It has been just over a year since the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the Constitutional right to an abortion. Since then, abortion has been completely banned, with limited or no exceptions, in 13 states, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states, Florida and Georgia, imposed laws banning abortion after six weeks — before many women even know they are pregnant. North Carolina enacted a ban on abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. In other states, including Ohio, Utah, and Wyoming, efforts to ban or severely restrict abortion rights are on hold pending litigation.
Until Republicans in ruby red states like Iowa start to lose their seats because of the abortion issue, right wing ideology will prevail over the will of the majority. It's just that simple. When Reynolds and her co-conspirators pass a six week ban, which they surely will, the voters must take them out in the next election. My money says that they won't and Republicans will be safely and easily re-elected all across the states where abortion has been banned.
Doubtful. They had protesting at the IA capital, from both sides. They only took 2 hours of comments from IA people. Voting will happen at 11 PM tonight.
We're not far from IA. We get their news. I follow their news pages on the book face. WQAD and KWQC. There's a 3rd, but for some reason they never come across my timeline. WHBF is the CBS affiliate. Check out the crazies on the first 2. I think there's local chapters of white nationalists, I think a group were at J6, they love conspiracy theories, and mostly, some of the them are trumpies. Huge gun nuts, would rather shoot someone than ask questions. I hate going to IA anymore because these people scare the crap out of me with their loony talk.
Heck of a deterioration in a state that elected Tom Harkin. They even sent a visibly senile Chuck Grassley back to the Senate rather than elect a highly qualified and competent centrist Democrat. I fear that some of these places may be a lost cause, at least until the MAGAs and the Christo-Fascist SCOTUS come for them, or their children. And you can be sure, they will come for them. As Patt says above, it may be birth control, but more likely it will be when Social Security, Medicare, or in Iowa, farm subsidies are slashed.
From what I saw, farmers in IA were behind trump. Laughable, isn't it? This abortion law Kimmie is rushing through, is merely a blip to too many of them. I saw they only had 2 hours of comments from IA people. 2 hours! What typically would take 2 weeks or better of debate, is being rushed so quickly. They're expected to vote by 11 PM, central. I haven't heard anything about this being a referendum that will go before the people and they'll vote on it. No, politicians will decide what's best for women's health and their reproductive rights. IA says they don't have any. Grassley is an idiot if there was one. I read their comments about President Biden being old and I asked about Grassley. Crickets. IA people (some) still believe they were better off under trump than Biden. There is no discussing anything with them, they immediately call me every name in the book and some I've never heard before. It's the only place I've stopped informing the misinformed. As for SS, Medicare or anything slashed for that matter. It will because of libs. Everything is because of libs. Earthquakes, hurricanes, price of gas, house prices, their dog dying. There is no such thing as climate change. That's something a lib made up to try to scare people and they're not falling for it. Honestly, the idiotic things I've read from those news pages! Smdh
Every time I read these 6 week bans, it grinds my gears. I was walking around for 3 months not knowing I was pregnant because doctors told my husband and I that we couldn’t have children. My job at the time was super stressful so everything weird I chalked up to that. I cannot imagine these women being forced to have children in a state or country where healthcare is not even a priority. These judges smh. I’m really trying not to wish people harm. It’s hard but I’m trying.
I keep hoping that one of these days, I’ll open Popular information and find Judd’s collection of short stories or a memoir of his childhood because there’s nothing awful left to write about. Sadly, that is not this day.
As demonstrated by repeating polling, abortion rights remain popular, even among many Republicans. However, in red states, those same people polled repeatedly elect representatives who favor ending those rights.
Say the republicans get the draconian law they want passed. You'd think that would maybe hurt them next election, but they've already innoculated themselves.
All they have to do is lie and say the democrats did it! Just like they're trying to take away your health care and "groom" yer babbies.
Adam..You'd think people read & follow what's going on, so they'd recognize the lies. But after trump's election & ALL THE REST, my opinion of people Iin my country has really lowered. I know it's easy to get caught up in day to day life...BUT being able to have autonomy to make personal life decisions, may not seem important..until it is. It is easy to slip into despair about all the goings on across the country. If legislators have their own agendas, they need to be publicly called out.
