"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?
Uh, if any one them didn't have a problem with 3 white Christians being appointed during Trump, yeah, I have a problem with them as well, but that wasn't the question they were asked or whether they had an issue with the last 3 appointees. You can be upset about all of them, none of them or some of them. I understand the fact that some people wanted Biden not to say the quiet part out loud, but he did. He specifically named the race and gender he intended to put on the bench based on the qualifications. I guess if Trump spoke the quiet part out loud (aka I want 3 bible bangers who will possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and at least 1 partisan beer swilling frat boy) that wouldn't have been a good look so he pretended the position was open for all qualified candidates. Bullshit. I thought the Trump humpers loved to tout his "No More Bullshit" mentality, but that's hogwash.
Making a campaign promise to nominate someone based on race and gender is wrong, whether or not Bidens predecessor was horrific. Blacks will now be over represented on the Court, and Biden is now adding to the Trump trend of replacing Jews on the court, but unlike Biden, I am not judging based on demographics. Ironic, considering what happened a few years ago in Charlottesville.
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?
Uh, if any one them didn't have a problem with 3 white Christians being appointed during Trump, yeah, I have a problem with them as well, but that wasn't the question they were asked or whether they had an issue with the last 3 appointees. You can be upset about all of them, none of them or some of them. I understand the fact that some people wanted Biden not to say the quiet part out loud, but he did. He specifically named the race and gender he intended to put on the bench based on the qualifications. I guess if Trump spoke the quiet part out loud (aka I want 3 bible bangers who will possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and at least 1 partisan beer swilling frat boy) that wouldn't have been a good look so he pretended the position was open for all qualified candidates. Bullshit. I thought the Trump humpers loved to tout his "No More Bullshit" mentality, but that's hogwash.
Making a campaign promise to nominate someone based on race and gender is wrong, whether or not Bidens predecessor was horrific. Blacks will now be over represented on the Court, and Biden is now adding to the Trump trend of replacing Jews on the court, but unlike Biden, I am not judging based on demographics. Ironic, considering what happened a few years ago in Charlottesville.
Why?
Of the 113 Supreme Court justices in US history, all but 6 have been white men
"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.
we cannot have that with 9 justices.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.
Yeah but the sky is blue!
See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?
Uh, if any one them didn't have a problem with 3 white Christians being appointed during Trump, yeah, I have a problem with them as well, but that wasn't the question they were asked or whether they had an issue with the last 3 appointees. You can be upset about all of them, none of them or some of them. I understand the fact that some people wanted Biden not to say the quiet part out loud, but he did. He specifically named the race and gender he intended to put on the bench based on the qualifications. I guess if Trump spoke the quiet part out loud (aka I want 3 bible bangers who will possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and at least 1 partisan beer swilling frat boy) that wouldn't have been a good look so he pretended the position was open for all qualified candidates. Bullshit. I thought the Trump humpers loved to tout his "No More Bullshit" mentality, but that's hogwash.
Making a campaign promise to nominate someone based on race and gender is wrong, whether or not Bidens predecessor was horrific. Blacks will now be over represented on the Court, and Biden is now adding to the Trump trend of replacing Jews on the court, but unlike Biden, I am not judging based on demographics. Ironic, considering what happened a few years ago in Charlottesville.
I can't tell if you're serious about "blacks will now be over represented on the Court".
Kind of funny that folks are upset that President Biden announced on the campaign trail and as POTUS that he would name a yet to be announced qualified black woman to SCOTUS but didn’t bat an eye and nary a peep when POOTWH released a list of specific names of candidates, inclusive of sitting Senators. But hey, Biden is POTUS now and we’re not allowed to compare and contrast the current with the past. That said, I don’t see too many Asians on POOTWH’s list. Damn you Brandon!
Kind of funny that folks are upset that President Biden announced on the campaign trail and as POTUS that he would name a yet to be announced qualified black woman to SCOTUS but didn’t bat an eye and nary a peep when POOTWH released a list of specific names of candidates, inclusive of sitting Senators. But hey, Biden is POTUS now and we’re not allowed to compare and contrast the current with the past. That said, I don’t see too many Asians on POOTWH’s list. Damn you Brandon!
Kind of funny that folks are upset that President Biden announced on the campaign trail and as POTUS that he would name a yet to be announced qualified black woman to SCOTUS but didn’t bat an eye and nary a peep when POOTWH released a list of specific names of candidates, inclusive of sitting Senators. But hey, Biden is POTUS now and we’re not allowed to compare and contrast the current with the past. That said, I don’t see too many Asians on POOTWH’s list. Damn you Brandon!
