Monday, September 21

R.I.P. RBG

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, US Supreme Court Associate Justice, died recently. She was an amazing woman.

She was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993, and confirmed by the Senate with a vote of 96-3. She was generally seen as a moderate judge and consensus builder. She spent much of her legal career as an advocate for gender equality and woman's rights when it was sorely needed, arguing many cases before the Supreme Court. She attended Harvard Law School in 1956, one of only 9 women in a class of 500.

One of her best friends was Justice Antonin Scalia. They often opposed one another in legal decisions perceived as having ideological elements. This did not stop them from being fast friends, which is a lesson for us all.

 

RBG was not on the court when Roe vs. Wade was decided, but she criticized the decision for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws. In other words, while she was in support of the rights of women to abortion, she criticized the court for overstepping and felt it would have been more appropriately handled via law making.

Many people, I think, misunderstand the Roe v. Wade judgement.

It was a case brought before the Supreme Course that argued that Texas's strict anti-abortion law of the time, which banned all abortions at any point in the pregnancy for any reason other than for the mother's physical health, was unconstitutional.

Traditionally, states had the power to pass laws regarding abortion. The argument brought before the court was that if these state laws went too far, then they violated the rights and freedoms of the woman over her own body, essentially condemning her to a form of body-slavery, forcing her to bear an unwanted child.

The court did not, however, consider that right to be absolute, but may be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. It reasonably divided the pregnancy into three trimesters.

  1. During the first trimester governments could not prohibit abortions at all.
  2. During the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations.
  3. During the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

Many eminent constitutional scholars from both sides of the political divide argue that the constitutional argument is feeble and that the court overstepped its authority and took on law-making powers. These include John Hart Ely, Laurence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, Kermit Roosevelt, Jeffrey Rosen, Michael Kinsley, William Saletan, Benjamin Wittes, and Edward Lazarus, a former clerk of the Justice who wrote the opinion, who said,

"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

While I believe that the court did overstep, I cannot get too upset about it. It was clear that the politicians would not achieve a consensus, and would go too far in one direction or the other, and some guidance was required which the court reasonably provided. I believe it went too far in allowing a state to legalize abortion up to the moment of birth, and would have been happier with the judgment had it prohibited states from making third trimester abortions legal in all cases. However, I beleive it to be unreasonable and discriminatory towards women to not allow access to safe and legal abortions up to at least the first trimester.

I can certainly understand both sides of the abortion issue. But reasonable people should agree that it's folly to ban the abortion of a newly fertilized egg, and evil to allow the abortion of a healthy viable baby moments before birth when the mother's life or health is not substantially at risk. Therefore some compromise should be arrived at, such as the historical "quickening" rules which banned abortion after the baby started kicking, typically midway through the pregnancy, except when the health of the mother was at stake.

 

President Trump and the republican senate now have the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. I do not buy the argument that because it is an election year, that ought not be done. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to do so, and has ample precedent. Republicans would be remiss in their duty to their voters if they do not do so when they have the opportunity.

Scott Adams amusingly describes the situation in a recent podcast.

https://youtu.be/Kgyny2ktF7Q

Democrats calling it hypocritical are themselves being hypocritical, for they argued vociferously that it was perfectly ok to do so in Obama's last year, and would have absolutely done so had the Senate been held by Democrats. I find the Republicans not to be hypocritical in this instance as Scott Adams explains better than I in the above.

I find that I generally approve of the Supreme Court justices appointed by the Republicans, as they value a judiciary which sticks to the law as written and attempts not to intrude into matters of law-making, whereas Democrats are much more open to having an activist judiciary.

Let me know if you agree or disagree. Polite comments and arguments are always welcome!

194 comments:

  1. The President sending a name is the easy part. Ginsburg herself said the President's nominating authority does not evaporate due to an election year.

    The Senate majority can do as it pleases with a nomination to any post, including the Supreme Court. If the Democrats had been in the majority when Scalia died in 2016, they absolutely would have pushed Obama's nomination of Garland through no matter what Mitch McConnell's thoughts on the matter were, and they would have been foolish not to do so. But they were tossed out of the majority in Obama's final midterm so the GOP could credibly refuse to confirm it.

    McConnell may have been "too cute by half" with his rationale/explanation of why he refused to confirm Garland, but he was well within his rights as the majority leader to do so. And you'd better believe he's going to ram this nomination down the Democrats' throats. An opportunity like this doesn't come around very often.

    The conservatives being this close to a solid majority on the Court is Ginsburg's own fault for not stepping down in 2010 when she was first diagnosed with the death sentence that is pancreatic cancer. Two liberal justices in David Souter and John Paul Stevens retired so Obama could replace them, and she should have done the same. Instead she stayed on and believed Hillary would win so she could replace her. That has proven to be a massive miscalculation. Her legendary refusal to back down from anyone or anything that defined much of her life has now come to haunt the American left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good point. I blame this concept that justices must be picked by one party or the other on Dems who favour judicial activism. If everybody values justices who just interpret law, party would not be an issue.

      Delete
  2. Joe2 here,

    When I was in college, I took a course on constitutional law. It was a great course taught by a wonderful professor, who challenged us in an enjoyable manner. He was extremely liberal but enjoyed arguing both sides.

    One assignment was “Roe v. Wade.” It is a horribly written piece of junk. It doesn’t flow; it is illogical; and it misstates facts. For instance, one foundational pillar of the opinion is that abortion was legal in colonial times (to make it seem that abortion was legal when the constitution was signed). The problem is that it was not true. The opinion noted laws from colonial times that excused women for killing their babies. In that period, if someone caused the death of another, then at a minimum they were guilty of manslaughter unless there was a specific law excusing it. Since life was much more dangerous than today, accidents were much more common. So if a woman fell down a steep staircase holding her child, resulting in death of that child, then the woman was guilty of manslaughter. Since this would be an egregious outcome for what was a horrible accident, laws were put in place so women would not be punished for what was truly an accident. That the opinion even tried to fit “colonial laws” to find precedence, show how intellectually corrupt the opinion was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Corrupt from one point of view, a good result from another.

      Delete
  3. While this is a complicated issue, I find myself pessimistically weary and choose to merely offer this quote rather than post any lengthy discussion:

    "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud, hatch out." ----Derek Jacobi as Emperor Claudius I in the 1976 series, "I, Claudius"

    However, before I log off, I will ask this: If doing something one is in the position to do regardless of what was promised at another time, or essentially "doing whatever one is in a position to do to get what they want" is OK for McConnell, Graham, et al., does the same tolerance, and even admiration, apply to whatever Pelosi and her cadre resort to in order to thwart such a nomination? Is the 'winner' of this contest, no matter who it is and no matter how it was accomplished, to be condoned and even congratulated so long as their strategy prevailed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think fair play comes into it. Not everything that can be done is ok to do (eg, smear reputations). However I fail to see how appointing a justice in 2020 according to the rules is not fair play, just as I fail to see how not confirming a justice in 2016, according to the rules, was not fair play.

      Delete
    2. How is it not fair play? You really don’t see how the Republican argument in 2016 that nine months is too close to the Presidential election and that we should let the American people decide, but now, apparently with less than two months before the election the American people should have no say, even though all the polls. Indicate that the majority of Americans believe that we should wait and allow the next President to make the choice. You can’t have it both ways, either the American people have the final Say they don’t. The term that you’re looking for is hypocrisy.

      Delete
    3. Well I think each was more of a power play than 'fair' play. But totally legal. That's why I asked the question I posed. A lot of things can be legal but slimy. If 'legal' is the only caveat, I think things will only get worse going forward. There will be no compromise on anything. Everything will be even more adversarial than now.....if such a thing is possible. But personally I am glad the Republicans are pushing this through. It's exactly what this election cycle needs! (Hence my "I, Claudius" reference) In fact, I am hoping for a very extreme candidate to be put forth and then rushed onto the bench.

      Delete
    4. I don't even see how it's not fair play, in 2016 President and Senate opposed one another. There was no way. This year they're the same. It's their duty.

      Delete
    5. It was their duty in 2016 as well... THey should vote on this selection, and they should have in 2016, not doing so makes them hypocrites. Now, HOW they vote, is a different matter, if the candidate is Barrett as suspected, calling her anything other than a partisan hack is a pretty tough sell.

      Delete
    6. Can you justify, with evidence, your opinion on Barrett?

