Western officials say. But the Russians continued to fire rockets and shells at Ukrainian military positions, cities, towns and infrastructure along a 300-mile-long front, including bombarding the Azovstal plant, where the last remaining Ukrainian fighters in Mariupol are hunkered down. On Monday, Ukraine said it had used Turkish-made drones to destroy two Russian patrol vessels off the Black Sea port of Odesa, just before Russian missiles struck the city, causing an unknown number of casualties and damage to a religious building." ~~~
~~~ The Washington Post's live updates for Tuesday are here:"Moscow is preparing to annex vast new swaths of Ukrainian territory -- the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, along with the southern city of Kherson -- in the coming days, U.S. intelligence indicates. Yet Russian troops suffering from poor morale and 'casualty aversion' are making 'anemic' advances in their attempt to seize the eastern Donbas region, according to the Pentagon." ~~~
~~~ Marie: I'm not sure what "casualty aversion" is. Is it an aversion to killing & maiming Ukrainians or Pentagonese for "a will to live"?
Tuesday is primary election day in Ohio & Indiana. Jill Colvin & Julie Smyth of the AP: "Ohio Republicans will vote Tuesday in one of the most contentious and closely watched Senate primaries in the U.S., deciding a race that is an early referendum on ... Donald Trump's hold on the GOP as the midterm primary season kicks into high gear.... The winner [of the Republican primary] is likely to face 10-term Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, who has distanced himself from the progressive wing of his party ahead of what is expected to be a brutal year for Democrats seeking to hold their congressional majorities." ~~~
~~~ Gabby Orr of CNN has a story on the Ohio primary, which focuses on U.S. Senate GOP candidate J.D. Vance (or whatever his name is).
Annie Karni of the New York Times: "... Senator Dianne Feinstein, the trailblazing Democratic power broker who has served in the Senate for 30 years, is far from the towering presence she once was on the American political stage. At 88, Ms. Feinstein sometimes struggles to recall the names of colleagues, frequently has little recollection of meetings or telephone conversations, and at times walks around in a state of befuddlement -- including about why she is increasingly dogged by questions about whether she is fit to serve in the Senate representing the 40 million residents of California, according to half a dozen lawmakers and aides who spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity.... Some of them said they did not expect her to serve out her term ending in 2024 under the circumstances, even though she refuses to engage in conversations about stepping down.... In the United States Senate, there is a long tradition of powerful men who have failed to move onto anything else, even long after it was glaringly apparent that they could no longer function on their own."
Marianna Sotomayor, et al., of the Washington Post: "Since taking office nearly 16 months ago, Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) has been accused of many things.... For now, Cawthorn hasn't faced any major consequences on the Hill.... Although House Republicans have dutifully tried to present a united front, especially as regaining the majority in the midterm election this fall seems in reach, a growing number have publicly expressed their dismay with Cawthorn's behavior -- and, privately, several Republicans have said they hope voters in Cawthorn's district penalize him in the May 17 Republican primary so Cawthorn's colleagues don't have to do something themselves."
... The Pleasure of Your Company... Rebecca Beitsch of the Hill: "The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is seeking voluntary testimony from three additional members of Congress who appeared to have some coordination with rioters and efforts to block President Biden's electoral victory both before and after the attack. The letter to Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) notes that former President Trump asked him to help keep him in office even after Jan. 6. A letter to Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) references his involvement in discussions to secure presidential pardons in connection with efforts to unwind the 2020 election. It also focuses on his involvement in planning for Jan. 6, both in meetings at the White House and with 'Stop the Steal' organizers, and his coordination with state legislators. And a letter to Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-Texas), Trump's former White House doctor, points to exchanges between members of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group citing the need to protect the lawmaker." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.) The New York Times story is here.
Gloria Borger, et al., of CNN: "The Trump family's cooperation with the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol -- and Ivanka Trump's appearance in particular -- has proven useful in confirming other key testimony about the state of play inside the White House as well as ... Donald Trump's state of mind that day. In a recent exclusive interview with CNN, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson gave the most extensive account yet of the testimony behind closed doors. 'There were questions asked about what was she doing at the time that the insurrection was occurring at the Capitol, and she told us,' the Mississippi Democrat said of Ivanka Trump. Investigators 'asked certain questions about her awareness of what her father was doing. She told us.'... He said [Ivanka & her husband Jared Kushner] did corroborate critical testimony from others who said the then-President was reluctant to try to call off the rioters despite being asked to do so."