Can't blame the democrats. There's only 36 of them in the IA house to 64 Republicans. No, no gerrymandering here!! Nothing to see here, folks......what's that shiny thing over there?????
Makes no sense to impose controls over the bodies of child bearing women. It will only help support the development of a black market for the services. It has never worked. It will never work. It is a foolish effort which will lead to injury and death.
Corps want to appeal to talent by offering comprehensive benefits and appearing to be acting in the interests of the majority, while supporting WHOMEVER is in power to help ensure their business interests are represented. I can't think of anything other than employees and other stakeholders demanding change by their employees will modify their behavior (i.e. the interests of your talent is of greater import than regulatory and tax regimes). Calling out an employer is dicey for obvious reasons. Curious what other people think. Naming and shaming by outsiders seems to have limited effect.
The hypocrisy of corporations & their Ceos clearly runs deep & always towards self interest. Principles are lacking overall, on the upper most levels in corporate board rooms.
Thank you Judd for making us that much more aware, of the widespread hypocrisy of corporate America & their leadership. Perhaps it's time to call them out individually; on the notion that you financially support judges who vote against abortion; while publicly parade as pro choice.
I suppose when you are part of the upper echelon of a major corporation, it's not a big deal to fly your ( insert) daughter, wife, girlfriend, mistress) comfortably on the corporate jet to whatever state hundreds or thousands of miles away, that will take care of your "problem" legally, quietly, painlessly. While in some restrictive, bible thumping, Southern or Midwestern state, where there's already a dearth of substandard medical care available for pregnancies going full term...like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama etc. (especially in the case of poor women/ women of color in particular) low income women must struggle to find a way to afford to pay for the procedure, as well as come up with funds for travel, lodging & time off from work. Hope all goes ok during a particularly sad & difficult time. Often doing so alone in a city they're unfamiliar with, hundreds or a thousand miles away. Or you risk all the ramifications of an illegal abortion, much like women were relegated to prior 1973.
The disparities in America respect to income, opportunity, education & availability of good healthcare, nevermind healthcare in general are dismaying....and damning.
Born in 1955, at 67, I would have hoped America would have matured in it's thinking by now & recognized how improving "good" medical care availability, better higher education at a reasonable cost, clean drinking water for everyone, and yes..choice/ autonomy over your body & life decisions, would have been a fore-gone conclusion. Yet we're still having "pissing"matches in court, in the legislatures, state & federal about who makes very personal life choices for you & I. What does this say about us as a people & a nation. Not a lot.
So the lady complaining about "one judge in one county" doesn't really get how voting works, does she? She's complaining about the process of voting? What a dullard. So the far right majority installed on the Supreme Court can't help her pass her religious bills and she's crying because why exactly? Obviously the voters don't want a full-on abortion ban if they elected that judge. I'm so sick of religious lunatics foisting their beliefs on the rest of us. We need more agnostic's in government.
I feel like religious people use their religion in every decision they make. If there was a judge capable of interpreting the law without using their religious viewpoints, I'm all for it. I also don't believe they are capable of doing that.
women should go on strike and refuse to have sexual relations with all the men who vote against the rights of a woman to chose...after all, it's not HIS body that has to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy that he caused
"An incest exception requires a similar report within 140 days." WTF??? A kid who has been routinely abused by a relative is supposed to report it to the cops or a doctor? Even if they are brave enough to tell their parents (or parent if the other is doing the abusing) and even if the parent(s) then deny it could be happening? Uncle Harvey has been abusing a kid every single week for umpty years and the kid is supposed to report it EVERY SINGLE TIME on the off chance that THIS time a pregnancy will result?
"By 2021, however, the composition of the Iowa Supreme Court had changed" typifies one problem with our judicial system. Almost no one votes in judicial elections; even if the turnout is good for the election in general, many folks just skip the judges because they have no clue who these people are. Only those who really care bother--and those tend to be conservative because the conservatives, way more than the average person, even liberal, know the advantages of voting for judges who oppose the overall popular opinion on critical issues.