      Delete
  4. Alternatively, the next government to hold executive, senate and house of reps power could expand the bench entirely and change everything. Then all this won't have really mattered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think everybody can agree that it is not in the interests of a well functioning and efficient judiciary to do so, whereas filling a vacancy to bring the number to an odd one, entirely according to rule and precedent, is.

      Delete
    2. I think that most people would agree that having a partisan or unbalanced court is not in the interests of a well functioning and efficient judiciary. I don't have any partisan allegiance so would rather there is neither an activist nor conservative court. And in saying that, I don't know the best ways to acheive this.

      I think we could all agree that unelected, lifetime appointments and placing so much power in a handful of individuals is far from ideal. The death of one unelected person should not have such an impact on an election.

      It would be a fairer court if the 60 minimum Senate votes were still required for both GOP and Dem hearings.

      Scalia and Ginsburg got along famously, Obama and Biden both spoke at McCain's funeral.. They tussled over ideas but all wanted to unite the country, this lack of respect and congeniality is what is tearing the country apart. Division is what the foreign powers want.

      Delete
    3. The distinction ought not be activist vs conservative. It should be rejecting activists on both ends.

      Delete
    4. Fair enough, I take it you agreed on the rest then?

      Delete
    5. Mostly, but not sure about the filibuster. You get real gridlock with it. The Dems realized that first, and the Republicans next.

      I think Supreme Court should be term-limited, but long terms, like 20 years.

      I think McCain was super swampy, which is why he got along so well with swampy politicians of all ilk. His role in pushing the fake dossier (now turned out to be a Russian asset who provided the info!) was horrendous, whatever else he may have accomplished.

      Delete
  5. The supreme court has lost it's way. their job is not to make law but to follow the constitution, and in many cases in the past they have made law.
    archedone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. As do Republicans generally, but not as many Dems who prefer an 'activist" court.

      Delete
  6. You fairly presented the arguments and flaws of both sides. Kudus!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Disagree and why, Trump is a sexist, his views on women are unacceptable. I do not believe on cheating on your wife, Trump did such. Now as for Mitch, should not the same be applied to this case as he applied to Obama, but then Mitch spends more times on his knees before Trump that this does not surprise me. I understand what Ruth had said in the past, but what she said prior to her death should have meaning. I understand Pro-Life, but I do not accept anyone have the right to control another, in this case a woman's body. I will go this far if Roe vs Wade is overturned, then is it not only fair that vasectomies be made illegal, for such procedure prevents life be created. This is a human choice, and so what is fair for the female should be fair to the male. One last point, once you begin to take away rights, it will not stop with just that one, others will follow. In school, history class, politics, given the assignment to present a speech from the past supporting your views. I did, everyone liked it, talked about education, medical, said all the things people would want. What was interesting was many knew it was a Republican who wrote the speech, it was not, Hitler from Mein Kempf is what I read. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where to start? Trump is an advocate for accomplished women in positions of power. Many examples. Clinton cheated, Kennedy cheated, ...

      What RBG reportedly said before she died is irrelevant, and if true displays a poor understanding of her role and the selection process. I personally don't believe she ever said anything so foolish as her last words.

      If Roe is overturned it means power to decide reverts to states. Big deal.

      The right to kill a living thing is a very special right. I would not lump it with others.

      Main Kamph, taken out of context, has reasonable bits. In the broader context of its lunatic ravings, it's evil.

      Delete
    2. Mein Kampf, not out of content, no matter the final view of Hitler, what he said, not knowing who said it, found republicans agree with. Trump cheated on his first wife, Marla is who he was seeing. Trumps views on women, so you would not mind him touching you, no matter where, and when. Lies, each time he opens his mouth. Who will Build the Wall, Mexico, who is building the Wall, U.S. Trump I support the LGBTQ community, stated when he was running, his views now. Knocking down Trump is like shooting ducks in a pond, so very easy. Remember he stated it was The Poorly Educated who got him elected, so how does that make you feel, that you are Poorly Educated. I could go on and on and on and on, but it is just too easy to show his many flaws. The stocks went up over 400 and he stated are you not glad I'm your President, the next day drop 800, did not hear anything from him and us being glad he President. Will Rogers stated "A Fool and his Money will be Elected", Trump is the Fool.

      Delete
    3. To say that every sentence written or uttered by Hitler in his entire lifetime was evil is silly. Don't be silly.

      You have very bad TDS. Please seek help!

      Delete
    4. I did not say evil, what you misunderstood is that a speech by Hitler would be accepted by all, until they knew who wrote it. Not being silly.
      You still haven't said why would you support Trump with his low view on women? He cheated on his first wife and could be true on on second.

      Delete
    5. Same reason I like Kennedy and used to like Bill. Cheating on your wife has little to do with being a good President, and nothing to do with how they treat women as colleagues. Trump has a very progressive record in appointing women to positions of power in his organizations. Look it up.

      Delete
    6. Trump is playing you and others for a fool. Please take the time to learn about Trump. If you cheat on your wife, that means you at some point have lied to your wife. It has been proven on a daily bases that Trump lies. Take the blinders off, do some research into Trump, his business, how he tried to get his Dad's will rewritten so he would inherit it all, his Dad caught him. How he and his Dad were charged by the Federal Government. If he has nothing to hide in his taxes, show them. An Audit does not prevent you from showing your taxes. What about the letters to Kim (North Korea) that he will not show, why did he destroy any conversation between him and Putin? He is playing all for a fool. Why would prior to the election say he would challenge the results. He does not trust mail-in-voting but Florida uses it and he mailed in his ballot.

      Delete
    7. And... zero evidence. Who's the fool? I would never make a statement without evidence.

      Delete
    8. evidence is reading about his family, evidence is he admits to it, evidence is when he opens his mouth. Care to explain why alot of republicans are not voting for him.

      Delete
    9. Hmmm. Another statement, again with zero evidence.
      What a zero you are.

      Delete
    10. Do you just listen to Fox, have you ever taken the time to read about the Trump Family?, 'Rage" would be a good book to start with. And before you say it is all lies, you have the right, just like Trump to take the author to court, sue him for slander. But first you must prove they are lies. Your being played for a fool, remember Trump called his supporters "Poorly Educated", look it up. Trump said Mexico will build the Wall, who is building and paying for the Wall. 'Lock Her Up' and how many of those associated with Trump have been locked up. Trump supporters are capable of putting three words together, Lock Her Up, Build that Wall, Fill that Seat, so it was great to see him booed, and chants of Vote Him Out recently. Notice Vote Him Out, three words, something a Trump Supporter is capable of understanding. As for being a Zero, you have not even made it to being a Zero, you filled with so much Negative beliefs and being fooled by Trump, that you will never get to ZERO.

      Delete
    11. All those words. Zero evidence. Go away, TDS man.

      Delete
    12. I strongly feel you need a bath brush soundly applied to your bare bottom, in order to wake you up. From experience the bath brush does wonders, and so it would with you.

      Delete
    13. It is a fantasy of mine to beat a leftist male's ass and make him argue how great Trump is before I let him off. Am hoping he's very, very stubborn... :-)

      Delete
  8. You made a fair presentation. Kudus
    Bogey

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lots of hypocrisy and I agree with your Youtube guy, but many Rs said more clearly than usual they wouldn’t do it in an election year.

    More importantly the timing and politics are interesting. Will it make Trump look weak if he tries to push somebody through and it doesn’t work? (We all know there are several Rs who may not go along.) and if Trump looks weak, might it lead to his own downfall Nov 3.

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
  10. Regarding abortion, it boils down, in my opinion, to two things:

    1- The definition of human life (when does it begin and end?), and any definite answer to that question seems, IMHO, superstitiously motivated-- First heartbeat, or first kick, or the likes don't really makes much sense from a biological standpoint (as evident by the second part of the question of life, i.e. When does it end? brain death still allows for spinal cord reflexes, and heartbeats for example).
    So, indefinite answers to that question of beginning and end of the human life (even if the ambiguity stands in the way of religious beliefs of soul, and divine creation of a new human being) are more scientific in my opinion.