Alan Feuer of the New York Times: "A former New York City police officer who claimed he was acting in self-defense when he swung a metal flagpole at a fellow officer during the attack on the Capitol last January was convicted on Monday of all charges, including assault. The former officer, Thomas Webster, was the first person charged in connection with the riot to defend himself at trial by claiming that the officers protecting the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, had used excessive force against the pro-Trump mob that stormed the building. The guilty verdict in the case -- returned within two hours on the first full day of deliberations -- could give pause to other defendants planning to use similar arguments at their own trials.... Videos played by the prosecution ... show[ed] Mr. Webster emerging from the crowd and berating officers at the barricades in a state of foul-mouthed rage. Mr. Webster could be seen in the videos repeatedly pushing at the barricades, then swinging a flagpole at [Metropolitan Police] Officer [Noah] Rathbun before he shoved through the police line and tackled the officer." Webster once served on former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's protective force. Marie: Look at the photo of Webster accompanying the story & tell me if you think you could prevail in hand-to-hand combat with him.
Ryan Reilly of NBC News: "A military veteran from Georgia who attacked police officers at the U.S. Capitol as part of a pro-Trump mob trying to overturn the 2020 election results was sentenced to more than two years in federal prison Monday. Kevin Creek, 47, a former Marine, was sentenced to 27 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich for assaulting officers on Jan. 6. Creek was arrested in June and pleaded guilty in December, when he admitted to striking a Washington police officer in the hand, pushing a Capitol Police officer and kicking the same officer."
"I Just Want to Find 11,780 Votes." Richard Fausset of the New York Times: The "investigation into whether [Donald Trump] and his allies illegally interfered with Georgia's 2020 election results took a significant step forward on Monday, as 23 people were chosen to serve on a special investigative grand jury. The panel will focus exclusively on 'whether there were unlawful attempts to disrupt the administration of the 2020 elections here in Georgia,' Judge Robert C.I. McBurney of the Fulton County Superior Court told 200 potential jurors who had been called to a downtown Atlanta courthouse swarming with law enforcement agents.... The panel will have up to a year to issue a report advising District Attorney Fani T. Willis on whether to pursue criminal charges.... ~~~
~~~ “In addition to the call with [Georgia Secretary of State Brad] Raffensperger [in which Trump asked Raffensperger to find enough votes to flip the state's election results], Mr. Trump has publicly described how he called Gov. Brian Kemp after the election and asked him to call a special election to 'get to the bottom' of 'a big election-integrity problem in Georgia.' Mr. Trump also called Chris Carr, the state attorney general, asking him not to oppose a lawsuit challenging the election results in Georgia and other states, and Mr. Raffensperger's chief investigator, asking her to find 'dishonesty' in the election.'"
Mike Allen of Axios: "Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper charges in a memoir out May 10 that former President Trump said when demonstrators were filling the streets around the White House following the death of George Floyd: 'Can't you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?'... That moment in the first week of June, 2020, 'was surreal, sitting in front of the Resolute desk, inside the Oval Office with this idea weighing heavily in the air, and the president red faced and complaining loudly about the protests under way in Washington, D.C.,' Esper writes.... The book was vetted at the highest levels of the Pentagon. I'm told that as part of the clearance process, the book was reviewed in whole or in part by nearly three dozen 4-star generals, senior civilians, and some Cabinet members. Some of them had witnessed what Esper witnessed." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Adam Liptak of the New York Times: "The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that the city of Boston had violated the First Amendment when it refused to let a private group raise a Christian flag in front of its City Hall. One of the three flagpoles in front of the building, which ordinarily flies the flag of Boston, is occasionally made available to groups seeking to celebrate their backgrounds or to promote causes like gay pride. In a 12-year period, the city approved 284 requests for the third flag. It rejected only one, from Camp Constitution, which says it seeks 'to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage.' The group's application said it sought to raise a 'Christian flag' for one hour at an event that would include 'short speeches by some local clergy focusing on Bosto's history.' The flag bore the Latin cross." CNN's report is here. (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Ken Meyer of Mediaite: "NBC News announced that they had unearthed repeated acts of plagiarism in their reports, and they are taking steps to address it. NBC posted a public statement about the matter on Monday, explaining that 11 instances of improper sourcing were detected, and editor's notes have been attached to the stories involved.... NBC's statement does not identify the offending reporter, nor any repercussions they may have received. Mediaite heard from a source within NBC News, however, who confirmed the reporter is former politics writer Teaganne Finn, who is 'no longer with NBC News.'"
