Abortion, abortion pill, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, Civil war, Dobbs, DOJ, Elizabeth Warren, Jackie Spier, joe biden, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Maxine Waters, Merrick Garland, Roe v. Wade, secession, stare decisis, The Constitution, the Supreme Court, Tim Ryan, What's a woman?
I’ll not be taking any victory laps, other than for the Constitution, the rule of law and potentially the restoration of federalism. Let us, gentle readers, allow attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline, to explain:
No one seriously defends Roe v. Wade. When it was decided, it was greeted mostly with shock. A poll of law professors found, as I recall, that 85% thought it was wrong. Roe was decided in large part on the basis of an understanding of pregnancy that was refuted by subsequent scientific developments. By the time of the Casey decision, no one could defend the logic of Roe, and the court did not attempt to do so. There is no intellectually serious argument in favor of Roe.
Let’s be clear: abortion is not banned. The Dobbs decision returned this area of law to the states, as the Constitution has always required. It is going to take several years for the legal dust to settle. I suspect we’ll eventually, in virtually every state, end up with laws that allow abortion until fetal viability, with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother thereafter. Women who want abortions will be able to obtain them—particularly with the post-Roe advent of the abortion pill–but will have to make such decisions relatively more rapidly than in the place. More from Hinderaker:
We have all gotten used to the idea that the federal courts exist not only to apply the written documents that define their authority, the Constitution and federal statutes, but to apply their own policy judgment when they think Congress or a state legislature has gone badly awry. In the last sixty years, at least, the Supreme Court has used this supposed power to act as a liberal super-legislature, imposing doctrines that couldn’t pass Congress or various legislatures. Thomas wants all of this to end: no more made-up ‘rights,’ only a fair interpretation of what the written documents actually say. If you don’t like what they say, you can undertake to amend them. This is known as the rule of law, and it is anathema to the Democratic Party.
This, gentle readers, is a fundamental difference between Normal Americans and Democrats/Socialist/Communists. Normal Americans respect the separation of powers. The Courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, exist to apply the law and to determine if it is in harmony with the Constitution. Courts have no power to substitute their policy preferences for the law. D/S/Cs want courts to do just that, but only if those policy preferences are their own. They see the Supreme Court as a super legislature, which will give them the laws they want, but can’t obtain through the legitimate legislative process. This is why D/S/Cs want to pack the Supreme Court. This is why they say things like this:
It’s also why they argue the Justices should “look like America,” and why Joe Biden chose a justice based on gender and skin color.
Presumably, Ketanji Brown Jackson, like pretty much every other D/S/C, has experienced a sudden revelation of what a woman is. It’s why D/S/C legislators say things like this:
Once again, the Supreme Court did not legislate. It banned nothing; it mandated nothing. It returned the decision to the states, where citizens are far closer to their elected representatives than they are to DC politicians. And of course, D/S/Cs engage in ritual projection:
During an interview on MSNBC on Friday, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said she thinks that the Supreme Court ‘tipped off’ pro-life protestors about how it was going to rule in the Dobbs decision. Because when she went over to the Supreme Court, there were only pro-life protestors. She later admitted, ‘I don’t have any evidence’ for the claim the court tipped off pro-life protestors.
Evidence? We don’ need no stinking evidence!
A variety of D/S/Cs–and “experts”–are complaining fewer abortions will further wreck the economy in general, while providing President Biden with another explanation, though one lawmaker threw out the baby with the formula:
On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s ‘Hallie Jackson Reports,’ Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said that we’re talking about outlawing abortion ‘in a country that does not have paid leave, that does not have child care, on the heels of a baby formula shortage.’
Hmmm. The Biden Meat Puppet Administration is forcing gas prices to run amok to force Americans to buy electric vehicles. Are they making baby formula scarce to preserve the maximum number of abortions? That’s Rep. Pressley’s logic, gentle readers, not mine.
And of course, when D/S/Cs don’t get their way, they resort to violence. This is a “movement” perpetually aggrieved and enraged. Whatever the provocation, or merely the existence of opposing opinion, they are ready to burn the country down, and increasingly, “kill them all!” Examples: A “pro-abortion mob” attacked the Arizona Capitol Building:
There were obligatory attempts at violence at the Supreme Court Building:
And of course, in Seattle:
In Los Angeles:
In New York City:
There were also incidents of property damage and arson throughout the country. Andrea Widburg at The American Thinker thinks D/S/Cs are provoking an actual insurrection:
Angered that the Supreme Court announced in Dobbs that abortion is not part of the Constitution but is, instead, a matter for the states to decide, a lot of leftists are announcing that they’re ready to burn down the entire American system rather than yield to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Leading the charge are sitting members of Congress, people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxine Waters. What they are demanding, and an army of activists is agreeing to do, is a classic insurrection.