    2- And this is rarely addressed, is one's autonomy over one's body.
    If a child is born, and have been alive for say ten years, so there is no ambiguity regarding them being a fully developed human being- but then they had a liver, or a kidney failure, and if, hypothetically speaking, their life depends on finding a donor, and their only viable option is their mother-- Can that mother be forced to undergo a non-life-threatening operation without which her child would die? Morality aside, I don't think any legal action can be taken against her if she refused to do that.
    So, if a woman wants to undergo a hysterectomy at any point of her adult life, I don't think she should be denied her autonomy over her body on the account of another human being (if we disambiguate the first point, and agreed for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a definite, separate human being)needing that part of her anatomy well and functioning in order for them to survive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't follow. I think people should compromise, respecting one another's views.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for comment, I do agree generally with the need for compromise...
      But I think what is most feared, from the pro-choice prospective, is the possibility of criminalizing a woman's action regarding her own body over a hypothesis she may not believe in, (that life begins with a fertilized ovum, or the first heartbeat, or another inconclusive event)...
      Pushing for that criminalization seems to be more harmful to the prospect of compromise and agreeing to disagree, in my humble opinion.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Roe, that criminalization of first trimester abortions would violate a woman's rights. It should be the law though, not a shakily argued constitutional case that can be overturned because it is such a poor argument. That was RBG's point as well.

      Delete
  11. The US Supreme Court has been bought by big business and rich donors like the Koch Brothers (brother now) among the most notable. The Supreme Court is a joke, as are senate republicans. They had 9 months to at least give Obama’s pick Garland a hearing, even if they voted no. He didn’t even get a hearing. 42 days from the election and Trump wants to force one in. Republicans days are numbered in power and they won’t be missed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why hear him if the vote would have been no anyways? Just politically stupid to do so.

      Delete
    2. By giving him a vote, democrats can’t use that as ammo against them now. Nobody has ever accused a Republican of being smart, and I thank them for the free ammo to make the case for us packing the courts with 4 new justices. We’ll DC and PR as states and give us 4 new dem senators too. Republicans wanted to screw around, well they’re about to get screwed. Again, their days are numbered.

      Delete
    3. Packing the court would be a sucky, sore loser move by the Dems (as was eliminating the filibuster). Only bad things can come of it. Appointing a justice legally, entirely according to precedent, is fine.

      Delete
  12. Julie,
    I think you and many others misunderstand what is at stake here; it is not simply one more seat on the SC or the dubious arguments pro and con on Roe- Wade. It is about the GOP -in its naked and hypocritical grab for power-- igniting a real cultural civil war in the United States that could ultimately destroy the last vestiges of constitutional democracy still extant. Trump will get his judge and both Obama care and Roe Wade will probably fall. But Republican, who are about to lose power at the federal level, both houses of congress and the White House, will pay a price neither they or the nation can afford . Once out of power, there are some good reasons to believe the GOP will be out of power a long time. Into this breech Democrats are going to rush do things they would not have dared before the GOP virtually abolished all the norms established in over two centuries of a two party system. Democrats will “pack the court”, possibly move to impeach sitting justices and otherwise run wild undoing everything the GOP aspired to for the country. The very existence of the Republican Party will be at risk. The GOP is and has been a minority party in the US for some time and demographic trends suggest that trend will only intensify in the near to midterm future. A minority party need all the protections it can get to remain viable and the GOP under Trump has wantonly abolished them. What is about to happen is a short term defeat for Democrats and liberals, but a long term disaster for the GOP and the nation itself. We are about to cross the Rubicon
    Alan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comment is much more damning of Dem behaviour than Republicans. Wasn't it Dems who first "went nuclear" on court appointments? For them, ends justify means. Evil.

      Delete
    2. Julie,
      You wrote:” Wasn't it Dems who first "went nuclear" on court appointments? For them, ends justify means. Evil. “
      You seem more interested in assigning blame for this looming disaster than understanding its horrendous implications. What is about to happen is the equivalent of the first shots fired at Fort Sumter in 1861.

      The GOP under Trump, regardless of how justified or unjustified, has virtually abolished all the norms and reciprocal behaviors of representative constitutional government that makes the US fragmented system work – including the safe guards traditionally provided to minority parties. And they have done it at precisely the worst time for them and the nation as a whole.

      They are about to become the minority party, by losing power in November in perhaps the widest transfer of power from one party to the other since the Great Depression. Emboldened and vindictive the Democrats will react by pushing minority Republicans to the outer edges of political relevance. There will be no restraint and the US will lurch toward one party control as minority Republicans are moved to the margins of American political life.
      The two party system, vital to the functioning of constitutional democracy will be threatened as it has not been since the Civil war.
      As I said in my earlier post Trump will (probably) get his judge and more but the price may be the survival of the GOP and with it the continuation of American constitutional democracy.
      Alan

      Delete
    3. That's all on Dems if they do that. How can you possibly support them if you know they are plotting the destruction of your country???

      And what exactly has Trump done to "virtually abolish... blah blah blah"? I'd say it was the "resist at all costs" Dems who did any of that.

      Delete
    4. Julie,
      You are a highly intelligent women, a virtual icon to the modern women exploring her sexuality and an immensely gifted writer. But you are also hopelessly naive about the US system of government how it actually works,(and doesn't work). We are all about to get a lesson on that one
      Alan

      Delete
    5. I don't think I'm naive about it. I think the Dems are perfectly capable of wrecking your democracy. It's what the looting, rioting, BLM, Antifa, anarchists supported by leftist Dems are after.

      Delete
    6. You are naive if you think its all Dems bad / Republicans good. The current administration has some good points and many more bad points, unfortunately . Just look at all the Republicans who have come out against Trump and all the people who worked with him in the Administration ( not to mention his own family) who say what a nut job he really is - just confirming what most people see clearly with their own eyes. Everything revolves around him. I'm generally for what Republicans stood for but Trump is dangerous because he does not want to listen or learn it appears. On top of it he just fans the flames of every crisis - and I believe most rational people in the US are beginning to see it that way as he continues to ignore and mislead the country during the biggest public health crisis in our life time. Over 200,000 dead, many more with long term effects and he states it impacts "virtually nobody" - who does that as the leader of the country??

      Delete
    7. Blah, blah, blah. All TDS. Zero actual facts and evidence. Yawn.

      Delete
    8. Obviously didn’t like my last evidenced based comment so choosing to not publish just tells me you’re not able to defend your position. So be it but don’t pretend to have informed views when clearly you don’t.

      Delete
    9. I detect no trace of "evidence". Pick an actual thing, that Trump actually did or said (with the in context link) and offer that up. I'll either agree it was bad or defend it if I think not. Having people come out against him is not evidence of anything.

      Delete
  13. Here in the United States I think we may see things a bit differently than you do north of the border. The issue is much more complex than a constructionist court versus an activist one. The Trump appointees are far more willing to restrict human rights than their liberal brethren.

    It isn't a matter of constructionist versus activist. It's realities like restricting voting for black people, sending children of illegal immigrants back to dangerous countries, limiting a woman's right to control her own body, and equal rights for women in the workplace.

    The supreme court has never been terribly activist. Roe V Wade may not have been strictly interpreting the constitution, but it did provide fair, unified access to abortion for all American women regardless of where they live.

    That decision did far more than provide abortion access. It provided choice to poor women without husbands who raised children doomed to marginal lives. Fifteen years after Roe, the crime rate in large cities dropped dramatically. The reason was almost certainly the ability for inner city women to abort unwanted pregnancies.

    The RBG court was a nice balance of liberal and conservative. I'm not happy with all of their decisions, but on balance I think the court is fair.

    I believe Trump and his henchmen in the senate shouldn't force an appointment through now. If Trump wins the election, he can appoint whoever he wants (almost certainly an attractive, blonde female). We American people deserve the ability to influence this very late appointment with our votes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on Roe. I disagree on your characterization of Rep-appointed judges. They seem to value interpreting the law as written. American people voted for Trump and a Republican senate. It would be remiss of them not to appoint a justice.

      Delete
    2. Let's see what 11/3 brings...

      Delete
    3. After 11/3, if Dems win President and Senate, they can appoint judges to the next vacancies during their term. What's the big deal?

      Delete
  14. The Democrats need to drink some concrete and harden up. Stop whining about Republican hypocrisy and get ruthless. Win the senate and expand the numbers on the court. You can bet that’s what the Republicans would do in their position. They’ll cry “inefficient judiciary” but so what? Love their tears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dems don't like playing by the rules, clearly, to the detriment of their country.

      Delete
  15. A few thoughts on my mind...

    1-The overall Federal bench has been significantly skewed (screwed?) by the current administration for the next 20+ years with the youthful conservatives appointed. I want balance in both the judiciary and the legislature.