The New York Times' live updates of Covid-19 developments Tuesday are here: "Vice President Kamala Harris received a negative result on a rapid antigen test for the coronavirus on Monday, clearing her return to the White House on Tuesday, her office said."
Beyond the Beltway
New York. Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times: "With the balance of the House of Representatives at stake, national Democrats made an 11th-hour appeal to a federal court on Monday to intervene in New York's heated redistricting dispute, hoping to reinstate House maps thrown out by the state's highest court last week. In a 17-page complaint, they argued that there simply was not enough time to implement the order from the State Court of Appeals for new district lines and still comply with a longstanding federal court order meant to protect the rights of Americans casting ballots from overseas. The Democrats asked a panel of federal judges to exercise its authority to effectively block the state court from enforcing its decision, and instead require New York to hold this year's elections in late June, as originally scheduled, on the map adopted by the Democrat-dominated Legislature."
New York. Grace Ashford of the New York Times: "Brian A. Benjamin, the former New York lieutenant governor who resigned after being indicted on federal bribery charges, will no longer appear on the state Democratic primary ballot after legislation passed on Monday made it possible to remove him. The measure is widely regarded as an accommodation to Gov. Kathy Hochul, who had publicly appealed to Democratic leaders of the Assembly and Senate to change the law, after other efforts to remove Mr. Benjamin from the ballot had stalled. The bill passed by the Senate and Assembly will allow candidates who have been arrested or charged with a misdemeanor or felony after being nominated to be removed from the ballot if they do not intend to serve. Ms. Hochul is expected to sign the bill into law shortly. Mr. Benjamin released a statement on Twitter Monday, saying that he would sign the necessary paperwork to remove his name from the ballot."
Ohio Senate Race. Trump Can't Recall Whom He Endorsed. Martin Pengelly of the Guardian: "Speaking at a rally two days ahead of voting in a heated Republican Senate primary in Ohio, Donald Trump appeared to forget the name of JD Vance, the candidate he has endorsed.... Trump said: 'We've endorsed -- JP, right? JD Mandel, and he's doing great. They're all doing good. They're all doing good. And let's see what happens.' Trump appeared to be confusing JD Vance, a former US marine, author of the bestseller Hillbilly Elegy and venture capitalist, with Josh Mandel, a rival who courted Trump for the endorsement." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Pennsylvania. Jesus Jiménez of the New York Times: "A Philadelphia police officer who was fired after he fatally shot a 12-year-old boy in the back in March has been charged with murder in connection with the shooting, the authorities said Monday. A spokesman for the Philadelphia Police Department confirmed that the former officer, Edsaul Mendoza, was arrested on Sunday. At a news conference on Monday, Larry Krasner, the district attorney of Philadelphia, said that Mr. Mendoza had been charged with first-degree murder and other charges. He was being held without bail, Mr. Krasner said. The boy, Thomas Siderio, was fatally shot on March 1 in the city's Girard Estates neighborhood...." (Also linked yesterday afternoon.)
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (25)
Well, let me be the first to agree that, with that POS Alito's leaked opinion, we women have lost our right to an abortion. I want all people with unwanted pregnancies to have their babies in Samuel's front yard, and to leave them in his mailbox. This is handmaiden stuff. Next: contraception, public schools, libraries, and gay marriage. I think you are right in saying that this shocking turn of events puts us in a category we have never been in before. It is cruel and indifferent to women's lives...when I think of these people, I picture those ghouls gathered around Mitch any time he speaks. They look like spectres of death, and indeed, they are. I am so angry, so pissed, and I don't know what to do with my outrage. It isn't possible to live peacefully any more. I wrote a note to Susan Collins, thanking her again for her vote for Bart O'Beer. My hatred now has no boundaries. I despise the right and all the religious fanatics forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. Life just goes on being unfair, but never in my lifetime has it been quite so nasty. How many women are going to die at the hands of the angry men who murder them, for refusing to have sex with them for fear of unwanted pregnancy?? And the ruined lives, families, and women themselves... We no longer have to wonder what the SC monsters think of women.
Great Scott! Another dreaded SCOTUS decision brought to us by Mitch and the Pretender.
I'm not sure Alito has considered how much more quickly his opinion will hasten the demise of the white ruling class he thinks he represents.
