I agree with you, except that you might be underestimating Republican zeal for cutting taxes and deregulating, for which they are perfectly willing to accept a substantial body count â McConnell takes the long view, and takes the bad with the good. You decide which is which, but he is unlikely to be surprised by anything that happens now.
Like everyone, I wonder whether he is dying, which would help to explain his monomania in packing the courts. He has looked as though he has some kind of Parkinsonism syndrome, and is prone to falls with injury. Doesnât seem likely to stay in office for another six years, even though he is likely to win his Senate race, but his problem is that Kentucky has a young, Democratic governor now. So what might be his swan song?
Do we imagine that McConnell would balk at a lame duck appointment to the Supreme Court? Maybe thatâs why Clarence Thomas was at the White House last night, for some quality face time with Trump and Federalist Society mavens. McConnell and Trump have nothing to lose, and the courts from their perspective are their one shining achievement. Clarence Thomas seems like a vengeful guy, too.
Todayâs NYT has a good article on ways to check the court. One by a law student is beautiful in its simplicity and feasibility. Her name; Melody Wang. I learned that the Court could not choose its cases before 1925. Simple enough to repeal the law that allowed this. Eh, voila!
Harsh. But she was human, and facing oneâs mortality seems beyond those in power. Hence our geriatocracy. And remember RBGâs experience of being a meme and icon really took off in her 80s: she was high on it.
This is mostly true, but, it depends on what they choose to rule, too. I mean, Kavanaugh, when deciding the WI ballot question yesterday, literally signed on to a Rehnquist opinion in Bush v. Gore that says that even STATE courts canât expand voting rights, that if it isnât specifically enumerated in state statute it canât be inferred by those people in a state whose job it is to interpret that law.
Abortion? If five of them agree that life begins at conception, then âbornâ and conceived are the same thing, and if theyâre the same thing ,fetuses, etc. are persons under the 14th Amendment, so abortion is rendered illegal everywhere in the US. Do I think theyâll go that far? Probably not.
But they can if they want.
Facts donât matter, and words mean what those nine people decide they mean.
I agree. But it remains to be seen if Democrats have the belly for it and I doubt that they do. If they do and it gets done, Iâll be the first to say, âThank the FSMâ, and eat as much crow as you want to feed me. But I donât think they do.
They kind of do, especially with the current crop of conservative Justices who have greater allegiance to their own beliefs than the word of or intention behind a law.
By âdefendâ in this case, I mean âspeak in defense of,â like, say, before the court. You can talk as good a game as you want about Internet freedom, but do you think youâre gonna sway Thomas, a guy who has already all but said that he wants a case that would allow him to rule on what can/canât be said on boards like this?
No.
And, yes, as I said, there are actions Congress can take, but the question remains as to whether or not they have the testicular fortitude to do it. So, if Biden wins and his coattails bring the senate with him, weâll see. I doubt it.
And sadly not even the pope is on their side. Some Catholics, like Evangelicals, use religion as a fig leaf for their hateful nonsense.
âOur defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery and every form of rejection.â - Francis
Bertrand Russel pointed out this extreme moral inconsistency early in the 20th C. Others have pointed this out over and over. Exposes the cultish thinking behind anti abortion. If you truly believed âall life is sacredâ then you would be opposed to the death penalty and the genocide wreaked on the poor daily.
Biden is a politician, so when he gets a sense of what people (the commission, senators, reps) think heâll get behind it. So that means people have to write and call their representatives and Biden and Harris themselves.
Could not agree more
the greatest threat to the pro life cause is the pro life movement
I have a niece who will share with you a long screed claiming condoms lead to abortions.
It is 55 year old.
It easy to care about unborn innocents it is a lot harder to show charity to those in need.