    2-If Merrick Garland had at least been brought forth for a vote in 2016, I'd have no issue with what's happening today. Coming from an Accounting background, consistency is a hallmark of our profession. This is nothing less than two-faced by McConnell...period. Controlling the W/H and the Senate as an argument is bullshit...do the same thing both times when the vacancy occurs. I see the Merrick Garland situation as nothing less than stealing a SCOTUS seat (really, 240+ days???).

    3-As for RvW, I wrote a term-paper in college on it. My feeling on the issue regardless of the quality of the legislation, is that I don't feel I have the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body...nor does the government.

    Just call me a former Republican but not a Democrat, please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. too bad Democrats didn't do the same with youthful picks of their own. Why did RBG hang on for so long?

      2. He would have been defeated anyways.

      3. I agree with the outcome. It was the process that was flawed and leaves an opening for reversal. Should have been legislated, not a court decision. I agree with RBG on that.

      Delete
  16. I’m an Australian and here there aren’t such torrid political debates about judicial appointments. Frankly I’m pleased we are a parliamentary democracy with compulsory voting and different branches of government aren’t suing each other all the time. Life’s too short to spend energy on politics. A 6 week electoral campaign every 4 years is quite enough. Having said that those republicans sound like right ruthless bastards. They pinched the Democrats pick and now they’re doing a 180 and taking another one. Too interested in their own power I reckon. Not healthy. I’d be voting them out quick smart. The democrats would be regarded as pretty middle of the road over here. I’d give them a crack. I like that AOC lady. Best of a bad bunch. Give her the job. She’d keep the bastards honest. Cheers from Mick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your characterization of Dems as middle of the road used to be more true than today, where a radical leftist element has taken over the party. AOc's "Green New Deal" would be an economic disaster that would not do a damned thing for the climate.

      Delete
    2. We started this debate seriously 10 years ago. This is an old country and when the rivers started running dry and the forests burnt at unprecedented levels there weren’t too many denying the problem. 5 prime ministers in 5 years later energy policy has settled down. Now all parties are committed to 28% reduction in 2005 greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Not bad for a country dependant on mining. I see Canada’s commitment is similiar. So I’d suggest that it’s past time the Yanks got their shit together and worked something out be that via a green deal or otherwise. Can’t see that happening under Trump/republicans. They’re too busy fighting over power. Like a bunch of seagulls fighting over a chip. Mick

      Delete
    3. Don't fall for the climate hoax. Do your research.

      Delete
    4. Seriously- all climate change is a hoax? What are your sources on that one? Let’s see your research as most of the science community thinks it is a real thing.

      Delete
    5. Temperatures have increased out of the little ice age. No proof it is man made CO2 driving it.

      Delete
    6. Well come over here to Aus one day and I’ll show you the Darling River alongside my property that used to run clear and now when it runs at all is a sediment soup. Or you can go to Queensland and watch the barrier reef die or to NZ and track the glaciers retreating.
      Every time someone disagrees with you on this blog you just say “no evidence” when if you bothered to research an issue gripping the world outside of North America you’d find plenty. So here’s some secondary sites to start basic reading on man made climate change. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
      https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp
      It’s past time you city North Americans took a look outside your own cities and wake the fuck up I reckon. Mick

      Delete
    7. I did not say the earth has not been warming. I dispute the cause of it (how much is natural, ocean currents and solar activity + clouds; versus man-made) and then even if man-made, if proposed solutions would be effective.

      Summarize for me, in your own words, what you believe the evidence to be that definitively links increased man-made CO2 to global warming.

      Delete
    8. Still see no sources saying what the natural causes are?

      Delete
    9. Ocean currents. Solar activity. Do you think natural causes do not impact climate? That would be an absurd position. Onus is on the CO2 crowd to prove it is mostly responsible. Everyone accepts natural variability can cause (and has in the past caused) such warming as we have observed.

      Delete
    10. A scientist, skeptical that man-made CO2 was the cause of global warming looked at some of the other potential causes you mentioned - mainly solar activity. He was partly funded by the Koch brothers. His conclusion? "How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does." At this point, the burden of proof is on any explanation other than human CO2 emissions.

      https://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7

      So, why did he conclude that? I like this concise explanation of how scientists link CO2 to global warming:

      1) Global average temperatures are rising
      2) CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising
      3) Spectroscopy shows that heat is being trapped at CO2 wavelengths, and not by other potential greenhouse gases

      The timelines for (1) and (2) coincide with the growth of human industrial emissions of CO2 over the last 150 years.

      https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

      Delete
    11. The skeptical science website you reference is pure one-sided propaganda, and not in the least skeptical.

      1/2/3 are all true, but not proof of anything. To be precise, heat is not "trapped" in an open atmosphere. CO2 absorbs IR radiation, but so does water vapour and to a much greater extent. You must take other heat conduction methods into account to understand what effect marginally more CO2 (0.01% increase to date) would have on global temperature, and that's very difficult and nobody has done it successfully yet.

      As to correlation, temperature rose from 1890 to 1940 when there was very little CO2, then dropped from 1940 to 1980 (scare of new ice age) as CO2 grew strongly. Those correlations you don't seem to take into account. You are engaged in cherry picking.

      The chaotic multi-decadal ocean currents (ADO and PDO) are more than adequate to explain the temperature changes we have seen.

      Delete
    12. “280 parts per million to 414 parts per million in the last 150 years“ https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

      That’s a 48% increase.

      I’ve cited a variety of sources. What are yours?

      Ocean currents can explain regional temperature changes, but not changes in the entire globe’s average temperature. If a warm water current is warming one area of the ocean up, it’s carrying heat away from another. 1st law of thermodynamics - conservation of energy.

      Delete
    13. How is it germane that atmospheric CO2 changed from .028% to 0.041%? How does that prove anything? Especially when it's been as high as 0.4% in the past.

      I don't play "sources" when your "sources" are propaganda. If you don't understand the central arguments of your sources, that's fine, just admit it. If you do, summarize it. If you can't explain where the evidence comes from, briefly, you don't understand it. I've summarized my main points above. Do so for yours. Onus is on you to prove increased CO2 causes warming, as we have easily seen this much natural variability in the recent past without the CO2 change.

      Delete
    14. Julie, the citation immediately preceding your off-hand "propaganda" dismissal is a summary by NASA (an agency of the U.S. Federal government) of scientific reports aggregated under the auspices of the United Nations. From (my) outside perspective, the previous poster made a legitimate, good faith effort to engage with you, and all you offered in response was your very own orange-man-bad equivalent, "climate science propaganda". Please do provide sources, for our erudition on what non-propaganda sources look like in your view.

      A specific suggestion of what would be a helpful reference to include on your end: a calibration exercise in support of the assertion that "The chaotic multi-decadal ocean currents (ADO and PDO) are more than adequate to explain the temperature changes we have seen."

      Delete
    15. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ clearly has an agenda - to educate about climate change and debunk arguments like the ones you raise. Look some of them up some time! Here's one on the effect of the PDO on global temperatures: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Pacific-Decadal-Oscillation.htm

      I wouldn't consider NASA or Richard Muller, once one of the most prominent skeptics of global warming, to be propaganda.

      0.4% would be 4,000 ppm. Since you won't disclose sources I'm not sure where you got that number, but atmospheric CO2 concentration hasn't been near that level for 100's of millions of years. Maybe not a useful benchmark for human civilization.

      You're correct that there are other factors besides CO2 to consider. One of them is aerosols, which can reflect sunlight and cause cooling - they're responsible for the mid-century cooling after 1940 you mentioned while CO2 emissions were also rising: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

      Delete
    16. As I said repeatedly, onus is on you to prove that CO2 has this effect. Please summarize your understanding of the proof or admit there is none.

      Delete
    17. Wait, I'm impatient. I think I can do a better job summarizing your sides position that you. Wouldn't want you to botch it!

      CO2 absorbs infrared in the wavelengths emitted by the warm earth. This warms the atmosphere which results in a slowing of heat transfer from the surface, thus warming the surface. This has been convincingly demonstrated in radiant energy models that have no other energy transfers. This is called the "forcing". The simulations show that a doubling of CO2 from ore-industrial levels would increase temp by 1C or so, all else being equal. So far non-controversial.

      However, it does not end there. You must add in "feedback" which is the additional impact that happens when you take into account all the other energy transfer and reservoir systems on the planet.

