I don’t know a single conservative who wants to abolish gay marriage. Are you basing this on Clarence Thomas’s one off comment as though he speaks for conservatives on this matter?
Unless you can add a link that says that abolishing gay marriage is now an aim of some mainstream organization of conservatives/Republicans, please stop with…
I don’t know a single conservative who wants to abolish gay marriage. Are you basing this on Clarence Thomas’s one off comment as though he speaks for conservatives on this matter?
Unless you can add a link that says that abolishing gay marriage is now an aim of some mainstream organization of conservatives/Republicans, please stop with this BS.
The rest of your news summary has one common theme—a totally unhinged left is destroying our country.
Clarence is the de facto Chief Justice, imo. Not Roberts. Take heed of what Thomas says - it might be closer to reality than you think. And he is the point man for a lot of conservative thinking. Thomas would love to see gay marriage redecided.
Homosexuality is a protected class. Gay marriage is thus protected. Dobbs will not apply to gay marriage. That is fear mongering. Whether Thomas is or is not against gay marriage I do not know but he is well-reasoned. He understands homosexuals are a protected class.
I don't agree that he wants to see gay marriage rescinded. He wants SCOTUS to stay out of the "privacy business" and he wants all of this kind of stuff to be legislated in states where it belongs. He's the most conservative of the bunch because he's a true originalist. (Two asides: 1) My brother is a constitutional law professor and taught with Justice Scalia for many summers. He knew him very well and my guess is if I asked him, he'd say that Scalia and Thomas are very similar in what they believe SCOTUS should be adjudicating. 2) I know Pinpoint, GA where Thomas was born and raised. It's a shack/trailer/shanty area on the way to Skidaway Island where my FIL used to own a home. His story is remarkable, truly one of a kind. Unfortunately, it will only be after his death that the vast majority of Americans will come to know and appreciate him.
I appreciate your response. I do not question Judge Thomas's integrity in that he is a true originalist and believes fervently in the manner by which he thinks the Constitution should be respected. Abortion, gay marriage were not expressed rights mentioned in the document of hundreds of years ago and thus cannot be construed as rights therein. My problem with him, Alito et al is that they refuse to consider the consequences of decisions that grant responsibility back to states - whereby some states deny the rights rigidly, while others grant them forcefully.
I see no upside at all in how the dynamic between states will unfold vis a vis the decision to give abortion back to state legislatures. This country is cleaving as we speak. No compromise. No quarter. On either side. Could this be what Clarence intended? I surely hope not. But here it is.
In my opinion, this Court does not reflect the modernity of this country as it skews more and more to the very narrow focus of a document that is two hundred and fifty years old.
The Constitution can be interpreted and it can be amended. So while it is true that it does not mention abortion or gay marriage that does not mean that neither can be Constitutional. The Dobbs opinion held that the Roe court CREATED a right to abortion without authority to do so. Dobbs said it is a legislative issue. It could be accomplished with a Constitutional Amendment but that is unlikely. Gay marriage, on the other hand, was recognized as valid in the Ogberfell decision. That decision relied on homosexuals being a protected class under the 5th and 14th AMENDMENTS and that marriage is part of the protection afforded. As for the cleaving as we speak comment, what better solution for a no-one-size-fits-all scenario than a state by state resolution? Lastly, I am far more impressed with the Constitution than all of our self-professed modernity. It was ,and is, after all that remarkable document which allowed us to reach this "modernity".
That's where we will disagree. The Constitution is a living document regardless of the time, just as I feel the Bible is a living document regardless of the time. It doesn't change with the times. If it did soon the language would change based on the transgender push, etc. The beauty of this country's constitution is that finally my views might be reflected in my vote. I left a Left state -- should have done it sooner -- and now my vote might actually mean something. My unequivocal belief is that no one has the 'right' to take the life of another who has a beating heart and separate DNA. That is a very different situation than gay marriage, contraception, etc. And there is no appetite to repeal either of that last two. Thomas is simply saying that these issues should not be decided for all 50 states by nine justices. The people should vote for their leaders to determine what they want. If CA becomes a killing field (my sad belief as they now have a 7 days after birth "abortion" option working its way through the legislature) and OK doesn't, then people will either uphold those decisions in their votes or they won't. Happy Independence Day!
Just as long as states such as Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas et al don't spy, chase and prosecute their citizens as they cross state lines looking for the service they need. That doesn't sound like the 'liberty' described in our founding documents to me.
The Constitution will prevent "Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, et al." from spying, chasing, and prosecuting their citizens as they cross state lines looking for abortions.
It doesn't really matter what conservatives want. All that matters is what the 6 conservative judges want who were installed at the Supreme Court by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump for the sole purpose to make America medieval again.
Maybe not the American constitution (though it was written by slaveholders), but most certainly the world the majority of Supreme Court Judges live in is.
That is RICH coming from a guy who was born and raised in the country that brought us NAZI's! Seems to me the shame and embarrassment of killing 6M people less than 100 years ago would make one Bernd Fouquet walk away with his tail between his legs. But who am I to know what shames and embarrasses people!
Are You as ashamed and embarrassed about the countless millions Your "home of the brave" murdered all over the world in its countless wars since its founding? as I'm about the heinous crimes the people in my native home did? What about the millions and millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans and too many others to name them all? You might have noticed that I don't live in Germany anymore. That's at least in part because I have had a problem with old Nazis being still in positions of power in postwar Germany. Although I have to cut my old country at least some slag here because it was able to recognize its crimes as such. German war criminals were charged and sentenced by German Courts for their crimes. A German chancellor once apologized for what German soldiers did abroad while kneeling in front of a memorial in Warsaw What about the US? Why do their presidents never apologize for crimes Americans did? Why were such heinous murderers like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for example never charged with their war crimes? Why is there a holocaust memorial in Berlin and no memorial in Washington DC commemorating the victims of the Genozid against native Americans? No, You are not in a position to tell me to be ashamed of my old country, unless You can tell me how ashamed You are of Yours!
The US saved Europe from your wretched Nazis. The US SAVED countless lives by ending the heinous poison that was Germany for far too long and FOR NO REASON. The US retaliated against the worst terrorist attack every perpetuated on our land. I recently visited the 9/11 museum for the third time in 6 years. People from ALL over the world lived and worked in NYC and/or were on one of those planes. We did need to eliminate the source of that horror. Biden absolutely effed up in taking our troops out.
It's exactly what I thought. You seem to be completely unable to recognize the crimes committed by your own country and You believe everybody else on the planet has to be eternally grateful to You that such a great country does even exist. It's the same kind of ignorant arrogance supporters of the Nazis in Germany displayed and made them unaware of what crimes were actually committed in their names. That's what actually happens when "national pride" replaces common sense and reason, when people perceive any criticism of their country as an personal attack against them. That attitude makes them perfect tools for authoritarian systems by the way. Have You noticed how I react when "my" present country gets attacked verbally? I freely admit crimes "my country" committed, because there undeniably were quit a few in Canadian history as well as in the history of Your country too, I try to put the record straight when I think it's not justified, but I do not take criticism of "my" country as a personal insult. Your reaction to criticism of "Your" country is rather emotional and personal and You admit to nothing but instead You praise Your country above all and only point fingers to other countries and complain how little gratitude Your country gets for being such a shining example of greatness, that is only doing good in this world. Try to think about that. .....
Okay Berndt! I didn’t say I was proud of any war it but it’s undeniable that the US save the world from more slaughter during WWII. When I’ve been to England, they thank me as an American. Funny how much you hate Trump when he was the one guy who was not going to get us into another international affair! Biden on the other had has given billions and billions of our money to Ukraine. Oddly he’s still not as wretched as Trudeau, mr blackface!
I don't hate Trump and I'm not a fan of Biden either. I think they are both American politicians doing American politics and what the military-industrial complex wants them to do. Trump is by far the greater danger to American democracy and still in the process of destroying it and it is most certainly of great concern for the rest of the world if the most powerful nation on earth with the biggest nuclear arsenal is getting destabilized. Trump might have not started any new wars during his 4 years, but he increased American military spending dramatically which makes him certainly no peace dove. If he ever gets reelected he might still use that military power to wreak havoc and what makes him even more dangerous than the likes of Biden is that he's unpredictable and deeply irrational, whereas Biden is just a war monger with an agenda who acts rational within his own confines, which is dangerous enough. Next presidential election will be interesting because I have feeling it won't be decided at polling stations.