With the election of judges who want to push an agenda opposed to the overall preferences of the voters, the whole idea of "checks and balances" goes out the window. Instead of impartially looking at the law the courts can resort to dishonest doctrines or even dishonest reasoning. The Extremes (though of course not voted into office except indirectly) illustrate this with ideas like "originalism" or decisions like the Bremerton Coach case (which misrepresented the actual facts of the case) or Dobbs (which relied heavily on a Christian interpretation of human life to jettison constitutional protections) or the trend to ignore standing when the issue suits the agenda. I don't follow the details of state court decisions intensively--who has time--but I strongly suspect that the same dishonesty happens there when judges who oppose the popular will . Sometimes the popular will of an area may itself be unconstitutional--witness Jim Crow--but courts should at least be honest in being a check and balance to such preferences.
Now more than ever, with gerrymandering rampant, there needs to be a body that looks impartially at what the legislature, thus distorted, does. Thank god for the recusal in Iowa's latest decisions, but it very much looks like any new law will not be analyzed in light of actual constitutional principles once it is challenged.
It's interesting to me that if progressive judges vote to expand or maintain people's rights, they're activists. If they're reactionaries and vote to restrict or remove people's already protected rights, they're just interpreting the Constitution.
There is way more judicial activism on the part of these reactionaries than there is by progressives. This especially true when progressive judges are interpreting the language of the Constitution to expand rights to more classes who were barred, not shrink them.
Susan, thanks for sharing this. Thorough and thought provoking for sure. I still have to chew over that proposal some more but there is a lot to like in it, and if nothing else, it's a sound springboard to an eventual solution.
The problem I find for our case is not so much the politically ideological differences in legal interpretation. It's the introduction of an individual's personal religious interpretation or indoctrination to our bench. In many of the examples cited, whether the island nation's or European courts, the differences were generally ideological or concerned empowerment of nationalities or ethnicities. None seemed to contain the wrinkle that our own nation seems to have alone: a distinctly papal influence in interpreting our Constitution.
I like the nonpartisan board of selectors idea as a means to possibly counter that, with further assurances in confirmation swearing in that the interpretation of the law will deal with secular law only, and not invoke religion of any type in legal rulings. Our country was founded with separation of church and state for a reason, and this should and must be maintained. It's meant to be a democratic republic, not a theocracy and I say that as someone trying, and mostly failing, to live as a person of faith.
It's that influence on the Court that worries me most, even though half my family was Catholic. But one must remember that Dobbs allowed states to pass abortion laws, but not to pass UNCONSTITUTIONAL abortion laws. The "life begins at conception" idea is a particular belief of a particular part of Christianity. Laws that incorporate it into their structure are denying the rights of those who don't share their beliefs. Other interpretations include "first breath" (a lot of Jews) and Viability (a lot of other Christians, not to mention the non-religious or other religions.)
There are a bunch of cases right now challenging that idea of a law based on a particular religious perspective. And I fear that if and when those wend their way upward, we will get some mendacious reasoning that says "that's Just Fine."
Exactly this. I'm not Catholic but even if I was, or if the justices ruled in a restrictive way that happened to align with my own beliefs, someone injecting religion into interpreting secular laws isn't right. If I choose to live a certain way or follow a particular doctrine, I should be free to follow that, so long as I don't restrict anyone else or harm anyone else in doing so. If others choose not to live according to those same precepts, that is also their right and they shouldn't be forced to do so by our judiciary. It is unacceptable, even if their rulings by some miracle also fit my own personal worldview.
I've felt for a long time now that if your way of life appeals to others, they will choose it for themselves, especially if it's as good as you may believe it is. It's not up to us to coerce others to choose to live in ways we deem proper or worthy. We should only hold ourselves to the standards we accept for ourselves and obey the land's laws, while leaving others to do the same for themselves.
Freedom means just that: to do as you wish, so long as you're not harming or infringing on someone else's ability to do the same. My $.02, losing value all the time with inflation.
One of the never ending themes appears to be that our country is essentially controlled by corporations and billionaires, meaning that we are more a plutocracy than a democracy!
It makes sense that people who support tRump, a sexual predator with incestuous proclivities, would be the same Perverts obsessively looking under the skirts of women.