Trump's list is more racially diverse than Biden's list.
But what about all the other qualified candidates not on the list? POOTWH discriminated against the qualified. Ted Crud made the list. Why??? What were his qualifications? I’d fathom he’s not. What a mockery of the SC as an institution, particularly when you include Tom “I’m a Warrior, Hear Me Roar” Cotton and Josh Hee Hawley. But heaven forbid a qualified Black woman be honestly considered. Oh the horror.
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
"...though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
"...though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.”
Yeah, I guess they need to clearly state that since it's a government building in the US and since the US government was founded upon the idea of keeping the church and state separate, religious flags and other religious symbols are henceforth forbidden from being displayed on the premises.
Because the SCOTUS are bunch of careless zealots that now require a municipality to waste time and tax dollars to write such a footnote in Ye Olde Book of Duh. It's concerning that they even took their time with such a bullshit culture war case.
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
It was a 9-0 ruling. I don’t think there is an agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, but they looked at the specific facts of the case and ruled appropriately. I find it hard to believe that the liberal judges would be part of this agenda.
I am stoked that there is a 9-0 ruling. I get that the SC only sees the gray area cases, but the 5-4 votes are the ones that bother me the most. It just seems like it is less about application of the law at that point and more about personal beliefs.
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
It was a 9-0 ruling. I don’t think there is an agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, but they looked at the specific facts of the case and ruled appropriately. I find it hard to believe that the liberal judges would be part of this agenda.
I am stoked that there is a 9-0 ruling. I get that the SC only sees the gray area cases, but the 5-4 votes are the ones that bother me the most. It just seems like it is less about application of the law at that point and more about personal beliefs.
There's been a long-running agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, and the fact that the SCOTUS even took the time, effort, and taxpayer dollars to rule on such a ludicrous nothing of a case signals to me that they are now on board with that agenda. Unanimously, I might add.
Make it reciprocal, and tax the fuck out of houses of worship!
Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.
Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?
Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.
Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.
This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.
I'm not supporting the leak but I'm not exactly sure why I'm supposed to be outraged either. I'm for more concerned with the decision.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?
I've considered this a lot, but apparently only democrats have an issue getting behind a candidate they aren't fond of. I mean, the R's stuck together and went all in fucking crazy on DT and defend him publicly all the time, still to this day.
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?
I've considered this a lot, but apparently only democrats have an issue getting behind a candidate they aren't fond of. I mean, the R's stuck together and went all in fucking crazy on DT and defend him publicly all the time, still to this day.
Well, now they love him.
I think the Dems really misread the impact of how hated Hillary had been and for how long. From the day Bill become a household name. Granted, the Dems didn't have a deep bench (and still don't) but she just rubbed so many people the wrong way...often for bad reasons or even no reason, but still. The third-party people would have happened either way but I think she really hurt with the semi-engaged middle. Trump may have scared some of them into voting for her, but she was definitely not the type of candidate who was going to win people that have histories of voting for both parties or spotty histories of voting at all. It was hard to lose to Trump. But they found a way.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?
I've considered this a lot, but apparently only democrats have an issue getting behind a candidate they aren't fond of. I mean, the R's stuck together and went all in fucking crazy on DT and defend him publicly all the time, still to this day.
Well, now they love him.
I think the Dems really misread the impact of how hated Hillary had been and for how long. From the day Bill become a household name. Granted, the Dems didn't have a deep bench (and still don't) but she just rubbed so many people the wrong way...often for bad reasons or even no reason, but still. The third-party people would have happened either way but I think she really hurt with the semi-engaged middle. Trump may have scared some of them into voting for her, but she was definitely not the type of candidate who was going to win people that have histories of voting for both parties or spotty histories of voting at all. It was hard to lose to Trump. But they found a way.
I dont think Parties need a bench. Trump was never on any bench. He was the true wildcard of politics.
Blaming the DNC may be silly. Blame the voters on the left who “need to fall in love” and give credit to the party who “falls in line.”
general note, voters for a second should not believe 60 to 70% support pro choice. Women did not support a woman candidate in 2016 so here we are. At least while women.
Or blame the DNC for pushing Hillary who was unpopular with most people who had a pulse?