      Feedback cannot be calculated directly as the equations are too complex and "chaotic" (coupled non-linear equations). Therefore scientists deploy GCM ps (Global Circulation Models) which are very akin to weather prediction models. The GCMs, however, make all sorts of assumptions (especially around cloud feedbacks), are very sensitive to initial conditions, and are calibrated based on unproven assumptions re what caused previous warmings. This is why the scientific community cannot agree on the feedback and why the IPCC gives a range.

      Delete
    18. Thank you me, for summarizing the argument so clearly! Let me try to argue against me now.

      The GCMs are very weak proof because of the reasons you so clearly state above. Detailed measurements from sophisticated weather stations seem to indicate that the feedbacks in the real world actually show negative feedback and damp out the forcing, not amplify it. Eg, see https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B005WLEN8W/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_LZiCFbYXY4R9K

      So safe to say the jury is out, but also that none of the dire predictions of warming have at all come true (no Al Gore, there is still ice at the poles, polar bears are doing great, New York is not under water, the Maldives have just built a new airport, ...). And no, extreme weather is not getting worse, not even according to the IPCC.

      So I take with a grain of salt, and therefore am not willing to take massively economically destructive activity (banning fossil fuels) which would most impact the poorest amongst us and would doom developing countries and result in uncounted deaths due to continued lack of access to inexpensive energy.

      But hey, if the greenies want to go for safe, clean, Gen4 nuclear, I am all for that on a "just in case" basis, and also because it provides energy in the event of a downturn in temps, which is equally as likely given the sunspot activity.

      Otherwise best to spend those trillions on guarding humanity against not slow moving catastrophes, such as meteor impact, super-volcano eruption, or even a sudden natural cooling which would be much more catastrophic that the same warming.

      Delete
    19. That was a much clearer statement of your position, thank you. If I can summarize your arguments as I understand them, you admit that CO2 emissions should cause warming, but express distrust of scientists’ predictions due to uncertainty in their the models. Uncertainty can be quantified, that’s why the predictions often contain a range of scenarios. I think you overstate the uncertainty. Do any predictions accounting for CO2 emissions *not* predict warming?

      Delete
    20. The so-called "forcing" of more CO2 is real, but the feedbacks are unknown, and the cherry picked IPCC modellers are wrong in their methodology and estimates of feedback. I think all reasonable people can agree that a GCM does not constitute "proof" of anything, especially in the face of contradictory evidence such as what I've linked above. My position is jury is out, but leaning towards not thinking it's significant, and certainly no justification for pursuing a "New Green Deal" or whatever lunacy the left has up their sleeves.

      Delete
    21. I think you’re too dismissive of the models. A lot of practical engineering analysis relies on modeling, if you really refuse to trust any attempt to model “chaotic” or “nonlinear” behavior, you should avoid getting on an airplane.

      If the models can match warming we have historical data for, isn’t that a reason to take their predictions of the future seriously?

      It’s honestly a bit hard for me to understand why you care so much about the policy debate in the US. Here it seems like the rest of the world has already moved on and looks set to reap the benefits of investment in clean energy, public transportation, and other “green” technologies while the US is doomed to be left behind.

      Delete
    22. Another point I think your argument is missing is that complex Global Climate Models aren’t necessary to prove a link between CO2 emissions and observed increases in global temperatures. As Dr. Muller found, there are simply no other changes in solar activity or terrestrial cycles that correlate as well to the temperature history of the last 150 years.

      The models come into play when you try to predict future climate based on past history.

      There are natural carbon cycles too, exchanges of carbon between sources and sinks which correlate to global temperatures. Recent increases in excess carbon can be correlated to the amount emitted by humans. That’s the evidence that our actions are causing global warming.

      https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

      Again, this is all observation and correlation, no modeling required!

      Delete
    23. No, I like good models, but we have to understand the models to know if they are any good. For example, in the above I said I trusted the model that demonstrates CO2 forcing (despite there being no experimental evidence, and even some to the contrary: Woods experiment).

      I care because I care about poor people the world over suffering because of inane climate policies.

      Your argument that "nothing else explains it, therefore it must be CO2" is ridiculously weak. We do not have a good understanding at all of natural climate change. There are no models that can explain historical temperature record. We are not even really sure what causes glaciations. Orbital changes have been put forward, but it's not a slam dunk. Smaller oscillations such as the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, the medieval warm period, are very hard to explain as well, and those certainly were not CO2.

      Delete
    24. The warm periods you refer to, and the “little ice age” were much smaller changes in global temperatures than the current warming trend and can be explained by solar cycles and ocean currents (the warmer temperatures were in North Atlantic, while other areas were likely cooler).

      It’s called a “hockey stick graph” (O, Canada!) for a reason! Current trends are much more extreme than anything in human history.

      I didn’t say “nothing else can explain it.” I said no other proposed explanation matches the data as well.

      Delete
    25. The Mann "hockey stick" is so debunked a UK court ruled it could not be presented to schoolchildren. We have much better proxy temperature series from ice cores that have shown those periods to be warmer than today. Nothing about recent warming is in any way unprecedented (the warming from 1890 to 1940 for example, was just as steep).

      Delete
    26. Sources? You’re making assertions about data again without showing what you’re talking about.

      Your dismissal of the “hockey stick” graph is also not the complete story: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/the-hockey-stick-the-most-controversial-chart-in-science-explained/275753/

      The original was from 1998, and the “blade” is just getting longer every year.

      Delete
    27. The Mann proxy was very flawed as it grafted modern temp data onto the end of tree ring derived data. Legit scientists don't do that. The number and types of trees used was extremely small, leading to huge error. The whole tree ring methodology is not a good temperature proxy as moisture promotes tree growth as well.

      Much better proxies are the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores which clearly corroborate the various optima spoken about in the history books.

      Delete
  17. Enough of the virtue theft. You’re a republican. Stop praising progressive icons while you steal picks and install conservative judges. Your hypocrisy smells worse than your politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. You see the world really black and white, don't you? I admired RBG. I also admire judges who stick to interpreting the law, not effectively making up new laws from the bench.

      Delete
  18. Two of your paragraphs

    President Trump and the republican senate now have the opportunity to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. I do not buy the argument that because it is an election year, that ought not be done. It is perfectly legal and constitutional to do so, and has ample precedent. Republicans would be remiss in their duty to their voters if they do not do so when they have the opportunity

    Democrats calling it hypocritical are themselves being hypocritical, for they argued vociferously that it was perfectly ok to do so in Obama's last year, and would have absolutely done so had the Senate been held by Democrats. I find the Republicans not to be hypocritical in this instance as Scott Adams explains better than I in the above.

    The republicans argued in 2016 that the senate should not name a Supreme Court justice in an election year. It was not the Democrats that made up that ridiculous rule Also at no time did the republicans argue they aren’t going to follow the constitution based on their love of party over country. They claimed it was to allow the voters to make that choice.

    Now to be clear the republicans were under no obligation to confirm Merrick Garland, they 100% had a constitutional obligation to hold hearings and to vote on his confirmation. They didn’t because McConnell was worried he might be confirmed (a majority of republicans voted to confirm him for his federal judgeship) or the fall out from certain republicans looking like the partisan POS they were and losing votes in swing states If they oppose him.
    Those are the facts. Republicans spit on the constitution when they didn’t hold hearings in Garland. They should how much they hate our country and disrespect the constitution and love power and partisan politics. And today why they have the same constitutional requirement to hold hearings they are hypocritical POS for doing so after their actions 3 years ago. And and by the way Anthony Kennedy was appointed with 100% bi-partisan support in an election year by a democratic controlled senate.

    Those are the facts. And finally I respect your opinion (and love your writing) but please stick to the facts.
    ,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, there is merit in what you say, but I doubt he would have been confirmed. Is there no procedure by which a 60-vote majority could have forced the vote above the majority leader's wishes?

      Delete
    2. The senate should do its job instead of subverting the process- just like listening to evidence for impeachment and then rendering a verdict .... vs. just voting not actually go through the process outlined in the Constitution. The Garland nomination was the same thing -- no hearing. I agree with MG above - please stick to the facts if you're going to blog on these topics.

      Delete
    3. They did listen to evidence, and then they voted. YOU should stick to facts, because that statement of yours was not factual.