Don't you see the hidden agenda? The racist oligarchy is concerned only with their own wealth. In order to win elections, they have built up a base that includes stupid, gullible white Christian Nationalists. In order to keep those votes, abortion must be opposed. While the oligarchs themselves can afford to pay for abortions whenever they want and wherever they want, there are economic reasons to justify pro-life, anti-choice policies. Disallowing legal abortions will affect dark skinned women more than white women. It will have two positive effects of value to oligarchs. It will in some cases cause the deaths of both the mother and the fetus (more dark women than white) due to back alley abortions and poor medical care (the latter a top priority of the Republican Party); and it will in other cases result in the births of otherwise unwanted babies (more dark babies than white). You would think the latter result would be against racist principals. But, no, it will produce much needed dark-skin, low-wage labor, many remaining below the poverty line their entire lives, which in turn furthers the profits of the oligarchy. If abortion were not a red-hot issue for religious bigots, the oligarchs would not waste their time opposing it. As usual, the white fascist power structure is opportunistic and self-serving. They aren't stupid! Just evil. (In Hitler's case, they bred their Aryan babies like mice and killed off as many of the others as they could).
The bottom line is whether or not we are protecting unborn children by banning abortion. Those who argue that they are being righteous are viewing life as physical protoplasm. What makes all of us viable is the non physical functioning of our minds (eg, creativity, wisdom). Of course, many do not "believe" that anything survives the death of the body, but we can agree that the flesh is gone. Those who are touting religious scruples as justification for banning abortion are coming from fear and a total lack of wisdom about what is important for the well being of women.
For Alito to look to ancient prelates as sources for what is right and wrong here can cause us to question his common sense. We HAVE some idea of what was NOT known in the 1200's, 1300's, and 1400's (in Europe) to wonder how absurd the decisions of those old clergymen could be. I would imagine that abortions performed back then may have resulted in exsanguination and horrified all involved. But, their decisions would not be about the welfare of women but about preventing grim medical practices.
Question: If abortion bans in these states result in much higher birth rates of Asian, Black and brown babies compared to those of European descent, then what? Will these courts and legislators claim that these birth rates are a plot by Democrats to "replace 'real' America?" Will they legislate and use courts again to rule that some lives are more of a life than others, and it's unnecessary to work too hard to save the others?
Thanks James. I did look at yours shortly after I hit send on my own. I thought of the unfavorable outcomes among women of color in childbirth too as I was writing my comment but didn't broach it. I hadn't considered population engineering to guarantee a desperate and perpetually low paid workforce. Very likely and possible.
Yet, just like many things mankind attempts to accomplish concerning natural processes, these plans could have unintended demographic results. It may not be immediate but a persistent surge of births among POC, coupled with slow or low Euro births, could sprinkle ever increasing blue-leaning POC votes into traditionally red strongholds. Such a change would dilute their blood-red districts and become the basis of more whining, histrionics and blatant attempts to control elections. My crystal ball is often broken or cloudy, however, so any, every or no part of my prophecy could come to pass.
You are quite right. The complex and unpredictable nature of these 'social experiments' gives added importance to the full menu of autocratic right-wing strategies. They take a shot-gun approach (sometimes literally). Every outrageous technique they come up with - gerrymandering, for example - only adds to their power and the susceptibility of their supporters to propaganda. (It wasn't possible that Trump lost! Hence the insurrection). It is sinister and anti-democratic in the extreme. And we must constantly relate it to past episodes of human oppression and tragedy. We have no magic anti-fascism card to play, not when the fascists have the judges on their side.
Sigh...can't disagree. Frustrating state of affairs, James. I'll still be stubbornly casting my blue votes, the only weapon I still have in the face of what often appears an inexorable march to a SCOTUS-backed autocracy.
There are no unborn children. There are fetuses and actual living children.
Does every right wing judge these days seem like a hack? Ignore precedent, ignore state or federal Constitution, just make up legal theories?
They ARE hacks right up through the ranks, including SCOTUS.
Until Republicans in ruby red states like Iowa start to lose their seats because of the abortion issue, right wing ideology will prevail over the will of the majority. It's just that simple. When Reynolds and her co-conspirators pass a six week ban, which they surely will, the voters must take them out in the next election. My money says that they won't and Republicans will be safely and easily re-elected all across the states where abortion has been banned.
And minority rule will continue. It works so would would they change.
Minority rule requires a somnolent, complicit, or repressed majority to survive. Repression can be overcome by a majority that is fed up.