What’s that you say? Widburg is sounding like the January 6 Committee? Let’s look at a little of the evidence. Exhibit 1:
I could provide an essentially endless list of this kind of violent lunacy, and all within a day of the release of the Dobbs decision. Granted, most making explicit threats will not carry them out, but they are illegal under federal law, and many state statutes, which, if those responsible for enforcing the law refuse to prosecute, the greatest danger lies, as Professor Jacobson explains at Legal Insurrection:
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:
‘Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.
‘The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.
The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.’
This is a blatantly political statement. D/S/Cs are more than happy to see that “key pillar of the rule of law” destroyed when it adheres to their political whims. Should they seize a Supreme Court majority, they would gladly demolish stare decisis as it applies to the Second Amendment. Stare decisis means the Court should give considerable weight to its own precedents, but it does not prevent the Court from acting when that precedent is faulty. Garland didn’t stop there:
‘The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.
Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.’ The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services.
And has a single clinic been burned? Anyone assaulted?
‘And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care. In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.’
Mifepristone is commonly called the “abortion pill.”
‘Furthermore, federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law. And federal employees who carry out their duties by providing such services must be allowed to do so free from the threat of liability. It is the Department’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that federal employees engaging in such conduct would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law. The Justice Department is prepared to assist agencies in resolving any questions about the scope of their authority to provide reproductive care.
“The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.’
Prof. Jacobson notes:
DOJ is not vowing to violate the law. But it is vowing to use its prosecutorial and investigative power to limit the Supreme Court rulings. That’s a political function. DOJ is just another political player.
President Biden also weighed in:
‘Today, is, uh, it’s not hyperbole to suggest a very somber moment,’ Biden began, as he claimed that ‘today the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized.’ He continued to double down on his disappointment, calling it ‘a sad day for the Court and for the country.’
‘This landmark case,’ Biden said, ‘protected a woman’s right to choose, her right to make intensely personal decisions with her doctor, free from interference of politics. It reaffirmed basic principles of equality, that women have the power to control their own destiny, and it reinforced a fundamental right of privacy.’
Biden also called for no violence or intimidation from protestors, but that’s closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. As I noted in Bruen: The Constitution Prevails? President Biden and AG Garland also expressed their political intentions regarding the Court’s Second Amendment decision in Bruen.
This is incredibly dangerous because the Administration has a consistent history of not enforcing the law against “protestors” who support their political aims, and of issuing the weakest comments about their crimes, when they comment at all. The President and Attorney General are members of the executive branch, responsible for enforcing the law. When they make clear their intentions not to enforce the law, particularly when they have a history of refusing to prosecute clear violations of federal law, they encourage and abet lawlessness, even insurrection. Will Garland prosecute this leftist lunatic?
D/S/Cs see abortion, like the Jan. 6 Committee, as an issue that could help them avoid electoral disaster at the mid terms, and perhaps, in 2024. That seems unlikely, as The Washington Examiner reports:
Abortion, the No. 1 concern in today’s media and politics, ranks nearly dead last among areas voters care about as they struggle with paying daily bills, soaring inflation, and interest rate hikes, according to a just-released survey.
While the Supreme Court’s decision overruling the 1973 Roe v. Wade right to abortion has dominated today’s network and cable coverage, the latest McLaughlin & Associates poll said just 5% of voters call it a top concern.
Just below abortion, at 1%, is reviewing the 2020 election, over which the media are also obsessing.
Final Thoughts: the Supreme Court has, to the rage of D/S/Cs, done its constitutionally mandated job. We can expect the DOJ to avoid charging any pro-abortion protestor, regardless of their crimes. That’s the status quo in the Biden/Garland DOJ, which seems almost entirely weaponized against Normal Americans. However, I suspect the violent rage of the last 48 hours will mostly falter. There will be the occasional vandalism and arson, because Antifa and BLM thugs like that sort of thing, but with this issue, there really isn’t an excuse for massive looting and destruction of cities.