As I've said to you, Canada is welcome to become the world's police. I prefer to keep my nephew and friends' children out of harms way.
Trump is not god-like. It seems those who loathe him give exponential power. I wonder why that is? Those who do lose the argument immediately. It seems you really don't understand American politics like you think you do. Obama didn't want Biden to become president but Sanders was the alternative. Did you see the video of Obama at the WH a few months back where he literally ignored Biden? He isn't a king maker just like Trump isn't a king maker. Trump may run in 2024 and may win but there's a lot of time between now and then. I think Melania and Barron and Ivanka will say no to another run and without their support he can't do it. Stop putting Trump on a pedestal. The vast majority of Americans who voted for him, voted for his policies, not his personality.
As a Canadian you are the subject of a queen. We are citizens of the United States of America. As such our government exists to serve us, not dictate to us. I did a brief dive of Canada's Constitution. It was permitted by the British Parliament in the mid 1860s . It was revisited by the Parliament in the 1980s at which point certain right were bestowed on its subjects including freedom of assembly and what appears to be a somewhat limited freedom of expression. A total of 4 to 6 rights depending on your reading of the document. I fail to see the point of your dig that the U.S. Constitution was written by slave holders as slavery existed from Canda's inception until it was abolished by the British Parliament in 1834, although Britain and her colonies continued to benefit financially therefrom. Also the citizens of the U.S. realized that the Constitution as originally written failed to clarify several significant rights, thus the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states in very short order. Our Constitution was written by citizens with a dog in the fight. It is capable of Amendment and has been several times. I find it quite ironic that one who is the subject of a monarch refers to anything in the U.S. as medieval. Godsave the queen.
Lynne, the Constitution may not be medieval but 18th century it most certainly is. Hence the amendments, you’re right.
But there hasn’t been a significant amendment in fifty years and no hope of any in the immediate future, given the hopeless division in the country.
Who could agree on anything with the majority of states needed? Red states vs blue ones, rural vs urban, coasts vs the center..conservatives vs liberals..
So we’re stuck with a document hundreds of years old, in need of updating (at the very least) - but with no help in sight.
In reference to your eighteenth century comment, so? 200 years hardly makes it an ancient document rather it is a standard that we are held to, as opposed to, oh I don't know keyboard warriorship. You are right that there is probably no chance of amendment anytime soon in light of the country's division but unlike you I see this as a good thing and yet another reason why the Constitution is a remarkable document written by remarkable men. Unlike us they were faced with life and death issues and rose to the occasion. They too were often divided and understood that it is wrong for a slight majority to have its sway over a very large minority. So 3/4 of the states it is. In other words a clear majority of the country must agree to ratification of any amendment. Plus I doubt you and I are interested in the same amendments anyway. I would like to see a balanced budget Amendment to reign in this enormous federal bureaucracy which demonstrates more and more every day that it cannot be effectively administered. It is like the plant in the Little Shop of Hortors screaming "[Feed me[.]" with no other goal. I think that the recent Supreme Court decisions are well reasoned and put the onus on the legislative branches to do their jobs. Why all of the folks clamoring for or against abortion rights do not understand there is an opposing point of view is beyond me. But they need to figure it out PDQ because those folks must be acknowledged to move forward. I do not feel that there is a threat to gay marriage because the argument will be that homosex7als are a protected class and that includes marriage. The Dobbs rationale might apply to contraception but good luck putting that genie back in the bottle. Every state would rush to approve contraception. At this point I have far more confidence in my state government than my federal one.
How come that historically so many more people fled from the US into Canada to gain their freedom than did in the opposite direction? Runaway slaves, Natives threatened with Genozid, draft dodgers......
Well that, like a lot of your commentary, is a pretty broad statement. But my initial response would be because it is contiguous to the U.S. People flee to Mexico for the same reason. As far as slavery, again Canada embraced slavery until told not to by Britain. Draft dodgers were avoiding their lawful requirements. Canada has its own issues with indigenous populations so I suggest you do a little digging before you cast stones at the U.S. treatment of indigenous peoples. As far as recent migration between the two countries the numbers are a virtual wash - in 2019 a little more than 10,000 U.S. citizens migrated to Canada and a little more than 11,000 Canadians migrated to the U.S. BTW I think Canada is a marvelous place populated with a lively people. I find your negativity regarding the U.S. tedious. I have merely tried to point out that due to our different political organizations you are not likely to comprehend, much less have any possibility of understanding, the experiences of citizens of the U.S ..
It's true that Canada committed heinous crime against natives. But it's still a fact that American natives fled into Canada to escape genocide and not the other way around. I don't wanna pretend that Canada is a somewhat perfect paradise. It's far from that, but in comparison with the USA, we enjoy quite a bit more freedom than our neighbours to the south. That's why freedom seeking people tend to flee from the US to Canada and not the other direction. As far as immigrants from Mexico are concerned I'm not trying to tell You that the US is the most unfree country there is. In fact there are quite a lot of countries from where the US appears to be a desirable destination in the search for freedom. It's just that Canada is not such a country as we can see. And I'm also not talking about immigration in general, but about a specific kind of immigration over a long period of time. I'm talking about people fleeing tyranny in search for freedom, not about people going abroad simply to get a job, that pays more. As far as draft dodgers are concerned, they might have been breaking the law in their home country, but so do homosexuals in places like Saudi-Arabia and still they genuinely qualify as fugitives looking for freedom, when they show up at our borders, at least in my books. In a similar way draft dodgers are also fleeing tyranny and governmental overreach. I do not believe any government has a right to force me into a uniform and to kill other people and evading that might brake the law in an unfree country, but I do not consider it a crime. And so we are witnessing another example of tyranny and governmental overreach in the US these days with the recent decision of the US Supreme Court to recriminalize abortion. I'm sure this will result in a number American women going north in search of freedom they are deprived of at home.
"It is just that Canada is not such a country as we can see." I see differently. I saw, and see, Canada enforcing drastic measures, mandates, restrictions and forced medical procedures on its people. To the extent that it could not even adequately manage air travel last month. I saw Canada create what we here call ex post facto laws and criminalize conduct after the fact. I saw Canada seize property without a modicum of what we here call due process. Not only the property of its subjects either. I do not know whether you suffer from deliberate blindness, unmitigated gall, or both but you are devoid of reason to try to hype Canada as a bastion of freedom. As you have once again reiterated that tired saw that those seeking freedom come to Canada it is of no meaningful significance - people who are unhappy where they are have long moved on. But as my mother, may she rest in peace, used to say "[W]herever you go there you are." So good luck with the unhappy newcomers. And Canada does not just open its border to everyone seeking entry. Canada enforces its border, which I both respect and admire. As for that never-ending litany of liberal celebrities who whine about leaving when politics don't go there way, they rarely do. And good riddance in my estimation.
And while I by no means expect you to grasp the complexities of U.S Constitutional law in no manner did the U.S. Supreme Court criminal7ze abortion anywhere. It said that Roe was wrongly decided because it created a right that did not exist within the confines of the Constitution and so overturned it, and returned issues of abortion to the legislative branch.
You can't even stay on point. I engaged your comment about U.S. migration to seek.happiness in the Great White Way up north. Now you have extended that to migrants from the rest of the world. I actually agree with you except it is not limited to Canada, it is true of the Western world, including the U.S.A.
You tipped your hand on the draft dodger comment. You are no different than the legion of whiny, emotion driven, ill-educated, and misinformed progressives here - it is all about what you feel and accept as right at any given moment. Which makes sense I guess as progressivism is a global movement. Maybe Canada is just an enormous safe space for all of you that you misperceive as freedom
You are entitled to see things as You see fit. But I'm talking about people historically fleeing Your country into Canada and I do not see Canadian fugitives seeking asylum in the US in a similar way because they wanna flee Canadian covid restrictions for example. If that's what makes people fear for their freedom I suggest they should talk to some real life refugees fleeing oppression and injustice in places like Saudi-Arabia, Russia or any other authoritarian country as runaway slaves did back in the day, when the "underground" railroad was in operation for example. Just to put things a little more into perspective. I think sometimes people complain about some cooked up BS because they do not have any real issues to complain about. Try to put Yourself into the boots of someone, say fleeing Saudi-Arabia because he gets accused of blasphemy and has to fear for his life, when he hears about people feeling oppressed simply because they are asked to wear a mask in a store or acting up as if someone wants to drag them into a gas chamber in a German death camp when they were asked to get vaccinated in order to control a potentially deadly disease. Real life fugitives usually shake their heads in disbelief when confronted with what certain people around here consider "tyranny".