Totally agree but fear continued draconian attacks on personal rights and freedoms are all that will wake up complacent majority.
When the Republicans come for birth control will that be enough to move the masses?
Doubtful. They had protesting at the IA capital, from both sides. They only took 2 hours of comments from IA people. Voting will happen at 11 PM tonight.
Gerrymandering so helps keep Repulicans in office
We're not far from IA. We get their news. I follow their news pages on the book face. WQAD and KWQC. There's a 3rd, but for some reason they never come across my timeline. WHBF is the CBS affiliate. Check out the crazies on the first 2. I think there's local chapters of white nationalists, I think a group were at J6, they love conspiracy theories, and mostly, some of the them are trumpies. Huge gun nuts, would rather shoot someone than ask questions. I hate going to IA anymore because these people scare the crap out of me with their loony talk.
Heck of a deterioration in a state that elected Tom Harkin. They even sent a visibly senile Chuck Grassley back to the Senate rather than elect a highly qualified and competent centrist Democrat. I fear that some of these places may be a lost cause, at least until the MAGAs and the Christo-Fascist SCOTUS come for them, or their children. And you can be sure, they will come for them. As Patt says above, it may be birth control, but more likely it will be when Social Security, Medicare, or in Iowa, farm subsidies are slashed.
From what I saw, farmers in IA were behind trump. Laughable, isn't it? This abortion law Kimmie is rushing through, is merely a blip to too many of them. I saw they only had 2 hours of comments from IA people. 2 hours! What typically would take 2 weeks or better of debate, is being rushed so quickly. They're expected to vote by 11 PM, central. I haven't heard anything about this being a referendum that will go before the people and they'll vote on it. No, politicians will decide what's best for women's health and their reproductive rights. IA says they don't have any. Grassley is an idiot if there was one. I read their comments about President Biden being old and I asked about Grassley. Crickets. IA people (some) still believe they were better off under trump than Biden. There is no discussing anything with them, they immediately call me every name in the book and some I've never heard before. It's the only place I've stopped informing the misinformed. As for SS, Medicare or anything slashed for that matter. It will because of libs. Everything is because of libs. Earthquakes, hurricanes, price of gas, house prices, their dog dying. There is no such thing as climate change. That's something a lib made up to try to scare people and they're not falling for it. Honestly, the idiotic things I've read from those news pages! Smdh
They will die homeless, jobless, starving, sick but happy because they owned the libs. These people are beyond redemption.
Owning the libs is ALL it's about for them. Kook-aid aplenty in IA.
Every time I read these 6 week bans, it grinds my gears. I was walking around for 3 months not knowing I was pregnant because doctors told my husband and I that we couldn’t have children. My job at the time was super stressful so everything weird I chalked up to that. I cannot imagine these women being forced to have children in a state or country where healthcare is not even a priority. These judges smh. I’m really trying not to wish people harm. It’s hard but I’m trying.
I was in the same boat because I had breakthrough bleeding in both pregnancies.
I keep hoping that one of these days, I’ll open Popular information and find Judd’s collection of short stories or a memoir of his childhood because there’s nothing awful left to write about. Sadly, that is not this day.
You know, I want to laugh but it's not funny.
no. no, it’s not funny at all. Quite agree with you there.
As demonstrated by repeating polling, abortion rights remain popular, even among many Republicans. However, in red states, those same people polled repeatedly elect representatives who favor ending those rights.
The cognitive dissonance is striking.
Ow! This stove is hot! Ow! This stove is hot! Ow! This stove is STILL hot! Ow!...
😂😂😂 don’t make me laugh but I guess I’m not crying so that’s good
Agree. Well- said!
Say the republicans get the draconian law they want passed. You'd think that would maybe hurt them next election, but they've already innoculated themselves.
All they have to do is lie and say the democrats did it! Just like they're trying to take away your health care and "groom" yer babbies.
Problem solved.
Adam..You'd think people read & follow what's going on, so they'd recognize the lies. But after trump's election & ALL THE REST, my opinion of people Iin my country has really lowered. I know it's easy to get caught up in day to day life...BUT being able to have autonomy to make personal life decisions, may not seem important..until it is. It is easy to slip into despair about all the goings on across the country. If legislators have their own agendas, they need to be publicly called out.