      Delete
    4. They never voted on Garland. Most Republican Senators (all but two or three if I remember correctly) wouldn’t even meet with him. The Judiciary Committee never even held hearings. Facts! The Republican Majority in the Senate also represent less than half the population of the US and received something like 12 million fewer votes (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/08/democrats-republicans-senate-majority-minority-rule). The fact that they keep violation norms and precedents while holding power despite having the support of a minority of US Citizens is what’s threatening American democracy. Protests and riots are a response to a government that isn’t listening to the people

      Delete
    5. Garland was known as a liberal activist judge and therefore was not acceptable to Republicans. Had Obama chosen a compromise originalist they would have received a hearing. US is not governed purely by population, but also takes states rights into account. It's called Federalism. Study up.

      Delete
    6. Since when was Garland a "liberal activist judge"? He was literally one of several judges Republican Senators said would be acceptable, moderate nominees from President Obama. https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/merrick-garland-republicans-praise/index.html They were geared up to oppose a partisan pick, he gave them a moderate, and they held out for their own guy anyway.

      I'm an American. I've studied Federalism. I certainly believe that the rights and interests of the minority should be protected. The situation right now is that the rights and interests of the majority are being subverted by a party than can retain power with only minority support. Republicans have a supermajority (more than 60%) in the Wisconsin state legislature despite getting less than 50% of the popular vote. How stable are countries with minority rule? How free are they?

      Delete
    7. Since he voted to uphold one of the strictest gun regulations in the US that prevented any private handgun ownership at all. Definitely flies in the face of 2A.

      Are you retreating to Wisconsin to make your point? I was arguing about the US as a whole.

      What "norms and precedents" does the Republican Senate violate, exactly?

      Delete
    8. Maybe he thought he shouldn’t be an activist judge who struck down a law passed by the duly elected representatives of the people? Funny how that label only seems to go one way.

      Wisconsin is part of a pattern of Republicans across the country using whatever levers of power they have to get their way, even if they don’t have popular support. As Alan said above, in the Senate they’ve eliminated every method the minority has to block the majority except filibustering legislation. That’s after they availed themselves of the filibuster and blue-slips to block every Democratic bill or appointee they could when they were in the minority while Obama was president. Think they’ll want those things back if the Democrats win the Presidency and the Senate in November? Would the Democrats restore them after the Republican obstruction and strong-arm tactics over the last 12 years? The reason Democrats are talking about court packing is that they’re afraid the obstruction will just shift to the Supreme Court. With a 6-3 majority, the conservative justices might just decide that any law passed by the Democrats is unconstitutional.

      Delete
    9. Here are the facts. “The impeachment articles were submitted to the Senate on January 16, 2020, initiating the trial. The trial saw no witnesses or documents being subpoenaed, as Republican senators rejected attempts to introduce subpoenas on January 21 while arranging for trial procedures, and then on January 31 after a debate. The Senate did not listen to any impeachment evidence. “
      Just as in the Garland case- the process was not followed.

      Delete
    10. The Senate did not call witnesses during the process and the White House had blocked some key witnesses from giving testimony to the House. Several key witnesses said they would only testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. These are basic trial rules- the House indicts and Senate holds the trial where the material witnesses are compelled to testify under oath. The Senate did not do its job.

      Delete
    11. The entire impeachment was a total joke. What law was broken? Why should Hunter not be investigated? Trump certainly was. What hypocrites the Dems proved to be. And Kavanaugh I'm sure gang raped multiple women. You guys are such suckers to believe all that.

      Obama's administration was problematic. Holder as Obama's "wingman". Benghazi. IRS versus tea party. AP phone records. Keystone XL. Kids in cages. Problematic executive orders such as Dreamers. NSA Prism. Fast and Furious. Foreign wars...

      Delete
    12. Julie- I’m a Republican. These Republican senators have not done their jobs with integrity and now you’re calling out sins of the past from the other Party?- the facts are that this is power politics in its purest form to protect their guy. - it’s easier to acknowledge it and not try to defend them.

      Delete
    13. Yes, both sides play at power politics. If you don't you lose. But do you really think a Republican President, appointing a Supreme Court Justice, when there is a Republican majority in the Senate, after it was the Dems who took out the filibuster, is really "power politics" (getting back to the subject of this blog). They would be remiss if they did not.

      Delete
    14. Julie- It isn’t ONLY (or shouldn’t be) about winning.. principles matter too. Many Republican senators went on the record with their reasoning and now have reversed based on circumstances. The ends do not justify the means. It lacks integrity and fits with the overall increasing pattern of behavior exhibited in the last four years under Trump. It’s the wrong direction for the country. Would we want everyone to act this way? How do you do anything constructive for the people when facts do not exist and the only goal is to win? The Republican Party I grew up with believed values that I do not see in the current administration - senate. A few will follow their conscience and do the job they were elected to but unfortunately very few.

      Delete
    15. You keep saying the Democrats eliminate the filibuster, but they preserved it for Supreme Court justices. McConnell eliminated the filibuster for Gorsuch (https://www.npr.org/2017/04/06/522847700/senate-pulls-nuclear-trigger-to-ease-gorsuch-confirmation), fulfilling a Republican threat that had been made to get Dems to allow votes on previous Republican picks. Republicans can play hardball if they want, but the point is they don’t have majority support. If they keep ramming unpopular choices and policies through, it’s going to end badly for the country and their party. You claim the Democrats are radical, but the legislation that has passed the Democratic House are compromises between representatives like AOC and more conservative, “blue dog” Democrats elected from districts that voted for Trump. As AOC points out, the Dems are basically a coalition of the center-left and left parties in Europe. Those are the kind of compromises Americans expect their elected leaders to make to keep the country united and solve problems. Even the Green New Deal is basically an infrastructure plan like the one Trump’s “infrastructure weeks” never seem to produce. Focused on renewable energy maybe, but companies from Europe to China, including oil and gas companies like BP and Exxon, seem to think that’s a growth sector.

      Delete
    16. You're actually defending the new green deal? You just shot your credibility on that.

      Back to the original. How is following a very well-precedented, entirely legal and constitutional thing, bad? I am confused. Please address that DIRECTLY.

      Delete
    17. The precedent was a Democratic majority in the Senate holding a vote to confirm the most conservative justice on the court (Thomas) out of deference to the President’s constitutional role in nominating him, and agreeing not to filibuster another nominee (Alito) when in the minority. In my opinion, the Republicans broke that precedent when they refused to hold hearings or vote on Garland’s nomination, and that’s cast a shadow of illegitimacy on everything they’ve done since. They used Senate norms that gave the minority party leverage to obstruct President Obama, and then eliminated those protections when they were in power. It’s bad because the most likely outcome is retaliation from the other side and more polarization/less compromise for the country.

      I think you’ve been on both sides of this argument in the comments here, decrying what you call Democratic extremism while saying what the Republicans are doing is entirely fine. Or am I misunderstanding you?

      If your view is that the parties should use whatever power is available to them to accomplish their goals, then fine. Just don’t complain when the shoe is on the other foot.

      Eliminating the filibuster even for legislation, adding more judges to the Supreme Court; these are also allowed under the constitution and have precedent.

      Delete
    18. Garland was a proposed replacement for Scalia. That substitution was not gentlemanly.

      I dislike appointment of activist judges on either end of the political spectrum. I want literalists in (which used to be called just being a judge). The Republicans are currently the party that shares that view.

      Delete
    19. Gentlemenly? What about your power politics comment above? And a Barrett for Ginsburg is gentalmanly? Julie- please stop trying to defend the undefendable as it just undermines your arguments.

      Delete
    20. Please stop making insulting meta-points about my arguments.

      I actually don't favour or disfavour Barrett particularly as I don't yet know much about her. If she's picked today, we will all learn more and then I'll come to a position.

      But a literalist for an activist is always a gentlemanly move in the right direction.

      Delete
    21. What is an "insulting meta-point"? We're trying to understand what your real argument is here. Do the ends justify the means for either side, or do you just think the Republicans are right so whatever they do is justified and the Dems shouldn't fight back?

      You seem to be suggesting a moderate for a conservative was "ungentlemanly." Wouldn't a conservative for a liberal be worse?

      Originalist/constructionist vs. activist is a red herring, IMO. Since we're talking about Barret, here's an interesting article about her writings on originalism: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21453067/amy-coney-barrett-potential-nominee-supreme-court

      As others in these comments have said, there's a real impact to what the court decides separate from whether you agree or disagree with their interpretation of the constitution. Obama talked explicitly about this when he nominated Sotomayor, Kagan, and Garland - that they would consider the impact of their decisions on people's lives. Not to get too "meta," but if you believe the founder's intent was to create a just, equitable society under the constitution, you should consider whether your interpretation of their words it is consistent with that objective.