Nor are R's against IVF, as a procedure. As I posted, I had both of my children through IVF 21/20 years ago. The dissolution/discarding of embryos who would become babies given a womb, is another thing altogether. For me, no way; any one of them could have been the one to change the world for the better. Unethical IVF doctors (Nadya Suleman's doc comes to mind) are part of the problem.
Since you've been through IVF and I have not, what would you do with embryos no longer needed for implantation? Keep them frozen indefinitely?
Also, some hard-line religious and political are as much against IVF as they are abortions and birth control. Whether they could succeed in persuading state legislatures in banning any or all remains to be seen. But it could happen; South Dakota, for instance, banned abortions with zero exceptions except life of mother. I could see Gov. Noem going for broke on the culture-war bans to keep her name in the news.
You give them all a chance at life. You implant all of them. My daughter was attempt #3. Our son was the result of the 5 remaining embryos. If I had been younger (was 41), I would have saved some of them for another attempt. There's zero reason all embryos can't be implanted in time to give them the opportunity.
Mainstream no longer matters. Only the Supremes count, because they've turned themselves into a legislative branch whose power is absolute and not challengeable in courts.
I agree that Thomas doesn't speak for normal conservatives. But he speaks for himself and Alito. (Who wrote in another ruling a few years ago that any right protected by the Roe standard of privacy was fair game for overturn.)
That's two of the only nine people in America whose power is absolute. That's why I take Thomas's "one-off" very seriously.
Since the next word on abortion is returned to the states I hardly see how the Supremes power is ‘absolute.’ If you think about it for a minute you might see it’s the opposite. Now many voices can join in to the debate whereas Roe had silenced them.
Right, so now the Supremes in their infinite wisdom threw right back to the states, where they will go at each other in either opposing abortion rights or defending them.
It was a decision with zero thought to the consequences.
I respectfully disagree. At least as far as the current court. I think for the past 50 years or so we have examples of the Supreme Court creating law. Not interpreting law which it is supposed to do but creating law. Many examples. This court is in fact taking the opposite tact, acknowledging that past SC decisions did exactly what you find so objectionable, overturning those egregious decisions and thereby saying to both state legislatures and Congress do your jobs. Which puts control of legislation back in the hands of the legislative branch. And ultimately in the hands of the people who elect them. Well maybe not so much with Congress, but you get my point.
I agree, Lynne, this politicization is not a new phenomenon with the court. The swings between liberal and conservative rulings have been extreme, and that should not be the job of the Supremes. We should never know what a "right-left split" is, and that we do is irritating.
Frankly, I think Congress has been happy for decades to let the courts and president make decisions that should have been legislative, because it lets them sit back and take potshots for whatever election mode they're in. That does not serve our needs at all.
It is part of the perception is reality thing. If it is PERCEIVED to be even a possibility, it is a problem. Think of it as the Hidden Villaofication of America.
Maureen: I agree with your post, but by referring to Justice Thomas, do you mean his criticism of substantive due process as the dubious basis for supporting newly-discovered constitutional rights? As I read it, he wasn’t saying those “rights” should be rolled back. He was saying the Court should put those rights, such as gay and interracial marriages, on firmer constitutional ground. (He is, after all, in an interracial marriage).
That was how I interpreted his comments. I thought he was pointing out that there are other "rights" that are based purely on SCOTUS decisions, rather than on legislation or Constitutional amendment.
An abortion rights act could have been passed by Congress during the first half of Obama's first term. The decision to leave abortion as a hot vote-getting issue for Democrats made abortion susceptible to the overturning of Roe. They made the wrong play and lost.
Agree. Undoing 60 years of activist court decisions that should have been laws passed by Congress.
Perhaps the most significant of the recent SCOTUS decisions was yesterdays decision to limit regulatory overreach. The Dems have never been able to get support for their emotional causes, so they've used SCOTUS and regulation to get to their ends, even though they're gross abuses of out federal government.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that both sides have unhinged extremes that are destroying the country? That climate change is real, gerrymandering is pathetic and wrong and both sides are weighed down by venal hypocrites and self-righteous snowflakes?
Climate change is real. "Human-caused" climate change is a myth. Nothing we do and nothing we stop doing is going to make the Earth cooler until the natural processes change to cooling.
Because "acknowledging" things that aren't true prevents us from addressing problems.
It is not "both sides' extremes" that are killing us. It is one side's extremes. Lying about the nature of the problem serves the interests of the problem.
Why even argue about climate change? Air pollution is bad. We can all agree on that. If we bring the environmental movement back to its roots—ending air pollution and preserving forests—we will win.
Seems almost like a conspiracy to turn from the basics to a complex, theoretical problem that can be endlessly debated, doesn’t it?
Think about how much federal $$ is going to wind and power, then google the relatives who are related to these congresspersons who are, Big Shock, suddenly starting green energy companies.
Not a conspiracy--just follow the money. The real turning point was the joining of private equity/Sandhill Road/VC money to politics during the Clinton Administration. The useful idiot was Al Gore (and I do mean idiot...) who LIVED for corruption, and served to smooth the way for investment money to guide policy. I remember well reading an article a LONG time ago (I think it was in Forbes, back when they actually had financial journalists), where some VC bigshot, like one of the top three, said that alternative energy was going to be IT going forward, that carbon was dead money, etc. The thing that struck me was that this idea came out of NOWHERE. I remember thinking WTF is going on here? It was a radical change in direction, and clearly coming from the tippy-top of the financial pyramid.
After that, things really got rolling. First it was "global warming" with Al Gore's polar bears, then when that was debunked, the segue to Climate Change, which cannot be debunked as climate has...always changed. The overdrive kicked in when the Globalists realized they could use this made-up bugaboo to scare armies of useful idiots into agreeing to just about anything that served their purposes. Obviously, we're still dealing with all this today.
Interestingly, the thing that might restore balance to this global shitshow is the current "situation" playing out in Eurasia, but that's a story for another time. I have to try and get at least something useful done today...
Because the "both sides" narrative is fallacious, and allows Democrats the excuse to ignore their responsibility for 30 years of increasing radicalization on the left.
Hence the reference to "give a mouse a cookie." Any victory leftists win is immediately declared not enough, and their next complaint presented with even more outrage than before.
Yes for sure. A commenter here proclaimed, a couple days ago, as Fact, that there is no such thing as a slippery slope. if You Give a Mouse a Cookie is an allegory of slippery-slopism.
Yes. The moderate Center has been handicapped for decades by their notions of fair play: everyone gets a turn, give a little to get a little, etc. Stuff that basically everyone was taught in kindergarten, and just assumed to be the way of the world.
Except it's not. Evil people exist, and they don't play by any rules except that anything goes to achieve power for themselves over all others. That is the operational model for the American Alt-Left, currently embodied by the Democratic Party. You cannot reason with such people--you will LOSE if you try.
It sure is. If I ever ended up at the same party as any of them I would flat out ask them why they don't appear and defend their deeply held beliefs. Surely they've spent plenty of time studying their issues right? It would be one on one and he lets people talk. He is excellent at letting the guest speak most of the time. Now I'm really warming to this idea as a series. First Joy, next AOC...who's next? Hillary maybe?
I know. It's fun to imagine though. Hillary would definitely wear her signature frowny face and AOC would fumble and fume like a toddler and inspire dozens of memes. And Tucker would say 5 words to their 500 and never break a sweat or even get agitated.
I'm going to be generous: while it's true that both sides have extremists, it is emphatically NOT TRUE that they are balanced in terms of numbers, influence, or success in "destroying the country". The extreme right is a tiny minority of neo-nazis, skinheads, etc. They have almost zero ability to influence anything greater than who gets invited to the 4th of July weenie roast in Shootemup, ID this weekend.
The Alt-Left extremists, on the other hand, are EVERYWHERE, from the President of the United States on down, passing through the NYT and Cable News, the Ivy League, Major Foundations, and on and on and on. They are the very definition of the 1% everyone is so worried about.
To speak of EQUIVALENCY is false, insulting, and absurd.
I’m thinking, Gordon, that a half dozen well armed Idaho militias professing allegiance to the Constitution might be insulted at your remark on Shootemup..
They’ll be there, open carry with AR-15’s at the ready, saying quite clearly they have a lot more influence than zero.