Can't blame the democrats. There's only 36 of them in the IA house to 64 Republicans. No, no gerrymandering here!! Nothing to see here, folks......what's that shiny thing over there?????
What? Where? Oh shit! Did Santy come early? Is it Xmas in July? Did the Big Guy get me another AR15-the-Ayatollah-Machine? Keep it shining y'all!
.
LMAO 🤣 🤣 🤣
Makes no sense to impose controls over the bodies of child bearing women. It will only help support the development of a black market for the services. It has never worked. It will never work. It is a foolish effort which will lead to injury and death.
Corps want to appeal to talent by offering comprehensive benefits and appearing to be acting in the interests of the majority, while supporting WHOMEVER is in power to help ensure their business interests are represented. I can't think of anything other than employees and other stakeholders demanding change by their employees will modify their behavior (i.e. the interests of your talent is of greater import than regulatory and tax regimes). Calling out an employer is dicey for obvious reasons. Curious what other people think. Naming and shaming by outsiders seems to have limited effect.
The hypocrisy of corporations & their Ceos clearly runs deep & always towards self interest. Principles are lacking overall, on the upper most levels in corporate board rooms.
Thank you Judd for making us that much more aware, of the widespread hypocrisy of corporate America & their leadership. Perhaps it's time to call them out individually; on the notion that you financially support judges who vote against abortion; while publicly parade as pro choice.
I suppose when you are part of the upper echelon of a major corporation, it's not a big deal to fly your ( insert) daughter, wife, girlfriend, mistress) comfortably on the corporate jet to whatever state hundreds or thousands of miles away, that will take care of your "problem" legally, quietly, painlessly. While in some restrictive, bible thumping, Southern or Midwestern state, where there's already a dearth of substandard medical care available for pregnancies going full term...like Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama etc. (especially in the case of poor women/ women of color in particular) low income women must struggle to find a way to afford to pay for the procedure, as well as come up with funds for travel, lodging & time off from work. Hope all goes ok during a particularly sad & difficult time. Often doing so alone in a city they're unfamiliar with, hundreds or a thousand miles away. Or you risk all the ramifications of an illegal abortion, much like women were relegated to prior 1973.
The disparities in America respect to income, opportunity, education & availability of good healthcare, nevermind healthcare in general are dismaying....and damning.
Born in 1955, at 67, I would have hoped America would have matured in it's thinking by now & recognized how improving "good" medical care availability, better higher education at a reasonable cost, clean drinking water for everyone, and yes..choice/ autonomy over your body & life decisions, would have been a fore-gone conclusion. Yet we're still having "pissing"matches in court, in the legislatures, state & federal about who makes very personal life choices for you & I. What does this say about us as a people & a nation. Not a lot.
And in reply to your last sentence Bonnie, "and not much of it good."
So the lady complaining about "one judge in one county" doesn't really get how voting works, does she? She's complaining about the process of voting? What a dullard. So the far right majority installed on the Supreme Court can't help her pass her religious bills and she's crying because why exactly? Obviously the voters don't want a full-on abortion ban if they elected that judge. I'm so sick of religious lunatics foisting their beliefs on the rest of us. We need more agnostic's in government.
Or just judges that understand our founding fathers insisted on separating religion from government.
I feel like religious people use their religion in every decision they make. If there was a judge capable of interpreting the law without using their religious viewpoints, I'm all for it. I also don't believe they are capable of doing that.
women should go on strike and refuse to have sexual relations with all the men who vote against the rights of a woman to chose...after all, it's not HIS body that has to give birth to an unwanted pregnancy that he caused
"An incest exception requires a similar report within 140 days." WTF??? A kid who has been routinely abused by a relative is supposed to report it to the cops or a doctor? Even if they are brave enough to tell their parents (or parent if the other is doing the abusing) and even if the parent(s) then deny it could be happening? Uncle Harvey has been abusing a kid every single week for umpty years and the kid is supposed to report it EVERY SINGLE TIME on the off chance that THIS time a pregnancy will result?
"By 2021, however, the composition of the Iowa Supreme Court had changed" typifies one problem with our judicial system. Almost no one votes in judicial elections; even if the turnout is good for the election in general, many folks just skip the judges because they have no clue who these people are. Only those who really care bother--and those tend to be conservative because the conservatives, way more than the average person, even liberal, know the advantages of voting for judges who oppose the overall popular opinion on critical issues.