The greatest danger remains in our federal government refusing to equally apply the rule of law. The worst example of that is its refusal to arrest and prosecute thugs threatening Supreme Court Justices at their homes, despite a very specific federal statute outlawing that conduct. That refusal could easily encourage more such threats, but at the homes of state legislators and judges across America, which seems to be the intention. On that path lies secession, even civil war.
UPDATE, 06-27-22, 1200 MT: Fox News reports on the latest arson:
A historic Catholic Church in West Virginia burned to the ground this weekend, and police are now investigating the incident as arson.
St. Colman Catholic Church was already a smoldering ruin when firefighters from the Beaver Volunteer Fire Department arrived to the scene Sunday morning. The church was built in 1878 and was declared an official historical site in 1984.
I’m sure this was just a coincidence and has nothing to do with D/S/C pro-abortion violence.
There goes the false equivalency again.
But besides that… why is it ok for abortion to be a states rights issue and not the earlier decision on conceal & carry being left to the states? Where does it say in the constitution that there’s any right to self-defense with a firearm? It doesn’t because it was entirely a SCOTUS interpretation. The Declaration is NOT law of the land.. nor is The Federalist Papers.
Alan Booth said:
Doug: I’ll go slowly so you can understand.
First – the Constitution is the law of the land. Get over it.
The right to self defense is the very foundation of the Second Amendment. I have been studying this for far longer than you have, along the way graduating from law school and practicing law for 23 years. The right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged, not created, by the Second Amendment. The two seminal cases prior to Bruen, Heller and MacDonald, apply the principles of the Second Amendment to the states and also apply to the carrying of guns outside the home. Bruen merely but distinctly advises the few states remaining that the right is not one subject to a bureaucrat’s subjective opinion on the “need” to arm one’s self. Otherwise, the reasonable requirements to obtain a carry permit are permissible.
There are now 25 states that have some form of what is known as Constitutional Carry, usually meaning there is no need for a carry permit at all. In total, there are only 6 states that operate under the “may issue” system.
The abortion debate has continued because there is no constitutional right to abortion. Even the left’s previously saintly Justice Ginsberg acknowledged the Roe decision was wrong – not necessarily in its principle, but creation from whole cloth. The following decision in Casey was the current law of the land, until the latest. Do yourself (and those of us who have to read your blather) and actually read the decisions completely. If you need the links to the .pdfs of the cases, I will be happy to provide them.
I’m sorry.. the Declaration is the law of the land? When did that happen? I thought it was a document meant to separate the colonies from England… a mandate for independence… not law of governance. Get a grip. No one is gonna take your gun.
Mike McDaniel said:
The Second Amendment is an express, unalienable right. It is spelled out in clear English in the Bill of Rights, and as an unalienable right, it preexisted the Constitution. Government cannot grant it, nor can it take it away.
Even honest leftist legal scholar have admitted from the beginning there is no right to abortion in the Constitution. It is not an express right, it is not so much as implied. None of them, however, was sufficiently honest to suggest it should be overturned as it was a favored political policy.
That which is not in the Constitution is the province of the states. That’s in the Constitution.
No false equivalency, merely a false assertion of such on your part.
Well, I never said abortion was even mentioned in the Constitution. Just citing the double-standard that any “right” to self-defense is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution either. My point is.. SCOTUS does what SCOTUS does.. obviously in spite of majority public opinion, which is a good thing IF we presume they are holding to interpret the law as legal jurists and NOT politics. But wasn’t that the whole point in Trump tossing three Conservatives in there.. for political influence? Of course.
Doug have you read the constitution? Abortion is not mentioned anywhere. The 2nd amendment, on the other hand, is explicit. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
What part of “an organized militia” to you not understand? No one will win this pissing match. But to be explicit in my own opinion.. which we all know matters as little as everyone else’s… I think the Second should be re-written to be more specific in the right to bear arms. But we all know that will never happen.
Mike, have you noticed the D/S/C’s always say reproductive health? Past a certain point it’s simply murder most foul.
Well.. consider this, Phil… the most important decision a woman can make in her life.. and the states can make it for her.
Mike McDaniel said:
No. The representatives she elects make the law. That’s in the Constitution too, which guarantees to the citizens of each state a Republican form of government.
Uh.. in the end.. the state makes the decision for her. Would you rather I said.. the state government makes it for her? Let’s even make it sound that much more… morally suspect…. a collective will of the people of her state makes the choice for her. No matter how you wrap it… decision not made by woman it concerns. Other people are making it.