Bernie lost fair and square primaries to Hillary and Biden. So being a sore loser seems to run par for the course. This culture of being a sore loser runs deep in the far left, as they boycotted and protest voted our nation into overturning Roe v Wade. I guess that showed the Democrats, as the far left cut off their nose to spite their face.
The bottom line is if Al Gore and Hillary Clinton picked those justices, Roe v Wade would not be overturned by the SCOTUS. But instead we got stuck with GW Bush and Trump justices who are ideologically bent on overturning it, and lied their way into a position to do so. This is not the fault of the establishment Democrats. This is the fault of those that decided to spite the establishment on the far left, and were probably manipulated by Russian trolls on social media just like the Trumpers.
Had Al Gore and Hillary Clinton picked those justices, we would not be having this conversation. We cannot move forward to build a stronger social safety net when the far left have empowered the far right to where they control the courts and are now chipping away at established rights moving us backwards.
Until the far left admits their mistakes rather than doubling down on them, the overturning of Roe v Wade is just the beginning of the oppressive GOP state we will one day live under.
If the draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito disclosed by POLITICO Monday night is any guide, the constitutional right to abortion has only a few days or weeks left to go. The most conservative majority of the Supreme Court that was, already a decade ago, arguably the “most conservative in modern history” has singled out Roe for excoriation and oblivion. But what marked out Roe to this fate, and not many other decisions? It is not the reasons provided in the draft Alito opinion: The explanation for Roe’s demise is to be found not in law, per se, but in the court’s entanglement in our pernicious moment of partisan hyperpolarization and the Republican Party’s inextricable link to anti-abortion politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts has acknowledged the document is authentic, and its style certainly suggests it is indeed by Alito. So, how does his rationale for overturning Roe stack up as a justification for a large, and likely convulsive, change in American society? The reasons flagged by the draft opinion fall painfully short. In fact, their profound weakness highlights precisely why Roe and abortion rights have been singled out. Go down the list of contentious legal questions, and it quickly becomes clear that conservatives do not follow Alito’s approach anywhere else besides Roe.
For instance, the draft majority opinion spills a good deal of ink on the history of abortion regulation in England and the United States (skimming over, as it does it, the considerable periods in which abortion was left to the free choice of women). But precisely this kind of appeal to a history of close regulation can be made in respect to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. As the legal scholars Reva Siegel and Joseph Blocher documented in extensive detail, there is a “centuries” old tradition of common law rules regulating weapons, especially when they are carried into the public sphere. This has not stopped the conservative justices from creating a novel individual right to bear arms and extending that right against both the federal and the state governments.
Next, the Alito opinion spends a good deal of energy shellacking the reasoning of Justice Harry Blackmun’s 1972 opinion in Roe v. Wade. The opinion, says Alito, is “hard to defend” and “egregiously wrong.” But by the very standards that Alito himself brings to bear, there are many opinions that are so “egregiously wrong” that they should be chucked out. And yet they awake nary a peek from our most conservative of courts.
To see this, it is helpful to see why Alito says Roe is wrong. The core of Alito’s argument is the idea that the Roe Court defined the “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment at too high, and too abstract, a level of generality. It is, in other words, unanchored from the text of the Constitution. But let’s say we took seriously the idea that the court should avoid readings of the Constitution pitched at too high a level of generality, and not anchored in the text of the Constitution. What else would have to go?
The first thing to go would be the Roberts Court’s rulings on the so-called removal power of the president to oust agency heads, which has been used to attack the regulatory state. Next to go would be the court’s rulings that an ambient, unwritten principle of “state sovereign immunity” precludes all sorts of damages claims against the federal government. This despite the fact no such principle is mentioned in the Constitution. Ironically, Alito himself authored one such opinion almost exactly a decade ago. And third, consider all of the court’s campaign finance opinions: They interpret the word “speech” in the First Amendment at a highly abstract level to sweep in not just speaking but spending — a sleight of hand that would have seemed absurd in 1791.
Is the Supreme Court about to throw out its campaign finance jurisprudence, its special solicitude for the government’s purse, or raw presidential power? Don’t get your hopes up.
There’s more, but it’s embarrassing in its meagerness. Abortion, Alito says by way of example, is just different from other fundamental rights — including the right to marry and the right against involuntary sterilization — because it raises a “critical moral question.” The suggestion here is that miscegenation laws and state eugenics programs raise no “critical” moral issue. This is worse than absurd; it’s morally obscene.