With the election of judges who want to push an agenda opposed to the overall preferences of the voters, the whole idea of "checks and balances" goes out the window. Instead of impartially looking at the law the courts can resort to dishonest doctrines or even dishonest reasoning. The Extremes (though of course not voted into office except indirectly) illustrate this with ideas like "originalism" or decisions like the Bremerton Coach case (which misrepresented the actual facts of the case) or Dobbs (which relied heavily on a Christian interpretation of human life to jettison constitutional protections) or the trend to ignore standing when the issue suits the agenda. I don't follow the details of state court decisions intensively--who has time--but I strongly suspect that the same dishonesty happens there when judges who oppose the popular will . Sometimes the popular will of an area may itself be unconstitutional--witness Jim Crow--but courts should at least be honest in being a check and balance to such preferences.
Now more than ever, with gerrymandering rampant, there needs to be a body that looks impartially at what the legislature, thus distorted, does. Thank god for the recusal in Iowa's latest decisions, but it very much looks like any new law will not be analyzed in light of actual constitutional principles once it is challenged.
It's interesting to me that if progressive judges vote to expand or maintain people's rights, they're activists. If they're reactionaries and vote to restrict or remove people's already protected rights, they're just interpreting the Constitution.
There is way more judicial activism on the part of these reactionaries than there is by progressives. This especially true when progressive judges are interpreting the language of the Constitution to expand rights to more classes who were barred, not shrink them.
Check out the following substack--it gives interesting figures about public opinion and Brown v the Board
https://substack.com/inbox/post/133629070
Susan, thanks for sharing this. Thorough and thought provoking for sure. I still have to chew over that proposal some more but there is a lot to like in it, and if nothing else, it's a sound springboard to an eventual solution.
The problem I find for our case is not so much the politically ideological differences in legal interpretation. It's the introduction of an individual's personal religious interpretation or indoctrination to our bench. In many of the examples cited, whether the island nation's or European courts, the differences were generally ideological or concerned empowerment of nationalities or ethnicities. None seemed to contain the wrinkle that our own nation seems to have alone: a distinctly papal influence in interpreting our Constitution.
I like the nonpartisan board of selectors idea as a means to possibly counter that, with further assurances in confirmation swearing in that the interpretation of the law will deal with secular law only, and not invoke religion of any type in legal rulings. Our country was founded with separation of church and state for a reason, and this should and must be maintained. It's meant to be a democratic republic, not a theocracy and I say that as someone trying, and mostly failing, to live as a person of faith.
It's that influence on the Court that worries me most, even though half my family was Catholic. But one must remember that Dobbs allowed states to pass abortion laws, but not to pass UNCONSTITUTIONAL abortion laws. The "life begins at conception" idea is a particular belief of a particular part of Christianity. Laws that incorporate it into their structure are denying the rights of those who don't share their beliefs. Other interpretations include "first breath" (a lot of Jews) and Viability (a lot of other Christians, not to mention the non-religious or other religions.)
There are a bunch of cases right now challenging that idea of a law based on a particular religious perspective. And I fear that if and when those wend their way upward, we will get some mendacious reasoning that says "that's Just Fine."
Exactly this. I'm not Catholic but even if I was, or if the justices ruled in a restrictive way that happened to align with my own beliefs, someone injecting religion into interpreting secular laws isn't right. If I choose to live a certain way or follow a particular doctrine, I should be free to follow that, so long as I don't restrict anyone else or harm anyone else in doing so. If others choose not to live according to those same precepts, that is also their right and they shouldn't be forced to do so by our judiciary. It is unacceptable, even if their rulings by some miracle also fit my own personal worldview.
I've felt for a long time now that if your way of life appeals to others, they will choose it for themselves, especially if it's as good as you may believe it is. It's not up to us to coerce others to choose to live in ways we deem proper or worthy. We should only hold ourselves to the standards we accept for ourselves and obey the land's laws, while leaving others to do the same for themselves.
Freedom means just that: to do as you wish, so long as you're not harming or infringing on someone else's ability to do the same. My $.02, losing value all the time with inflation.
yup. See my comment on your own substack, the recent post about lies.