I didn't miss anything, Lynn, because I wasn't commenting on the rest of his post. I was applauding Shootemup, ID, being a particularly nice piece of writing.
However, I do apologize for being Mr. Cranky Pants today. I'm a week away from moving across the country and those boxes aren't packing themselves! My bad.
Amen. One has only to peruse the long, long list of progressive nosebleeds who'd love to replace the United States Constitution with some kind of illiberal people's republic. It's positively hilarious that they revile the Supreme Court for overturning a precedent while they demand the shredding of the ultimate source of all precedent.
What I find rich is the pearl-clutching about an activist court making law when the entire point of the Dobbs opinion is that Roe was an example of judicial overreach (judicial activism) by creating a right to something which can only be created by legislative action.
Why are neo Nazis and skin heads called “on the right”?
If the right is about honoring the Constitution, Is that what they want? I don’t think so.
I think it is more correct to say there are various flavors of anarchists who want to overthrow the government. Antifa and neoNazis fit that description.
Yes. The NYT has always carried water for the elite totalitarians. At the time, that was the FDR Administration, which made no bones about their enthusiastic embrace of Soviet-style collectivism, couched in the usual bullshit. For obvious PR reasons, it was felt necessary to draw a mighty distinction between what America was saddled with and the German version. Hence, "right wing" was born.
Oh, yes, absolutely. Most Americans are in the sensible center--left, middle, right. The wings of right and left is where the extremists live, and while they are a distinct minority in numbers, they suck up all the oxygen in media, culture, and politics.
You are saying that only skinheads and nazis constitute the extreme right, so I suppose its a matter of perspective, but why not include FOX News, talk radio (or the podcast equivalents) on the right when you include “cable news” and the NYT? (Which people on the left would say are extreme and have exerted a tremendous influence on half the country.)
Tucker Carlson is as extreme as Joy Reid.
Why is Bush v Gore not as bad as Roe v Wade for judicial activism?
How is not climate change denial not as bad (or worse) than idiotic anti-nuclear energy?
And while not many conservatives say they want to do away with gay marriage, a whole lot of them were frenzied at the time, stoking the culture war fires whose smoke is choking us all today.
I object to comparing Tucker Carlson to Joy Reid. Would absolutely LOVE to see those two on a debate stage together. It would be epic. And Reid would never ever EVER agree to it because she isn't capable of debate.
Nah, Joy Reid's an order of magnitude more hideous than Tucker Carlson. Also much, much less intelligent. And If Bush v. Gore was an example of "judicial activism," then any court ruling of any kind can be similarly characterized. Roe v. Wade, in the other hand, was authentic judicial activism, i.e. legislation under the guise of jurisprudence.
And sure, there were conservatives who opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. And nowadays there are numerous progressives who seek to obviate the very concept of womanhood. Which of those two positions would you judge to be more extreme?
Climate change consensus is more about academic coercion. There needs to be a lot more debate about it. Think I'm wrong. Try to square up sea level rise which started in 1863, with CO2 rise which started in 1950 (according to the UN IPCC AR5)
I made a similar comment Lynn but it's not showing up now.
Tucker would agree to debate Joy in a heartbeat but she would NEVER ever be brave or intelligent enough to try. Now that would be fantasy programming. Forget J6 ratings. Everyone would want to watch this.
The right controls only Fox News. The left controls academia, the media, the government, corporate America and much much more. The long walk through the institutions is complete.
Climate change is real, I agree. But the recent attacks on fossil fuels by the Biden Administration reeked havoc on our economy and hurt everyone. The transition from fossils will take decades, not one term of a President.
I’m going to repeat my earlier comment here. It makes no sense to force a switch to Chinese solar panels and windmills and make the USA reliant on an electrical grid that can be easily disrupted by brownouts, hacking, EMP attack, etc. Who does this benefit, especially when considering all the manipulation and gaslighting that is done via the internet and media?
I wish more people understood what “the long march through the institutions” means.
It’s sorta terrifying to realize that taking down America from the inside was imagined a long time ago, and it was slowly and steadily implemented. While we told ourselves, Nah, can’t happen here.
The climate may or may not be changing but what is irrefutable is that the renewables being pushed on us are going to produce a catastrophe that will make any damage from climate change look like a picnic.
Michael Shellenberger documents this phenomenon in his book, Apocalypse Never. He also documents the fossil fuel lobby’s 50 year attack on nuclear using renewables as a ruse. This is why California electricity rates are so high.
If you do choose PG&E's time of use package, you too can be treated to rates as low (that was sarcasm) as $0.60 / kWh. No kidding, 60 cents a kWh which is about 5x what most of the world pays for power.
Sixty cents a kilowatt? Holy #@&^. I'm moving from Illinois, where the cost is around a dime, to Arizona, where it "rockets" to twelve cents. One state blue, one state red, both states not insane on its power supply.
As of March 2019, the Illinois's net electricity generation by source was 7% natural gas, 30% coal-fired, 54% nuclear (most in the nation) and 10% renewables. Illinois is continuing to shutter coal plants so not sure where the mix will be by 2025;
My guess is a lot more natural gas and much less coal. We're the leading light on nuclear generation, and I think that's great--what my state needs to do now is invest in smaller, next-generation reactors that are far more efficient with fuel, and get rid of coal entirely. (Plus, the old Gen 2 reactors like Dresden are showing their age badly.) We also need to strengthen the power grid here to handle whatever generation systems come on line in the future, from renewables to more nuclear to capturing bacteria farts from landfills and burning them up :-)
It's to bizarre to think that all the operating nukes are based on 1950s technology developed by Adm. Rickover for the Navy. Problem is, they "grew like topsy." The more expensive licensing got, the bigger the nukes got. !200MW behemoths. With Rube Goldberg ECCSystems. The next gen nukes are so fundamentally different its like the difference between a Model T and a new Vette. My home state of CT has no natural gas or oil and an old, aptly named nuke - the Millstone Plant. We need to put our investment in next gen nukes, not Chinese solar and pinwheels. The more we rely on "renewables" the more rickety the grid gets. And the more heating and vehicular load we put on the grid, the more stressed it will be.
Absolutely yes. If we're going to spend another trillion or three in federal money, forget tax cuts, weapons systems that even the Pentagon doesn't want, and most of the proposed social spending bills. I want it spent on bringing our national, regional, and local power grids up to 22nd Century standards. We can barely handle power demand as it is in many parts of Brownout Land. Water and sewer, too; they're crumbling. It all works together.
I like the new gens of reactors. They're much less prone to accidents, and far more fuel-efficient, cutting back on the waste we will have to store. Which, from what I understand, is far fewer cubic yards than nuke-haters claim. We already paid to dig out Yucca Mountain, time to open it and start storing the waste properly.
Good point on the size of reactors being tied to the difficulty of siting and licensing requirements. Hadn't considered that.
I don’t know a single conservative who wants to abolish gay marriage. Are you basing this on Clarence Thomas’s one off comment as though he speaks for conservatives on this matter?
Unless you can add a link that says that abolishing gay marriage is now an aim of some mainstream organization of conservatives/Republicans, please stop with this BS.
The rest of your news summary has one common theme—a totally unhinged left is destroying our country.
Clarence is the de facto Chief Justice, imo. Not Roberts. Take heed of what Thomas says - it might be closer to reality than you think. And he is the point man for a lot of conservative thinking. Thomas would love to see gay marriage redecided.
And he’s not alone.
Homosexuality is a protected class. Gay marriage is thus protected. Dobbs will not apply to gay marriage. That is fear mongering. Whether Thomas is or is not against gay marriage I do not know but he is well-reasoned. He understands homosexuals are a protected class.
I don't agree that he wants to see gay marriage rescinded. He wants SCOTUS to stay out of the "privacy business" and he wants all of this kind of stuff to be legislated in states where it belongs. He's the most conservative of the bunch because he's a true originalist. (Two asides: 1) My brother is a constitutional law professor and taught with Justice Scalia for many summers. He knew him very well and my guess is if I asked him, he'd say that Scalia and Thomas are very similar in what they believe SCOTUS should be adjudicating. 2) I know Pinpoint, GA where Thomas was born and raised. It's a shack/trailer/shanty area on the way to Skidaway Island where my FIL used to own a home. His story is remarkable, truly one of a kind. Unfortunately, it will only be after his death that the vast majority of Americans will come to know and appreciate him.