The reasons Alito himself gives, in short, for singling out Roe cannot explain the decision to overrule that case. All apply equally to opinions that Alito and colleagues have embraced and enforced with vigor.
So what then is going on? The answer is embarrassingly clear. When Alito cautions against the injection of the justices’ own “ardent views” into the law, he skips over a fateful step. The problem with Roe and the draft Dobbs opinion alike is not that they are tainted with the tincture of the justices’ own views. Of course they are: Just notice Alito’s loaded pejorative talk of “abortionists” if you were doubtful on this score.
No, the problem is that the sole explanation for the disparate anger and disdain targeted at Roe is that that right to abortion has been the ardent target of key factions within the Republican Party for years. And the untimely death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg allowed former President Donald Trump to deploy judicial appointments to deliver Roe’s execution notice in late 2020. When Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed this out at oral argument in Dobbs, she was only stating what every single participant in the confirmation battles of the last several years well understood, and only the willfully blind could deny.
Indeed, what is striking about the modern Supreme Court is not so much that its members have “ardent views” but that those views reflect the immediate priorities of the Republican Party. Abortion, of course, is central to key religious elements of the Republican coalition, and thus an election issue of singular importance. But to make my point, a non-abortion example may be helpful: Until the Obama presidency, there was broad agreement among both liberal and conservative justices over the idea that courts should generally give federal regulatory agencies a great deal of leeway. But in 2016, the Republican National Committee included in its platform item an attack on such deference. In short order, the legal historian Craig Green has demonstrated, the attack was taken up by conservative think tanks, and then by conservative justices. On this issue, as on abortion, the arguments professed as law have nakedly partisan origins.
Comments
Of the 113 Supreme Court justices in US history, all but 6 have been white men
There have been 113 Supreme Court justices in history. Only 6 have been minorities - CNNPolitics
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://ballotpedia.org/Complete_list_of_Donald_Trump%27s_potential_nominees_to_the_U.S._Supreme_Court
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Because the SCOTUS are bunch of careless zealots that now require a municipality to waste time and tax dollars to write such a footnote in Ye Olde Book of Duh. It's concerning that they even took their time with such a bullshit culture war case.
Make it reciprocal, and tax the fuck out of houses of worship!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I think the Dems really misread the impact of how hated Hillary had been and for how long. From the day Bill become a household name. Granted, the Dems didn't have a deep bench (and still don't) but she just rubbed so many people the wrong way...often for bad reasons or even no reason, but still. The third-party people would have happened either way but I think she really hurt with the semi-engaged middle. Trump may have scared some of them into voting for her, but she was definitely not the type of candidate who was going to win people that have histories of voting for both parties or spotty histories of voting at all. It was hard to lose to Trump. But they found a way.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
general note, voters for a second should not believe 60 to 70% support pro choice. Women did not support a woman candidate in 2016 so here we are. At least while women.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Bernie lost fair and square primaries to Hillary and Biden. So being a sore loser seems to run par for the course. This culture of being a sore loser runs deep in the far left, as they boycotted and protest voted our nation into overturning Roe v Wade. I guess that showed the Democrats, as the far left cut off their nose to spite their face.
The bottom line is if Al Gore and Hillary Clinton picked those justices, Roe v Wade would not be overturned by the SCOTUS. But instead we got stuck with GW Bush and Trump justices who are ideologically bent on overturning it, and lied their way into a position to do so. This is not the fault of the establishment Democrats. This is the fault of those that decided to spite the establishment on the far left, and were probably manipulated by Russian trolls on social media just like the Trumpers.
/not stolen, borrowed with pride
If the draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito disclosed by POLITICO Monday night is any guide, the constitutional right to abortion has only a few days or weeks left to go. The most conservative majority of the Supreme Court that was, already a decade ago, arguably the “most conservative in modern history” has singled out Roe for excoriation and oblivion. But what marked out Roe to this fate, and not many other decisions? It is not the reasons provided in the draft Alito opinion: The explanation for Roe’s demise is to be found not in law, per se, but in the court’s entanglement in our pernicious moment of partisan hyperpolarization and the Republican Party’s inextricable link to anti-abortion politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts has acknowledged the document is authentic, and its style certainly suggests it is indeed by Alito. So, how does his rationale for overturning Roe stack up as a justification for a large, and likely convulsive, change in American society? The reasons flagged by the draft opinion fall painfully short. In fact, their profound weakness highlights precisely why Roe and abortion rights have been singled out. Go down the list of contentious legal questions, and it quickly becomes clear that conservatives do not follow Alito’s approach anywhere else besides Roe.