One of the never ending themes appears to be that our country is essentially controlled by corporations and billionaires, meaning that we are more a plutocracy than a democracy!
Clearly our representatives do not represent us!
A plutocracy and an oligopoly.
It makes sense that people who support tRump, a sexual predator with incestuous proclivities, would be the same Perverts obsessively looking under the skirts of women.
Don't you see the hidden agenda? The racist oligarchy is concerned only with their own wealth. In order to win elections, they have built up a base that includes stupid, gullible white Christian Nationalists. In order to keep those votes, abortion must be opposed. While the oligarchs themselves can afford to pay for abortions whenever they want and wherever they want, there are economic reasons to justify pro-life, anti-choice policies. Disallowing legal abortions will affect dark skinned women more than white women. It will have two positive effects of value to oligarchs. It will in some cases cause the deaths of both the mother and the fetus (more dark women than white) due to back alley abortions and poor medical care (the latter a top priority of the Republican Party); and it will in other cases result in the births of otherwise unwanted babies (more dark babies than white). You would think the latter result would be against racist principals. But, no, it will produce much needed dark-skin, low-wage labor, many remaining below the poverty line their entire lives, which in turn furthers the profits of the oligarchy. If abortion were not a red-hot issue for religious bigots, the oligarchs would not waste their time opposing it. As usual, the white fascist power structure is opportunistic and self-serving. They aren't stupid! Just evil. (In Hitler's case, they bred their Aryan babies like mice and killed off as many of the others as they could).
The bottom line is whether or not we are protecting unborn children by banning abortion. Those who argue that they are being righteous are viewing life as physical protoplasm. What makes all of us viable is the non physical functioning of our minds (eg, creativity, wisdom). Of course, many do not "believe" that anything survives the death of the body, but we can agree that the flesh is gone. Those who are touting religious scruples as justification for banning abortion are coming from fear and a total lack of wisdom about what is important for the well being of women.
For Alito to look to ancient prelates as sources for what is right and wrong here can cause us to question his common sense. We HAVE some idea of what was NOT known in the 1200's, 1300's, and 1400's (in Europe) to wonder how absurd the decisions of those old clergymen could be. I would imagine that abortions performed back then may have resulted in exsanguination and horrified all involved. But, their decisions would not be about the welfare of women but about preventing grim medical practices.
Question: If abortion bans in these states result in much higher birth rates of Asian, Black and brown babies compared to those of European descent, then what? Will these courts and legislators claim that these birth rates are a plot by Democrats to "replace 'real' America?" Will they legislate and use courts again to rule that some lives are more of a life than others, and it's unnecessary to work too hard to save the others?
See my comment below.
Thanks James. I did look at yours shortly after I hit send on my own. I thought of the unfavorable outcomes among women of color in childbirth too as I was writing my comment but didn't broach it. I hadn't considered population engineering to guarantee a desperate and perpetually low paid workforce. Very likely and possible.
Yet, just like many things mankind attempts to accomplish concerning natural processes, these plans could have unintended demographic results. It may not be immediate but a persistent surge of births among POC, coupled with slow or low Euro births, could sprinkle ever increasing blue-leaning POC votes into traditionally red strongholds. Such a change would dilute their blood-red districts and become the basis of more whining, histrionics and blatant attempts to control elections. My crystal ball is often broken or cloudy, however, so any, every or no part of my prophecy could come to pass.
You are quite right. The complex and unpredictable nature of these 'social experiments' gives added importance to the full menu of autocratic right-wing strategies. They take a shot-gun approach (sometimes literally). Every outrageous technique they come up with - gerrymandering, for example - only adds to their power and the susceptibility of their supporters to propaganda. (It wasn't possible that Trump lost! Hence the insurrection). It is sinister and anti-democratic in the extreme. And we must constantly relate it to past episodes of human oppression and tragedy. We have no magic anti-fascism card to play, not when the fascists have the judges on their side.
Sigh...can't disagree. Frustrating state of affairs, James. I'll still be stubbornly casting my blue votes, the only weapon I still have in the face of what often appears an inexorable march to a SCOTUS-backed autocracy.
Hear! Hear!