I appreciate your response. I do not question Judge Thomas's integrity in that he is a true originalist and believes fervently in the manner by which he thinks the Constitution should be respected. Abortion, gay marriage were not expressed rights mentioned in the document of hundreds of years ago and thus cannot be construed as rights therein. My problem with him, Alito et al is that they refuse to consider the consequences of decisions that grant responsibility back to states - whereby some states deny the rights rigidly, while others grant them forcefully.
I see no upside at all in how the dynamic between states will unfold vis a vis the decision to give abortion back to state legislatures. This country is cleaving as we speak. No compromise. No quarter. On either side. Could this be what Clarence intended? I surely hope not. But here it is.
In my opinion, this Court does not reflect the modernity of this country as it skews more and more to the very narrow focus of a document that is two hundred and fifty years old.
Regards..
The Constitution can be interpreted and it can be amended. So while it is true that it does not mention abortion or gay marriage that does not mean that neither can be Constitutional. The Dobbs opinion held that the Roe court CREATED a right to abortion without authority to do so. Dobbs said it is a legislative issue. It could be accomplished with a Constitutional Amendment but that is unlikely. Gay marriage, on the other hand, was recognized as valid in the Ogberfell decision. That decision relied on homosexuals being a protected class under the 5th and 14th AMENDMENTS and that marriage is part of the protection afforded. As for the cleaving as we speak comment, what better solution for a no-one-size-fits-all scenario than a state by state resolution? Lastly, I am far more impressed with the Constitution than all of our self-professed modernity. It was ,and is, after all that remarkable document which allowed us to reach this "modernity".
That's where we will disagree. The Constitution is a living document regardless of the time, just as I feel the Bible is a living document regardless of the time. It doesn't change with the times. If it did soon the language would change based on the transgender push, etc. The beauty of this country's constitution is that finally my views might be reflected in my vote. I left a Left state -- should have done it sooner -- and now my vote might actually mean something. My unequivocal belief is that no one has the 'right' to take the life of another who has a beating heart and separate DNA. That is a very different situation than gay marriage, contraception, etc. And there is no appetite to repeal either of that last two. Thomas is simply saying that these issues should not be decided for all 50 states by nine justices. The people should vote for their leaders to determine what they want. If CA becomes a killing field (my sad belief as they now have a 7 days after birth "abortion" option working its way through the legislature) and OK doesn't, then people will either uphold those decisions in their votes or they won't. Happy Independence Day!
Very well put.
Just as long as states such as Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas et al don't spy, chase and prosecute their citizens as they cross state lines looking for the service they need. That doesn't sound like the 'liberty' described in our founding documents to me.
Happy 4th..
The Constitution will prevent "Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, et al." from spying, chasing, and prosecuting their citizens as they cross state lines looking for abortions.
In theory, yes.
But in practice, I sure hope so..
I would bet, and I only bet on sure things, that lawyers are already lined up and waiting to pounce.
Pretty sure that's a non starter.
Thanks Lynn, that explains everything..
It doesn't really matter what conservatives want. All that matters is what the 6 conservative judges want who were installed at the Supreme Court by the likes of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump for the sole purpose to make America medieval again.
Your first sentence is an accurate description. Judges do not represent anyone. Your last sentence is not, for several reasons.
Should they have left the seats vacant, or should they have done their job? The American constitution is hardly medieval; you should check it out.
Maybe not the American constitution (though it was written by slaveholders), but most certainly the world the majority of Supreme Court Judges live in is.
That is RICH coming from a guy who was born and raised in the country that brought us NAZI's! Seems to me the shame and embarrassment of killing 6M people less than 100 years ago would make one Bernd Fouquet walk away with his tail between his legs. But who am I to know what shames and embarrasses people!
Are You as ashamed and embarrassed about the countless millions Your "home of the brave" murdered all over the world in its countless wars since its founding? as I'm about the heinous crimes the people in my native home did? What about the millions and millions of Vietnamese, Iraqis, Afghans and too many others to name them all? You might have noticed that I don't live in Germany anymore. That's at least in part because I have had a problem with old Nazis being still in positions of power in postwar Germany. Although I have to cut my old country at least some slag here because it was able to recognize its crimes as such. German war criminals were charged and sentenced by German Courts for their crimes. A German chancellor once apologized for what German soldiers did abroad while kneeling in front of a memorial in Warsaw What about the US? Why do their presidents never apologize for crimes Americans did? Why were such heinous murderers like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for example never charged with their war crimes? Why is there a holocaust memorial in Berlin and no memorial in Washington DC commemorating the victims of the Genozid against native Americans? No, You are not in a position to tell me to be ashamed of my old country, unless You can tell me how ashamed You are of Yours!
The US saved Europe from your wretched Nazis. The US SAVED countless lives by ending the heinous poison that was Germany for far too long and FOR NO REASON. The US retaliated against the worst terrorist attack every perpetuated on our land. I recently visited the 9/11 museum for the third time in 6 years. People from ALL over the world lived and worked in NYC and/or were on one of those planes. We did need to eliminate the source of that horror. Biden absolutely effed up in taking our troops out.
I'm sick of being the world's police. I wish we didn't give a dime to Ukraine. Why doesn't Canada take care of Ukraine? I'd be happy to sit back and watch all the countries (AKA Canada) take on all of the world's problems. Trudeau can start with China, the county he would like to emulate. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/justin-trudeau-s-foolish-china-remarks-spark-anger-1.2421351
It's exactly what I thought. You seem to be completely unable to recognize the crimes committed by your own country and You believe everybody else on the planet has to be eternally grateful to You that such a great country does even exist. It's the same kind of ignorant arrogance supporters of the Nazis in Germany displayed and made them unaware of what crimes were actually committed in their names. That's what actually happens when "national pride" replaces common sense and reason, when people perceive any criticism of their country as an personal attack against them. That attitude makes them perfect tools for authoritarian systems by the way. Have You noticed how I react when "my" present country gets attacked verbally? I freely admit crimes "my country" committed, because there undeniably were quit a few in Canadian history as well as in the history of Your country too, I try to put the record straight when I think it's not justified, but I do not take criticism of "my" country as a personal insult. Your reaction to criticism of "Your" country is rather emotional and personal and You admit to nothing but instead You praise Your country above all and only point fingers to other countries and complain how little gratitude Your country gets for being such a shining example of greatness, that is only doing good in this world. Try to think about that. .....
Okay Berndt! I didn’t say I was proud of any war it but it’s undeniable that the US save the world from more slaughter during WWII. When I’ve been to England, they thank me as an American. Funny how much you hate Trump when he was the one guy who was not going to get us into another international affair! Biden on the other had has given billions and billions of our money to Ukraine. Oddly he’s still not as wretched as Trudeau, mr blackface!
I don't hate Trump and I'm not a fan of Biden either. I think they are both American politicians doing American politics and what the military-industrial complex wants them to do. Trump is by far the greater danger to American democracy and still in the process of destroying it and it is most certainly of great concern for the rest of the world if the most powerful nation on earth with the biggest nuclear arsenal is getting destabilized. Trump might have not started any new wars during his 4 years, but he increased American military spending dramatically which makes him certainly no peace dove. If he ever gets reelected he might still use that military power to wreak havoc and what makes him even more dangerous than the likes of Biden is that he's unpredictable and deeply irrational, whereas Biden is just a war monger with an agenda who acts rational within his own confines, which is dangerous enough. Next presidential election will be interesting because I have feeling it won't be decided at polling stations.
As I've said to you, Canada is welcome to become the world's police. I prefer to keep my nephew and friends' children out of harms way.
Trump is not god-like. It seems those who loathe him give exponential power. I wonder why that is? Those who do lose the argument immediately. It seems you really don't understand American politics like you think you do. Obama didn't want Biden to become president but Sanders was the alternative. Did you see the video of Obama at the WH a few months back where he literally ignored Biden? He isn't a king maker just like Trump isn't a king maker. Trump may run in 2024 and may win but there's a lot of time between now and then. I think Melania and Barron and Ivanka will say no to another run and without their support he can't do it. Stop putting Trump on a pedestal. The vast majority of Americans who voted for him, voted for his policies, not his personality.