But maybe that's what his god wants.
Don't think it's just my recent birthday that makes me feel so old and tired tonight.
Cruelty is their god.
For some time I expected the court to come up with some excuse to throw the possibility of and responsibility for authorizing an abortion back to the states, but this, a complete totalitarian stoppage, based on, on what, religious grounds? So, a totalitarian theocracy.
You know their black, withered little hearts have been craving this moment for years, the ability to stick it to the libs, to put uppity women back in their place, to let their innate cruelty run wild in the streets and smirk at being able to call the whole infamous theft of rights “constitutional”.
This is the same sort of cruelty that spawned the Sandy Hook denialism, the same brand of authoritarian overreach creating the conditions for electoral theft.
And the fact that Hit Man Sam couches this fascistic power grab in Constitutional garb is the height of ignominy considering these wretched theocrats have had their number increased because of the outrageously unconstitutional actions of the Party of Traitors, a historical low point in the nation’s history. Note, I don’t say “our nation” because they want no part of a nation that observes rights they do not authorize.
After they shiv Roe, I don’t think there’s a scintilla of doubt that they’ll be going after the rights of other Americans they hate, because they can, and because cruelty is their god.
This should jolt the voting population into revolution mode. Republican chicanery has made many states bulletproof to democracy, but national elections can still be overwhelmed by a surge at the polls. But it better happen soon, otherwise, this court may decide that democracy itself is too dangerous to their will to power to be allowed to continue.
This is not hyperbole.
Wonder what the pearl clutching both siders and the brainless undecideds will think now.
The light of democracy are dimmer than they’ve ever been. This court is burning to snuff it out permanently.
It’s begun.
Mitch is responsible…
Here’s something to consider. Roberts may not go along with this wholesale crushing of constitutional rights. Although he hasn’t always shown much concern for precedence and stare decisis, he is likely not the wild eyed hater that Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Thomas are.
This means that had Rape Boy not been allowed to slither onto the court, it would be (could be) 5-4 against Alito’s power grab.
This is all McConnell, now the most evil prick in American history.
Benedict Arnold, Aldrich Ames, the Rosenbergs? Pikers next to Mitch McConnell.
I would like to understand what Jamie Raskin said about parts of Alito's decision opening up the possibilities of limiting other established rights, such as contraception or gay marriage. He says the way Alito wrote it leaves the court able to throw out these rights. Who benefits from taking away constitutional guarantees from only one part of the population?
Emergency rooms will be overwhelmed by botched abortions, even
more so than in the past. "No more wire coat hangers." Who said that?
Protesters should start wearing body armor since trump's statement
"can't we just shoot them in the legs?"
@Victoria: Alito based his repeal opinion on the grounds that "the right to privacy," on which Roe rests, is a construction not mentioned in the Constitution, and therefore Roe was wrongly decided. Well, other important cases (and I assume lesser ones, too), have been predicated on the right to privacy. That includes Griswold (a precursor & model for Roe) (right to use contraception); Lawrence (right of gay couples of have sex) and Obergefell (right of gay couples to marry). I actually think that Obergefell stands a better chance of surviving as it's based also upon due process & equal protection. So maybe it will be okay for gay couples to marry but not have sex! Perfectly reasonable.
Re: privacy
Alito’s surly, puerile reasoning (the Constitution doesn’t say “privacy”, nyah, nyah!) overlooks the fact that privacy is indeed protected.
There is not supposed to be a religious test for holding office in this country because the first amendment guarantees the right to practice any religion or none at all. And even though the religious test idea is ignored by most on the right who demand to know if Democrats standing for office believe in Jesus, the most salient implication of freedom of religion is the right to keep it to yourself. That’s known as privacy, dumbass.
And then there’s this:
The right to privacy is also recognized as a basic human rights under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948. This document was drafted by a UN committee on human rights, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, prompted by the astonishing abuse of rights during the Second World War.
Naturally, wingers are not big on basic human rights. After all, their current leader sez that Nazis, whose horrific abuses were partially responsible for the Universal Human Rights Act, are good people.
As Lawrence also said last night: "We will now have 12 year old girls who have been inseminated by their fathers unable to have abortions."