      Delete
    22. I do not favour one party or the other per se, only the ideas they espouse are important. The important thing to me is to appoint judges who seek honestly to interpret laws as written, and not to make law.

      Delete
    23. That’s what every judge understands their role to be. You’ve bought into one side’s argument that only the other side’s reasoning is outside the bounds.

      Delete
    24. Roe was an example of activist judging, according to RBG.
      There are way too many recent judgments at the appeals court levels where activist judges are shopped for to slap nationwide bans on anything Trump tries only to be overturned.

      Delete
    25. Julie, I think the issue that many readers are having with your arguments (on a meta level) are the following:

      1. What constitutes interpreting the laws as written versus making laws is itself open to interpretation. At the end, your arguments keep coming down to your firm opinion that the interpretations of conservative judges are unambiguously closer to what the written laws are meant to represent than the interpretations of liberal judges, in all instances. This is itself an interpretation. To actually substantiate this interpretation, can you begin by giving a few examples of these fabled "activist conservative" judges whom you position as the antithesis to the liberal judges and who (in your opinion) do not include what many of your readers and the general public would term the current conservative judges?

      2. What constitutes "gentlemanly" (or, as a woman, I prefer "acceptable" or "good faith") behavior depends on the prevailing social norms. The norms relevant to the current discussion are that (i) judges fall across a liberal-to-conservative spectrum, and (ii) the two major political parties (and their constituents) have clear preferences across this spectrum, well known and clearly communicated to each other. It is equally poor faith to make a substitution that you know is against the opposing side's preference, regardless of which side you fall on.

      More generally, you detract from your own arguments with blanket or unnecessarily strong statements. You could have made a factual case for the President and the Senate being within their rights to do what they are doing now, and for the Senate having been within its rights to act as it did in 2016. Instead, you end up in unnecessary discussions attempting to defend a notion of gentlemanliness that relies on Julie's interpretation of judges' interpretations of the law...

      Your note on the Democrats also being hypocritical in 2016 versus now? Sure, I can agree with that. Your subsequent statement that Republicans are *not* being hypocritical at all? Oh, come on! It's politics, everyone can and will act hypocritically, and your consistent attempts to paint one side as unambiguously in the right is either deliberatively provocative or inadvertently damaging to what intellectually sound arguments you do make.

      Delete
    26. Judges don’t like to be overturned, so I think you should give some deference to their profession, and assume they’re interpreting precedent to the best of their ability. Some of the examples you’re probably thinking of haven’t been reversed, just the stays have been lifted, and some were by conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. There’s a separate legal argument about whether appeals court decisions should have national effect, but as you’re fond of arguing, if that’s constitutional and legal, what’s bad about it?

      Delete
    27. It's not useful to criticize my argument style. Criticize the argument itself. My main points are a) it's perfectly legal and precedented for Trump and Republican Senate to appoint a justice now, and b) I prefer judges who are less activist and I believe the Republicans are currently the party serving them up, as a stricter interpretation of the constitution aligns with their wishes around 1A and 2A

      Delete
    28. Yes, if you don't think the rulings around immigration policies of Trump with national effect are not activist, you are not using your brain properly.

      Delete
    29. (Same anonymous as the long comment on subjective unterpretations and unnecessarily strong arguments).

      Julie, your response to the other anonymous post is a whole lot like the "orange man bad" responses you so despise. Someone expressed a reasonable opinion in respectful terms, and you told them "if you don't [agree with Julie], you are not using your brain". I would not be criticizing your argument style if it were not so jarring to observe tbe juxtaposition of your complaints about others' dismissiveness with your own dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you.

      As to the argument itself, it would be great if you could provide evidence for the following:
      1. Activist judging by Garland specifically.
      2. A few examples of judges whom you consider too activist on the other end of the spectrum. You have said a few times that your views are about activist vs literalist judges, and specifically that you "dislike appointment of activist judges on either end of the political spectrum", but as of now it is not clear to me how your conceptualization of activist (literalist) is not just liberal/Democrat (consevative/Republican) by definition.

      Delete
    30. Well, what a dodge. Interested if YOU have a brain. Do you think the circuit courts are not activist when interfering in immigration policy?

      Garland was considered a "moderate activist", not a true textualist in the manner of Scalia, due to his feathering on of policy atop 2A. See https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/03/merrick-garland-moderate-activist-too-activist-constitution/

      At any rate, that is not my or your call, it is the Senate's call.

      Delete
    31. In response to your first paragraph: I choose not to engage with insults. If you would like to hear my response, you can try asking the question again in a more civil manner.

      Second paragraph: I am confused by your choice to link the National Review article at all. I read it; the author literally does not even set up to discuss facts. He presents his opinion, and an especially subjective type of opinion at that: a value judgment (that activism is bad, regardless of degree). Was your goal to show that there is another person in the world who has the same value judgment as you? I may not be impressed with your argument style in this thread, but showing me that "this random guy at NR, Kevin Williamson, thinks the same way Julie does" does not add any weight (let alone any "evidence") to your opinions or value judgments.

      Third paragraph: oh wait, there IS NO third paragraph. You don't actually answer my second and main question (what you would consider as "too activist on the other end of the spectrum"). Ironic, for a post that begins with an accusation of dodging.

      Delete
    32. 3rd paragraph I assumed you would have picked up from context. A great example of "too activist" are the judges overturning The President's immigration policies. Another example is Roe. Another example is the attempted judgment of Garland.

      I am not pro conservative or pro liberal, I do that issue by issue. For instance, I am pro choice (up to a point). I am against the judiciary involving itself in doing things that should be done by the administration or by congress. They should be referring such cases back, and ruling as the written law indicates. ESPECIALLY around 1A and 2A issues.

      Delete
    33. In case if I did not state my question clearly enough: I was asking for examples of what you would consider activist on the OTHER end of the political spectrum, not more examples of where you disagree with the liberals.

      My concern is that your claim "I dislike appointment of activist judges on either end of the political spectrum" is completely disingenuous, if all of your complaints fall on one end of the spectrum and you cannot provide a single example of what you would "dislike" on the other end. How is your supposed preference for non-activists any different from a much simpler preference for one "end of the political spectrum"?

      Delete
    34. I have no recent examples of judicial activism leaning in the conservative direction. It tends to be a liberal thing. However, were a conservative judge to take a right wing position disregarding the law as written, I would denounce it. Have you any such examples?

      Delete
  19. why would a prejudice person like u make a post about rbg when u go against everything she stands for. This is sad please dont make mockery of the dead smh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have me confused with someone else. What evidence have you I am in any way, shape, or form prejudiced? Comments like yours are what is truly broken. There's a subset of the population, like you, who do not think and hurl around unfounded accusations in an attempt to stifle free speech. Back up your words, you coward.

      Delete
    2. 1 speech has never been free 2 your posts have proven that you are indeed prejudice but of course the pot will never see the kettle black. Enjoy sitting and listen to con artist race baiters like Candace Owens.

      Delete
    3. Examples please, or else crawl back under your rock.

      Delete
  20. Everyone has a right to an opinion, as do you to yours. However, you are a Canadian. You have no say or part in what goes on in the United States. Which is good because the US has all the reactionaries it needs. You can satisfy your right wing inclinations by voting for Doug Ford.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 🤔 1.37M unique US readers on my blog says otherwise. Looks like I do have a say.

      Doug Ford is an idiot and a sellout. Famous well known alleged drug dealer in Toronto for high school students. Brother Rob Ford caught on tape smoking crack with a gang of drug dealers. His excuse was famous: "I was so drunk I didn't know I was smoking crack". Oddly believable in his case.

      Maxime Bernier is the true Conservative in Canada. Do your homework.

      Delete
    2. Annoynous the conservative slogan is bring back Canada, like they arn't still torturing the natives and breaking the same laws meant to protect them (nova scotia fishing) but yet look at the psychos you support but arn't prejudice. Enjoy your day Alt right Julie

      Delete
    3. so these are lies alt right julie? The natives are still being fought for whats theirs https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/mi-kmaw-sipekne-katik-self-regulated-fishery-nova-scotia-1.5734646 and isn't the conservative leader a tool's slogan take back Canada ?

      Delete
    4. My opinion is that indigenous peoples should assimilate into the population. This continuous victim narrative does them no favours.

      Delete
    5. Assimilate into population??? Its their land, even the word Canada is native and ppl like yall who columbused it want to for them to assimilate to your lifestyle? That comment alone is proof of the prejudice and the privilege y'all force on ppl Alt Right Julie.