As a Canadian you are the subject of a queen. We are citizens of the United States of America. As such our government exists to serve us, not dictate to us. I did a brief dive of Canada's Constitution. It was permitted by the British Parliament in the mid 1860s . It was revisited by the Parliament in the 1980s at which point certain right were bestowed on its subjects including freedom of assembly and what appears to be a somewhat limited freedom of expression. A total of 4 to 6 rights depending on your reading of the document. I fail to see the point of your dig that the U.S. Constitution was written by slave holders as slavery existed from Canda's inception until it was abolished by the British Parliament in 1834, although Britain and her colonies continued to benefit financially therefrom. Also the citizens of the U.S. realized that the Constitution as originally written failed to clarify several significant rights, thus the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states in very short order. Our Constitution was written by citizens with a dog in the fight. It is capable of Amendment and has been several times. I find it quite ironic that one who is the subject of a monarch refers to anything in the U.S. as medieval. Godsave the queen.
Lynne, the Constitution may not be medieval but 18th century it most certainly is. Hence the amendments, you’re right.
But there hasn’t been a significant amendment in fifty years and no hope of any in the immediate future, given the hopeless division in the country.
Who could agree on anything with the majority of states needed? Red states vs blue ones, rural vs urban, coasts vs the center..conservatives vs liberals..
So we’re stuck with a document hundreds of years old, in need of updating (at the very least) - but with no help in sight.
In reference to your eighteenth century comment, so? 200 years hardly makes it an ancient document rather it is a standard that we are held to, as opposed to, oh I don't know keyboard warriorship. You are right that there is probably no chance of amendment anytime soon in light of the country's division but unlike you I see this as a good thing and yet another reason why the Constitution is a remarkable document written by remarkable men. Unlike us they were faced with life and death issues and rose to the occasion. They too were often divided and understood that it is wrong for a slight majority to have its sway over a very large minority. So 3/4 of the states it is. In other words a clear majority of the country must agree to ratification of any amendment. Plus I doubt you and I are interested in the same amendments anyway. I would like to see a balanced budget Amendment to reign in this enormous federal bureaucracy which demonstrates more and more every day that it cannot be effectively administered. It is like the plant in the Little Shop of Hortors screaming "[Feed me[.]" with no other goal. I think that the recent Supreme Court decisions are well reasoned and put the onus on the legislative branches to do their jobs. Why all of the folks clamoring for or against abortion rights do not understand there is an opposing point of view is beyond me. But they need to figure it out PDQ because those folks must be acknowledged to move forward. I do not feel that there is a threat to gay marriage because the argument will be that homosex7als are a protected class and that includes marriage. The Dobbs rationale might apply to contraception but good luck putting that genie back in the bottle. Every state would rush to approve contraception. At this point I have far more confidence in my state government than my federal one.
How come that historically so many more people fled from the US into Canada to gain their freedom than did in the opposite direction? Runaway slaves, Natives threatened with Genozid, draft dodgers......
Well that, like a lot of your commentary, is a pretty broad statement. But my initial response would be because it is contiguous to the U.S. People flee to Mexico for the same reason. As far as slavery, again Canada embraced slavery until told not to by Britain. Draft dodgers were avoiding their lawful requirements. Canada has its own issues with indigenous populations so I suggest you do a little digging before you cast stones at the U.S. treatment of indigenous peoples. As far as recent migration between the two countries the numbers are a virtual wash - in 2019 a little more than 10,000 U.S. citizens migrated to Canada and a little more than 11,000 Canadians migrated to the U.S. BTW I think Canada is a marvelous place populated with a lively people. I find your negativity regarding the U.S. tedious. I have merely tried to point out that due to our different political organizations you are not likely to comprehend, much less have any possibility of understanding, the experiences of citizens of the U.S ..
It's true that Canada committed heinous crime against natives. But it's still a fact that American natives fled into Canada to escape genocide and not the other way around. I don't wanna pretend that Canada is a somewhat perfect paradise. It's far from that, but in comparison with the USA, we enjoy quite a bit more freedom than our neighbours to the south. That's why freedom seeking people tend to flee from the US to Canada and not the other direction. As far as immigrants from Mexico are concerned I'm not trying to tell You that the US is the most unfree country there is. In fact there are quite a lot of countries from where the US appears to be a desirable destination in the search for freedom. It's just that Canada is not such a country as we can see. And I'm also not talking about immigration in general, but about a specific kind of immigration over a long period of time. I'm talking about people fleeing tyranny in search for freedom, not about people going abroad simply to get a job, that pays more. As far as draft dodgers are concerned, they might have been breaking the law in their home country, but so do homosexuals in places like Saudi-Arabia and still they genuinely qualify as fugitives looking for freedom, when they show up at our borders, at least in my books. In a similar way draft dodgers are also fleeing tyranny and governmental overreach. I do not believe any government has a right to force me into a uniform and to kill other people and evading that might brake the law in an unfree country, but I do not consider it a crime. And so we are witnessing another example of tyranny and governmental overreach in the US these days with the recent decision of the US Supreme Court to recriminalize abortion. I'm sure this will result in a number American women going north in search of freedom they are deprived of at home.
"It is just that Canada is not such a country as we can see." I see differently. I saw, and see, Canada enforcing drastic measures, mandates, restrictions and forced medical procedures on its people. To the extent that it could not even adequately manage air travel last month. I saw Canada create what we here call ex post facto laws and criminalize conduct after the fact. I saw Canada seize property without a modicum of what we here call due process. Not only the property of its subjects either. I do not know whether you suffer from deliberate blindness, unmitigated gall, or both but you are devoid of reason to try to hype Canada as a bastion of freedom. As you have once again reiterated that tired saw that those seeking freedom come to Canada it is of no meaningful significance - people who are unhappy where they are have long moved on. But as my mother, may she rest in peace, used to say "[W]herever you go there you are." So good luck with the unhappy newcomers. And Canada does not just open its border to everyone seeking entry. Canada enforces its border, which I both respect and admire. As for that never-ending litany of liberal celebrities who whine about leaving when politics don't go there way, they rarely do. And good riddance in my estimation.
And while I by no means expect you to grasp the complexities of U.S Constitutional law in no manner did the U.S. Supreme Court criminal7ze abortion anywhere. It said that Roe was wrongly decided because it created a right that did not exist within the confines of the Constitution and so overturned it, and returned issues of abortion to the legislative branch.
You can't even stay on point. I engaged your comment about U.S. migration to seek.happiness in the Great White Way up north. Now you have extended that to migrants from the rest of the world. I actually agree with you except it is not limited to Canada, it is true of the Western world, including the U.S.A.
You tipped your hand on the draft dodger comment. You are no different than the legion of whiny, emotion driven, ill-educated, and misinformed progressives here - it is all about what you feel and accept as right at any given moment. Which makes sense I guess as progressivism is a global movement. Maybe Canada is just an enormous safe space for all of you that you misperceive as freedom
You are entitled to see things as You see fit. But I'm talking about people historically fleeing Your country into Canada and I do not see Canadian fugitives seeking asylum in the US in a similar way because they wanna flee Canadian covid restrictions for example. If that's what makes people fear for their freedom I suggest they should talk to some real life refugees fleeing oppression and injustice in places like Saudi-Arabia, Russia or any other authoritarian country as runaway slaves did back in the day, when the "underground" railroad was in operation for example. Just to put things a little more into perspective. I think sometimes people complain about some cooked up BS because they do not have any real issues to complain about. Try to put Yourself into the boots of someone, say fleeing Saudi-Arabia because he gets accused of blasphemy and has to fear for his life, when he hears about people feeling oppressed simply because they are asked to wear a mask in a store or acting up as if someone wants to drag them into a gas chamber in a German death camp when they were asked to get vaccinated in order to control a potentially deadly disease. Real life fugitives usually shake their heads in disbelief when confronted with what certain people around here consider "tyranny".
nonsensical
I’d take 10 Jeffersons over 1 Trudeau
How many slaves would that be?
He's Canadian and knows nothing about our amazing Constitution.
I would take 1 Jefferson over 1,000 Trudeaus.
Nor are R's against IVF, as a procedure. As I posted, I had both of my children through IVF 21/20 years ago. The dissolution/discarding of embryos who would become babies given a womb, is another thing altogether. For me, no way; any one of them could have been the one to change the world for the better. Unethical IVF doctors (Nadya Suleman's doc comes to mind) are part of the problem.
Since you've been through IVF and I have not, what would you do with embryos no longer needed for implantation? Keep them frozen indefinitely?
Also, some hard-line religious and political are as much against IVF as they are abortions and birth control. Whether they could succeed in persuading state legislatures in banning any or all remains to be seen. But it could happen; South Dakota, for instance, banned abortions with zero exceptions except life of mother. I could see Gov. Noem going for broke on the culture-war bans to keep her name in the news.