When hearing the news last night I felt numb. I wish I could express myself like Jeanne, but it's as though a stone cold rock has stuck in my craw. Not being able to get an abortion when it was still illegal changed my life and its aftermath still sits somewhere in me and rises to the surface causing this ache that never quite diminishes. To understand that a constitutional right might be taken away by a ruling from a court of mostly men is what? Unconscionable? Crazy nuts? And Victoria's comment sits there naked and unanswered.
And the irony is, of course. as the NYT's reports, any of the states that would ban abortion also have the least social support for women and children, like robust access to family planning services or paid family leave, and have high levels of child poverty. Studies have found that being denied an abortion has economic effects that last years.
We have reached a pivotal point in this country in regards to women's rights–--Breed mares or freedom to choose. It really is that simple.
More interesting times ahead.
Victoria asks, " Who benefits from taking away constitutional guarantees from only one part of the population?"
That one is a little hard to figger..
Politically? Maybe those who rely on the so called right to life crowd to sustain them in power. But that crowd, as we all know is but a noisy minority, so can be relied on only as one element in a broader coalition. (Of course, if you can keep the wrong people from voting...)
Morally? It might benefit a Court and a Party that created its majority that have increasingly countenance and decriminalized, a variety of behaviors that were once thought to be wrong, even illegal. The requirements that make it nearly impossible to prove corruption come to mind, as do the Court's confusion of money with speech and corporations with people come to mind.
Think of the Alito opinion as a salve to Republican conscience. See? it says. You didn't think I didn't, but I/we do have limits.
Legally? I see no benefit to the law. It's a very tangled web Alito and his judicial ilk weave...The law is not the free for all we Federalists would have it to be by saying that all SCOTUS decisions have to be undergirded by explicit Constitutional language. The so-called right of privacy is not in the Constitution, so Roe has no basis.....So far, so good...
But those corporation things and AK-47s aren't mentioned in the Constitution either....oh, what, oh what to do?
So, logically? Marie also took care of that one. Alito's draft benefits everyone who has no interest in thinking straight. Once again, it affixes the nation's highest court's imprimatur to arrant nonsense.
In short, it's a very Republican decision...Whoever or whatever benefits, it's not the nation's majority, not logic, and certainly not the concept on which we're told the nation was founded: that it be a nation of laws, not of men.
I couldn't help but think about all the disingenuous whining about all the mental health problems for students by not having in-person classes. Now we have forced birth for those students (along with all the other women) that will have no options except bad options.
Just wondering if, in the wake of the Party of Traitors’ latest attack on women, Susan Collins is Comcerned™ about the fact that she approved two Trump “justices” who, she swore to us, acknowledged Roe as settled law and had no prior interest in killing it.
Thanks, Susie. You’re a peach. And either you’re a liar as well, or too gullible to negotiate a baseball card swap with a cagey 10 year old.
@Ken Winkes: I agree. The majority of Americans favor a woman's right to choose & to have easy access to reproductive health care in general. Moreover, women of reproductive age don't remember when the right to choose wasn't the law of the land, and the vast majority of their partners are, too. Alito's Law is going to drastically change sexual relations for couples of reproductive age as long as the decision remains in place. It's going to drastically change family life. Does a couple continue its "normal" sexual relationship or does the family demur in favor of ensuring that the wife can remain a breadwinner?
Republicans may be high-fiving today, but I think they're in for a big surprise when they notice that most American voters are not anti-abortion advocates or people who think sex is icky (because the part that's not about power is about prurience). Throughout the life of Roe, we have been living with the threat of its being repealed. We got so used to that that most people quit paying attention. Well, we're at the doorstep now & when we open that door, everybody will suddenly find himself looking into the abyss.
@Akhilleus: Susan Collins is indeed Concerned™. In light of the leaked Alito decision, Sen. Concerned™ has released a statement completely exonerating herself:
“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office. Obviously, we won’t know each Justice’s decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case.”
Ken,
Funny, innit, how the Right to Life Party loves the death penalty, unchecked weapons for all, and approves of moronic substitutions for public health mandates in the face of a deadly pandemic that has killed almost three quarters of a million Americans?
@Marie and Akhilleus
Kind of you two to respond politely to the mish-mashed opinion I typed this morning sans glasses.
Tho' hardly worth reading twice, here's what I meant to write.
More interesting times ahead.
Victoria asks, " Who benefits from taking away constitutional guarantees from only one part of the population?"
That one is a little hard to figger..
Politically? Maybe those who rely on the so-called right to life crowd to sustain them in power. But that crowd, as we all know is but a noisy minority, so can be relied on only as one element in a broader coalition. (Of course, if you can keep the wrong people from voting...)