For instance, the draft majority opinion spills a good deal of ink on the history of abortion regulation in England and the United States (skimming over, as it does it, the considerable periods in which abortion was left to the free choice of women). But precisely this kind of appeal to a history of close regulation can be made in respect to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. As the legal scholars Reva Siegel and Joseph Blocher documented in extensive detail, there is a “centuries” old tradition of common law rules regulating weapons, especially when they are carried into the public sphere. This has not stopped the conservative justices from creating a novel individual right to bear arms and extending that right against both the federal and the state governments.
Next, the Alito opinion spends a good deal of energy shellacking the reasoning of Justice Harry Blackmun’s 1972 opinion in Roe v. Wade. The opinion, says Alito, is “hard to defend” and “egregiously wrong.” But by the very standards that Alito himself brings to bear, there are many opinions that are so “egregiously wrong” that they should be chucked out. And yet they awake nary a peek from our most conservative of courts.
To see this, it is helpful to see why Alito says Roe is wrong. The core of Alito’s argument is the idea that the Roe Court defined the “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment at too high, and too abstract, a level of generality. It is, in other words, unanchored from the text of the Constitution. But let’s say we took seriously the idea that the court should avoid readings of the Constitution pitched at too high a level of generality, and not anchored in the text of the Constitution. What else would have to go?
The first thing to go would be the Roberts Court’s rulings on the so-called removal power of the president to oust agency heads, which has been used to attack the regulatory state. Next to go would be the court’s rulings that an ambient, unwritten principle of “state sovereign immunity” precludes all sorts of damages claims against the federal government. This despite the fact no such principle is mentioned in the Constitution. Ironically, Alito himself authored one such opinion almost exactly a decade ago. And third, consider all of the court’s campaign finance opinions: They interpret the word “speech” in the First Amendment at a highly abstract level to sweep in not just speaking but spending — a sleight of hand that would have seemed absurd in 1791.
Is the Supreme Court about to throw out its campaign finance jurisprudence, its special solicitude for the government’s purse, or raw presidential power? Don’t get your hopes up.
There’s more, but it’s embarrassing in its meagerness. Abortion, Alito says by way of example, is just different from other fundamental rights — including the right to marry and the right against involuntary sterilization — because it raises a “critical moral question.” The suggestion here is that miscegenation laws and state eugenics programs raise no “critical” moral issue. This is worse than absurd; it’s morally obscene.
The reasons Alito himself gives, in short, for singling out Roe cannot explain the decision to overrule that case. All apply equally to opinions that Alito and colleagues have embraced and enforced with vigor.
So what then is going on? The answer is embarrassingly clear. When Alito cautions against the injection of the justices’ own “ardent views” into the law, he skips over a fateful step. The problem with Roe and the draft Dobbs opinion alike is not that they are tainted with the tincture of the justices’ own views. Of course they are: Just notice Alito’s loaded pejorative talk of “abortionists” if you were doubtful on this score.
No, the problem is that the sole explanation for the disparate anger and disdain targeted at Roe is that that right to abortion has been the ardent target of key factions within the Republican Party for years. And the untimely death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg allowed former President Donald Trump to deploy judicial appointments to deliver Roe’s execution notice in late 2020. When Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed this out at oral argument in Dobbs, she was only stating what every single participant in the confirmation battles of the last several years well understood, and only the willfully blind could deny.
Indeed, what is striking about the modern Supreme Court is not so much that its members have “ardent views” but that those views reflect the immediate priorities of the Republican Party. Abortion, of course, is central to key religious elements of the Republican coalition, and thus an election issue of singular importance. But to make my point, a non-abortion example may be helpful: Until the Obama presidency, there was broad agreement among both liberal and conservative justices over the idea that courts should generally give federal regulatory agencies a great deal of leeway. But in 2016, the Republican National Committee included in its platform item an attack on such deference. In short order, the legal historian Craig Green has demonstrated, the attack was taken up by conservative think tanks, and then by conservative justices. On this issue, as on abortion, the arguments professed as law have nakedly partisan origins.
continues....
Opinion | Alito’s Case for Overturning Roe is Weak for a Reason (msn.com)
There are no kings inside the gates of eden