You give them all a chance at life. You implant all of them. My daughter was attempt #3. Our son was the result of the 5 remaining embryos. If I had been younger (was 41), I would have saved some of them for another attempt. There's zero reason all embryos can't be implanted in time to give them the opportunity.
If the people of SD want this position on abortion, let them have it. It’s not extreme to them.
That is how federalism is supposed to work
Mainstream no longer matters. Only the Supremes count, because they've turned themselves into a legislative branch whose power is absolute and not challengeable in courts.
I agree that Thomas doesn't speak for normal conservatives. But he speaks for himself and Alito. (Who wrote in another ruling a few years ago that any right protected by the Roe standard of privacy was fair game for overturn.)
That's two of the only nine people in America whose power is absolute. That's why I take Thomas's "one-off" very seriously.
Since the next word on abortion is returned to the states I hardly see how the Supremes power is ‘absolute.’ If you think about it for a minute you might see it’s the opposite. Now many voices can join in to the debate whereas Roe had silenced them.
Right, so now the Supremes in their infinite wisdom threw right back to the states, where they will go at each other in either opposing abortion rights or defending them.
It was a decision with zero thought to the consequences.
I respectfully disagree. At least as far as the current court. I think for the past 50 years or so we have examples of the Supreme Court creating law. Not interpreting law which it is supposed to do but creating law. Many examples. This court is in fact taking the opposite tact, acknowledging that past SC decisions did exactly what you find so objectionable, overturning those egregious decisions and thereby saying to both state legislatures and Congress do your jobs. Which puts control of legislation back in the hands of the legislative branch. And ultimately in the hands of the people who elect them. Well maybe not so much with Congress, but you get my point.
I agree, Lynne, this politicization is not a new phenomenon with the court. The swings between liberal and conservative rulings have been extreme, and that should not be the job of the Supremes. We should never know what a "right-left split" is, and that we do is irritating.
Frankly, I think Congress has been happy for decades to let the courts and president make decisions that should have been legislative, because it lets them sit back and take potshots for whatever election mode they're in. That does not serve our needs at all.
It is part of the perception is reality thing. If it is PERCEIVED to be even a possibility, it is a problem. Think of it as the Hidden Villaofication of America.
Maureen: I agree with your post, but by referring to Justice Thomas, do you mean his criticism of substantive due process as the dubious basis for supporting newly-discovered constitutional rights? As I read it, he wasn’t saying those “rights” should be rolled back. He was saying the Court should put those rights, such as gay and interracial marriages, on firmer constitutional ground. (He is, after all, in an interracial marriage).
That was how I interpreted his comments. I thought he was pointing out that there are other "rights" that are based purely on SCOTUS decisions, rather than on legislation or Constitutional amendment.
An abortion rights act could have been passed by Congress during the first half of Obama's first term. The decision to leave abortion as a hot vote-getting issue for Democrats made abortion susceptible to the overturning of Roe. They made the wrong play and lost.
Thanks, you obviously know how to read legal things a whole lot better than I.
Of course his words have been twisted to mean he wants to roll back gay marriage and even interracial marriage, and I quoted that. My bad.
Perfectly understandable. You’re the opposite of bad. 😊
Agree. Undoing 60 years of activist court decisions that should have been laws passed by Congress.
Perhaps the most significant of the recent SCOTUS decisions was yesterdays decision to limit regulatory overreach. The Dems have never been able to get support for their emotional causes, so they've used SCOTUS and regulation to get to their ends, even though they're gross abuses of out federal government.
I agree - I do not know a single conservative who want to abolish gay marriage. Especially my very conservative and very gay friends.
the state has no business where one sticks its dick or strap on . Who the hell cares ? none of my business
Exactly. The ban on gay marriage is a blue law that very much needed to go away.
Agree!
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that both sides have unhinged extremes that are destroying the country? That climate change is real, gerrymandering is pathetic and wrong and both sides are weighed down by venal hypocrites and self-righteous snowflakes?
Climate change is real. "Human-caused" climate change is a myth. Nothing we do and nothing we stop doing is going to make the Earth cooler until the natural processes change to cooling.
Humans cover nearly every square mile of land on the planet, and everything we build and everything we do produces heat.
Of course we are warming the planet.
Because "acknowledging" things that aren't true prevents us from addressing problems.
It is not "both sides' extremes" that are killing us. It is one side's extremes. Lying about the nature of the problem serves the interests of the problem.
Why even argue about climate change? Air pollution is bad. We can all agree on that. If we bring the environmental movement back to its roots—ending air pollution and preserving forests—we will win.
Seems almost like a conspiracy to turn from the basics to a complex, theoretical problem that can be endlessly debated, doesn’t it?
Think about how much federal $$ is going to wind and power, then google the relatives who are related to these congresspersons who are, Big Shock, suddenly starting green energy companies.
Not a conspiracy--just follow the money. The real turning point was the joining of private equity/Sandhill Road/VC money to politics during the Clinton Administration. The useful idiot was Al Gore (and I do mean idiot...) who LIVED for corruption, and served to smooth the way for investment money to guide policy. I remember well reading an article a LONG time ago (I think it was in Forbes, back when they actually had financial journalists), where some VC bigshot, like one of the top three, said that alternative energy was going to be IT going forward, that carbon was dead money, etc. The thing that struck me was that this idea came out of NOWHERE. I remember thinking WTF is going on here? It was a radical change in direction, and clearly coming from the tippy-top of the financial pyramid.
After that, things really got rolling. First it was "global warming" with Al Gore's polar bears, then when that was debunked, the segue to Climate Change, which cannot be debunked as climate has...always changed. The overdrive kicked in when the Globalists realized they could use this made-up bugaboo to scare armies of useful idiots into agreeing to just about anything that served their purposes. Obviously, we're still dealing with all this today.
Interestingly, the thing that might restore balance to this global shitshow is the current "situation" playing out in Eurasia, but that's a story for another time. I have to try and get at least something useful done today...
Happy 4th of July to All!
Because the "both sides" narrative is fallacious, and allows Democrats the excuse to ignore their responsibility for 30 years of increasing radicalization on the left.
Hence the reference to "give a mouse a cookie." Any victory leftists win is immediately declared not enough, and their next complaint presented with even more outrage than before.
Yes for sure. A commenter here proclaimed, a couple days ago, as Fact, that there is no such thing as a slippery slope. if You Give a Mouse a Cookie is an allegory of slippery-slopism.
Yes. The moderate Center has been handicapped for decades by their notions of fair play: everyone gets a turn, give a little to get a little, etc. Stuff that basically everyone was taught in kindergarten, and just assumed to be the way of the world.
Except it's not. Evil people exist, and they don't play by any rules except that anything goes to achieve power for themselves over all others. That is the operational model for the American Alt-Left, currently embodied by the Democratic Party. You cannot reason with such people--you will LOSE if you try.
Glenn Greenwald goes on his show and he’s pretty left.
Although GG has some views I consider pretty conservative, maybe he doesn’t realize it.
It sure is. If I ever ended up at the same party as any of them I would flat out ask them why they don't appear and defend their deeply held beliefs. Surely they've spent plenty of time studying their issues right? It would be one on one and he lets people talk. He is excellent at letting the guest speak most of the time. Now I'm really warming to this idea as a series. First Joy, next AOC...who's next? Hillary maybe?
I know. It's fun to imagine though. Hillary would definitely wear her signature frowny face and AOC would fumble and fume like a toddler and inspire dozens of memes. And Tucker would say 5 words to their 500 and never break a sweat or even get agitated.
Yes, what is achieved is never enough.
I'm going to be generous: while it's true that both sides have extremists, it is emphatically NOT TRUE that they are balanced in terms of numbers, influence, or success in "destroying the country". The extreme right is a tiny minority of neo-nazis, skinheads, etc. They have almost zero ability to influence anything greater than who gets invited to the 4th of July weenie roast in Shootemup, ID this weekend.
The Alt-Left extremists, on the other hand, are EVERYWHERE, from the President of the United States on down, passing through the NYT and Cable News, the Ivy League, Major Foundations, and on and on and on. They are the very definition of the 1% everyone is so worried about.
To speak of EQUIVALENCY is false, insulting, and absurd.
I’m thinking, Gordon, that a half dozen well armed Idaho militias professing allegiance to the Constitution might be insulted at your remark on Shootemup..
They’ll be there, open carry with AR-15’s at the ready, saying quite clearly they have a lot more influence than zero.
And I would agree with them.