And thinking on that… while you are relishing the representative form of government we have… why would anyone be afraid of “government” taking their guns.. when in fact our government is of the people, by the people. You afraid of the “wrong” people will dominate our representative government and vote to take your guns?
Mike McDaniel said:
I’m unsure why you profess not to understand the basis of the Constitution. Express rights, particularly are off the legislative table. Government doesn’t get to infringe on or ignore them.
And I don’t happen to interpret the 2nd as broadly as you (or SCOTUS) does. The 2nd certainly doesn’t express anything inalienable about personal self-defense outside of a militia. But.. with conceal & carry the SCOTUS giveth, and with abortion SCOTUS taketh away. Now… given your affinity for thinking government (in whatever form you wish to use) is about ready to take your guns, you might give a second thought to what SCOTUS just did… yanked a 50 year established national law off the books and sent it to the states…. which of course will judge according to their individual politics. Kinda scary.
Mike McDaniel said:
Fortunately, the Supreme Court’s interpretation rules.
That it does… fortunately or not.
Be careful what you wish for.
Mike McDaniel said:
As I keep saying, I wish for everyone to honor the Constitution and support the rule of law. Apparently, that’s too hard.
Doug, terminating a pregnancy somewhere after the first trimester is not a decision, it’s murder. Men and women are not the same. There is simply no excuse for getting pregnant today if you don’t want to. BTW, I have two daughters and have plenty of skin in the game.
Phil… no question on setting term-limits. Seems to me if you haven’t made some decision sooner then that ship has passed and you’re in to the end. Like many, I’m pro-choice but certainly not pro-abortion. I work in a county CPS facility and I see everyday where people may have the anatomy to reproduce but that does NOT mean they should. This ruling is going to force that many more into the child abuse system in the long run and the system is already taxed. Speaking of which, the tax burden for supporting the additional welfare expense is going to increase over all this.
But since you mentioned…
“There is simply no excuse for getting pregnant today if you don’t want to.”
…that opens up the human side to all this. There may be no excuse but the foremost excuse is that humans seldom act rationally in all situations.. as I am sure you are aware. My approach to all this has been one of determining the causal effects.. the reasons.. in data collection… as to what makes a woman decide on abortion in the first place, because that will still exist in spite of SCOTUS.
I seldom point anyone from in this blog to any of my posts given the obvious disinterest they would have…. but a couple weeks back before the decision I made a two-parter explaining just this concept of solving the problem without all the damn emotion. It’s here if interested…
Part 1 will lead you to part 2.
Doug, thank you for your reasoned response. From what I remember, most of your arguments were made back in the early 80’s when “safe, legal, and rare” was the intent. However, it did not stay that way. Now women will use abortion as lazy birth control. But it is not a federal matter. Each state needs to handle this issue on its own. Those that handle it poorly will pay the price one way or the other. Perhaps they will learn the error of their ways.
I have friend who is a neonatologist at the level 1 trauma center here. She routinely sees 12 year old hispanic girls delivering one pound babies. The babies simply don’t survive – they are not big enough. Clearly, these girls should not have been having sex in the first place. Some safety net for them needs to be in place. But again, it’s state or local matter, not a federal one.
Mike McDaniel said:
That was indeed the past D/S/C approach, but it has evolved to the point they are now arguing for post-birth abortion: infanticide. Even the past governor of Virginia did that. That’s why there is no having a “conversation” with such people. They don’t want to persuade the public, they want the public to shut up and do what they want, and if they don’t they want to intimidate, cancel, dox and even kill them.
Mike, off subject, but something I’ll know you’ll find interesting. The California State Attorney General, has ordered all counties to switch from may issue to shall issue. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s website states they are overwhelmed by the number of CCW applications but will process as soon as possible. How about that?
Mike McDaniel said:
Not a surprise. What we can expect however, and what is already being reported, is local jurisdictions doing everything they can to slow the process and make it as cumbersome as possible for citizens. That’s assuming CA intends to obey the law.
I suspect, at some point in the near future, constitutional carry will be brought before SCOTUS. After all, why should we need any permission to carry if we fall within the rules?
Mike McDaniel said:
I suspect magazine and AR-15 bans will be decided first.
Pingback: The Second Civil War #32: Is America Final? | Stately McDaniel Manor