Morally? It might benefit a Court and the Party that created its majority that have increasingly countenanced and decriminalized a variety of behaviors that were once thought to be wrong, even illegal. The requirements that make it nearly impossible to prove corruption and the Court's confusion of money with speech and corporations with people come to mind.
Think of the Alito opinion as a salve to Republican conscience. See? it says. You didn't think I did, but I/we do have some limits.
Legally? I see no benefit to the law. It's a very tangled web Alito and his judicial ilk weave...The law is not the free-for-all we pick and choose Federalists would have it to be by saying that all SCOTUS decisions have to be undergirded by explicit Constitutional language. The so-called right of privacy is not in the Constitution, so Roe has no basis.....So far, so good...
But those corporation things and AK-47s aren't mentioned in the Constitution either....oh, what, oh what to do?
So, logically? Marie also took care of that one. Alito's draft benefits everyone who has no interest in thinking straight. Once again, it affixes the nation's highest court's imprimatur to arrant nonsense.
In short, it's a very Republican decision...Whoever or whatever benefits, it's not the nation's majority, not logic, and certainly not the concept on which we're told the nation was founded: that it be a nation of laws, not of men...like Alito.
Marie,
Big surprise. Responsibility is not on the menu of any Republicans. That’s for Democrats.
Ha! Well. well––Susie says it weren't her, twas Gor-such and that other guy, who likes beer a-lot, who fooled her big time. Bless her sincerity along with her naivete –--how long has she been a senator? Wake up little Susie!
Akhilleus,
You were too kind--not just to me but to the R's.
We're now about 8000 shy of one million Covid deaths--and that with the likes of DeSantis counting..
Perhaps Alito, and the others, didn't consider that Antifa could muster an all-volunteer army of frustrated, horny incels to forcibly impregnate the teenage daughters of all Evangenital Pro-lifers, a la the Russian/Chechen soldiers in Ukraine.
Just wait for the tourism videos, "Are you a rapist looking to start a family or a father that just can't wait to be a grandfather and give your daughter another sibling, then come to our state."
"This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here."
So says Johnny...
I sez, "egregious?" Right word. Wrong application.
My initial reaction to the leak was the opposite of McConnell's. We know the Right and the forced birthers have been willing to commit violence in the past and all the Justices will know that too. So any Justice that has second thoughts will know they could be targeted for changing their mind. Guns and bombs are more frightening than signs and bullhorns.
It might turn out to be funny that CJ Roberts is launching a witch hunt for the leaker.
Marcy Wheeler has some thoughts:
"CNN’s report suggests this leak more likely came from Roberts’ chambers than the most likely other source, Stephen Breyer’s. The most logical explanation for the leak is that Roberts is trying to get his colleagues to adopt a less radical opinion. And if that’s the purpose, it might have the desired effect, both by making it clear what a shit-show the original Alito opinion will set off, but also by exposing the opinion itself to the ridicule and contempt it, as written, deserves."
Would that make him a warlock?
I just started to read the Alito draft, and in the first paragraph read a juxtaposition that probably says much about the drafter. This is the excerpt:
"... Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman's right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. ... "
Rephrasing: "Some people oppose murder; others are feminists."
Logically, if you lead with "one side says abortion kills people", the counter position is "those are not yet people." It is not "The other side is uppity."
But since no one can say when "people" start, in the past "viability" seemed to be a reasonable place to limit the absolute right of the woman. And the case in question (Dobbs v. JWHO) is actually about where that limit could be set by law. But so what, drafts Alito? Instead of addressing the actual issue, he starts off the Opinion with a recap of decades of anti-abortion talking points, and just uses those to assert the correctness of the "abortion is murder" argument.
Although the opinion will say that states get to decide, if you believe that a fertilized egg is a human, with a soul, you will not leave it to any state to decide that murder is OK within its borders. The next phase will be like the slavery/abolition argument, no room for compromise.
BTW. If you are a fundamentalist, and if you believe in predestination and humanity at conception, why is it bad to send a (predestined) soul to heaven forthwith, rather than have to suffer through a human lifetime? If you are saved by grace alone, why subject another to the risk of an unhappy life when you can ensure the zygote a happy eternity just by taking a pill? I'm sure this has been discussed at many sophomore overnights at Liberty U. I am not being facetious.