" . . . influence anything greater than who gets invited to the 4th of July weenie roast in Shootemup, ID this weekend."
An instant classic, Gordon, hat off to ya. With any luck, the weenies they roast will be their own from misaimed bang-bang.
I didn't miss anything, Lynn, because I wasn't commenting on the rest of his post. I was applauding Shootemup, ID, being a particularly nice piece of writing.
However, I do apologize for being Mr. Cranky Pants today. I'm a week away from moving across the country and those boxes aren't packing themselves! My bad.
Amen. One has only to peruse the long, long list of progressive nosebleeds who'd love to replace the United States Constitution with some kind of illiberal people's republic. It's positively hilarious that they revile the Supreme Court for overturning a precedent while they demand the shredding of the ultimate source of all precedent.
What I find rich is the pearl-clutching about an activist court making law when the entire point of the Dobbs opinion is that Roe was an example of judicial overreach (judicial activism) by creating a right to something which can only be created by legislative action.
Yes! And Dobbs didn’t even make a law
Exactly.
Irony and humor often go together so of course both go sailing over the leftists heads.
Excuse me, but this needs asking—-
Why are neo Nazis and skin heads called “on the right”?
If the right is about honoring the Constitution, Is that what they want? I don’t think so.
I think it is more correct to say there are various flavors of anarchists who want to overthrow the government. Antifa and neoNazis fit that description.
The Nazi's were a socialist movement in the 1930-40's - it's part of their freaking name, for crying out loud.
Branding them as 'right wing' has been one of the great whitewashes ever executed by the NY Times and their fellow minions in the media.
Yes. The NYT has always carried water for the elite totalitarians. At the time, that was the FDR Administration, which made no bones about their enthusiastic embrace of Soviet-style collectivism, couched in the usual bullshit. For obvious PR reasons, it was felt necessary to draw a mighty distinction between what America was saddled with and the German version. Hence, "right wing" was born.
I have often thought in the last two years that the extremes of the left and right have more in common with each other than with the rest of us.
Oh, yes, absolutely. Most Americans are in the sensible center--left, middle, right. The wings of right and left is where the extremists live, and while they are a distinct minority in numbers, they suck up all the oxygen in media, culture, and politics.
Very astute
Thanks, Gordon.
Excellent point
You are saying that only skinheads and nazis constitute the extreme right, so I suppose its a matter of perspective, but why not include FOX News, talk radio (or the podcast equivalents) on the right when you include “cable news” and the NYT? (Which people on the left would say are extreme and have exerted a tremendous influence on half the country.)
Tucker Carlson is as extreme as Joy Reid.
Why is Bush v Gore not as bad as Roe v Wade for judicial activism?
How is not climate change denial not as bad (or worse) than idiotic anti-nuclear energy?
And while not many conservatives say they want to do away with gay marriage, a whole lot of them were frenzied at the time, stoking the culture war fires whose smoke is choking us all today.
I object to comparing Tucker Carlson to Joy Reid. Would absolutely LOVE to see those two on a debate stage together. It would be epic. And Reid would never ever EVER agree to it because she isn't capable of debate.
Nah, Joy Reid's an order of magnitude more hideous than Tucker Carlson. Also much, much less intelligent. And If Bush v. Gore was an example of "judicial activism," then any court ruling of any kind can be similarly characterized. Roe v. Wade, in the other hand, was authentic judicial activism, i.e. legislation under the guise of jurisprudence.
And sure, there were conservatives who opposed the legalization of same-sex marriage. And nowadays there are numerous progressives who seek to obviate the very concept of womanhood. Which of those two positions would you judge to be more extreme?
I think people here can read what both of us have written and decide for themselves which one best describes reality
Climate change consensus is more about academic coercion. There needs to be a lot more debate about it. Think I'm wrong. Try to square up sea level rise which started in 1863, with CO2 rise which started in 1950 (according to the UN IPCC AR5)
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290
See that big acceleration?
That 2mm/yr is going to add up to 200mm in about 100 years ... better run for the hills KB, it's gonna get ya with it's swastika.
TY cOMPUTER MODEL GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT
TY
I made a similar comment Lynn but it's not showing up now.
Tucker would agree to debate Joy in a heartbeat but she would NEVER ever be brave or intelligent enough to try. Now that would be fantasy programming. Forget J6 ratings. Everyone would want to watch this.
The President does the bidding of the Progressives. That is the real problem.
The right controls only Fox News. The left controls academia, the media, the government, corporate America and much much more. The long walk through the institutions is complete.
Climate change is real, I agree. But the recent attacks on fossil fuels by the Biden Administration reeked havoc on our economy and hurt everyone. The transition from fossils will take decades, not one term of a President.
I’m going to repeat my earlier comment here. It makes no sense to force a switch to Chinese solar panels and windmills and make the USA reliant on an electrical grid that can be easily disrupted by brownouts, hacking, EMP attack, etc. Who does this benefit, especially when considering all the manipulation and gaslighting that is done via the internet and media?
When you say that the "extreme right" controls FNC, do you mean that the network takes its orders from the Proud Boys, the White Aryan Nation, etc.?
That’s unclear. I was just trying to concede that the right controls something while the left control most institutions.
I think it's pretty clear that the "extreme right," i.e. actual fascists, do not control FNC.
I have edited out “extreme.” Thanks.
I wish more people understood what “the long march through the institutions” means.
It’s sorta terrifying to realize that taking down America from the inside was imagined a long time ago, and it was slowly and steadily implemented. While we told ourselves, Nah, can’t happen here.
👍👍
The climate may or may not be changing but what is irrefutable is that the renewables being pushed on us are going to produce a catastrophe that will make any damage from climate change look like a picnic.
Thank you Bruce.
Michael Shellenberger documents this phenomenon in his book, Apocalypse Never. He also documents the fossil fuel lobby’s 50 year attack on nuclear using renewables as a ruse. This is why California electricity rates are so high.
If you do choose PG&E's time of use package, you too can be treated to rates as low (that was sarcasm) as $0.60 / kWh. No kidding, 60 cents a kWh which is about 5x what most of the world pays for power.
Sixty cents a kilowatt? Holy #@&^. I'm moving from Illinois, where the cost is around a dime, to Arizona, where it "rockets" to twelve cents. One state blue, one state red, both states not insane on its power supply.
As of March 2019, the Illinois's net electricity generation by source was 7% natural gas, 30% coal-fired, 54% nuclear (most in the nation) and 10% renewables. Illinois is continuing to shutter coal plants so not sure where the mix will be by 2025;
My guess is a lot more natural gas and much less coal. We're the leading light on nuclear generation, and I think that's great--what my state needs to do now is invest in smaller, next-generation reactors that are far more efficient with fuel, and get rid of coal entirely. (Plus, the old Gen 2 reactors like Dresden are showing their age badly.) We also need to strengthen the power grid here to handle whatever generation systems come on line in the future, from renewables to more nuclear to capturing bacteria farts from landfills and burning them up :-)
It's to bizarre to think that all the operating nukes are based on 1950s technology developed by Adm. Rickover for the Navy. Problem is, they "grew like topsy." The more expensive licensing got, the bigger the nukes got. !200MW behemoths. With Rube Goldberg ECCSystems. The next gen nukes are so fundamentally different its like the difference between a Model T and a new Vette. My home state of CT has no natural gas or oil and an old, aptly named nuke - the Millstone Plant. We need to put our investment in next gen nukes, not Chinese solar and pinwheels. The more we rely on "renewables" the more rickety the grid gets. And the more heating and vehicular load we put on the grid, the more stressed it will be.
Absolutely yes. If we're going to spend another trillion or three in federal money, forget tax cuts, weapons systems that even the Pentagon doesn't want, and most of the proposed social spending bills. I want it spent on bringing our national, regional, and local power grids up to 22nd Century standards. We can barely handle power demand as it is in many parts of Brownout Land. Water and sewer, too; they're crumbling. It all works together.
I like the new gens of reactors. They're much less prone to accidents, and far more fuel-efficient, cutting back on the waste we will have to store. Which, from what I understand, is far fewer cubic yards than nuke-haters claim. We already paid to dig out Yucca Mountain, time to open it and start storing the waste properly.
Good point on the size of reactors being tied to the difficulty of siting and licensing requirements. Hadn't considered that.
Truthfully, its something like 24 & 60 for the variable rate. My base is 34, 38 over some—all too low baseline.
Insanity. And California taxpayers put up with this corruption.