      Delete
    6. It's not their land by your rules. They "stole it" from those who were there before them.

      Delete
    7. Guess the term "first ppl" means nothing to u huh ? You must have been conservative when learning history as much as you are horrible at politics lol

      Delete
    8. Aboriginal peoples we're constantly fighting one another for land and control and enslaving one another.

      Delete
  21. Joe2 here,

    BRAVO Julie.

    Your ability to reply to almost every statement in a clear and reasonable manner shows a high level of dedication to your blog and good understanding of what you believe in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Joe2. I actually enjoy kicking the haters in the balls also!

      Delete
  22. Be glad you live in Canada and not the US right now. This is the difference between responsive governments (liberal or conservative) and one that doesn’t care about popular support: https://gfycat.com/leadingfrigidangora. And before you shout “Blue states!” at me, cities were always going to be hit first by this disease. Other countries helped contain the spread so it didn’t get much further. Our government told the cities and coastal states they were on their own, and while it’s mostly under control there now, it’s spread to every other part of the country. There’s an American saying applicable in this situation: either we hang together or we’ll hang separately. Trump’s White House and the Republican Senators decided to let the “blue states” hang separately, and now they’re looking to escape the reckoning that’s coming their way as the “red states” are hurting too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chillax. You will not die from COVID.

      Delete
    2. I know people who have, so fuck off

      Delete
    3. I know people who have died from gastric ulcers, suicide, drug overdose Alzheimer's, cancer, ...

      Right now the increase in suicides, drug od, and people just dying because they are too afraid to do their screening is far outpacing residual COVID deaths. I'll take you seriously when you explain to me why you don't seem to care at all for those deaths.

      Delete
    4. I'm sorry for your losses. Right now, more than 700 Americans per day have died of COVID-19 over the past week, that's more than died on 9/11. I'm concerned about suicides and other causes of death that may be exacerbated by quarantines too, but that's not a reason to ignore the coronavirus or those most at risk from it.

      Delete
    5. Nor is it a reason to boost concern over it out of all proportion to other causes of death. The fact that you gave only the one number, without looking up the others, and trying to figure how much excess death is due to lockdown related things, makes you a dishonest broker.

      Delete
    6. Ah yes, "boosting concern out of all proportion" indeed... for example, starting an entire domestic discipline foray with a supposedly real spanking over something as negligible as a trip to the store for ice cream. ;)

      Delete
    7. COVID-19 is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US this year! The causes you cite don’t compare to it.

      https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200818/covid-the-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us

      Where are your numbers? You’re making assertions you can’t back up, then doubling down when confronted with facts. It’s very Trumpian. Maybe that’s your joke, but I don’t think it’s funny.

      Delete
    8. That was before the deaths flatlined totally (in Ontario where I live).

      I don't trust the death counts. There are many instances of very old folks dying with COVID, not of it.

      Begs the question of why your hair is not on fire about the two leading causes of death.

      Delete
    9. Heart disease and cancer can’t be stopped by people wearing face masks or a ten-week lockdown like New Zealand, and aren’t new diseases that are causing major economic disruptions with unknown long-term effects. Really, Julie, this is third-rate whataboutism.

      Delete
    10. At this point, where I live, the lockdown stuff is WAY out of proportion to the severity of this thing. People are being whipped up by irrational fear from mainstream media. Sad to see everybody's critical faculties so impaired.

      Delete
    11. Two adjacent statements from the same post: "the deaths flatlined totally" and "I don't trust the death counts."

      Julie, I understand that you like having things both ways. But while that is perfectly fine in kink, it's not productive in a discussion.

      (It should go without saying that "Sad to see everybody's critical faculties so impaired" is not a shining example of evidence-based argumentation either.)

      Delete
    12. Ok. I'm going to blow your mind now, ready?
      COVID deaths are counted differently in different jurisdictions. Some are more trustworthy than others.

      Delete
    13. Deaths are probably more a reliable measure than positive tests, especially early in the US when testing was inadequate, but it lags the spread of the disease by several weeks. If you don’t trust the reporting or aggregating mechanisms for causes of death, you could look for “excess deaths” estimates instead.

      This independent journalist has an interesting explanation of death counts in disease outbreaks, based on his experiences in Haiti: https://katz.substack.com/p/death-tolls-are-often-bullshit-theyre?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy

      Delete
    14. Mind blown. Can you clearly delineate the criteria you use to determine which juristictions' stats fall into your trustworthy category? Please also list sufficient representative examples classified according to these criteria, so that we can productively discuss both the criteria and your application of them.

      Delete
    15. Problem with excess deaths is that we are now seeing excess suicides, drug overdoses, and missed medical treatments/screenings.

      We have seen anecdotal evidence in reviews of deaths certificates of many that should not have been classified as deaths. It's also very political right now. So both good reasons to remain skeptical.

      Delete
    16. The thing is, I actually agree with your *current* position on the lockdown. In fact, I have been pointing out the potential issues from the unnecessary cutting of non-COVID healthcare (including diagnostics) and potential adverse mental health effects even back in April -- while you were lying across your supposedly legitimately upset husband's lap for something as tiny as stopping by a store (quote: "not crowded and everyone is very social distancy") and then reciting the conditional probability of your parents dying from COVID (quote: "10% to 20%, Sir"), without taking into account any of the nuance with which you are so preoccupied now. (As an aside, this lack of nuance and seemingly blind following of the bottok-line COVID narrative on your part was what made that post unsexy for me.)

      Of course, it's political. Of course, there is a lot of uncertainty. What is bothering me is your desire to claim that you are somehow objectively and evidence-based orrect throughout. You are impacted by the politics and by conformism, just as your readers who disagree with you. If you simply followed the bottom-line numbers in April, without thinking about the side effects of the lockdown, what may you not be thinking about now? For my part, I agreed with you on this long before you took your current position, but I respect willingness to learn and concede imperfection, and your stubbornness is alienating.

      Delete
    17. Sounds like you’re letting a molehill of (cherry picked?) anecdotes outweigh a mountain of statistics. Do you believe tens of thousands of suicides, overdoses, and missed screenings are being (deliberately?) miscategorized as deaths due to COVID-19? All of your individual concerns about the data are difficulties inherent in trying to collect it, as Katz described in his piece. The numbers in the US are so large, I don’t think all of them together could add up to a significant difference in the number of reported deaths.

      Delete
    18. My position on this has changed over time. I was initially ready to accept the conventional wisdom on a just in case basis before we understood what we were dealing with. Now that we understand it better, and the stats are out, my position has changed. Is that a bad thing?

      And I have never been accused of conformist. It's sort of delightful!

      No, I'm not saying suicides and drug overdoses are being miscategorized as Covid, I'm saying that's why excess deaths is no longer a great measure if you don't trust the Covid death reporting.

      Delete
    19. How have you changed your mind based on the statistics if you don’t believe them?

      Delete
    20. I look around using my eyes. None of our hospitals got anywhere near filled up. It made me suspicious. I looked deeper into the data and saw a whole lot of inconsistencies and clear misinformation and politics masquerading as science. Thus I changed my mind from initially willing to go along with what I was told to being skeptical of it.

      Delete
    21. You realize different areas have had different experiences don’t you? If it didn’t overwhelm your hospitals, great - you had enough social distancing measures to avoid something really catastrophic.

      Watch out though. Until there’s a vaccine you have little immunity in your population, so you’re vulnerable to an outbreak. You’re also lucky it didn’t hit early, before doctors had discovered better strategies for treating it.

      Good thing for you Americans still can’t travel to Canada without quarantining.

      Seriously, it’s like your town built a levy to hold back a flood, your neighborhood wasn’t flooded, and now you’re mad they spent all that money and time on the levy while the water’s still rising on the other side.

      Delete
    22. Yeah, I didn't notice any amazing social distancing or mask wearing. Lots of rule breaking and silliness. One thing we didn't do as badly was to stick elderly COVID patients back in nursing homes with well people. I mean, Duh.

      It hit quite early in Canada, there is a lot of travel to-from China and Europe. We did not shut down as early as the US.

      There seems to now be very good evidence that there is cross immunity, and that seems to be playing out now in Sweden with their reaching herd immunity well before predicted, without a vaccine.

      Delete
  23. But reasonable people should agree that it's folly to ban the abortion of a newly fertilized egg, and evil to allow the abortion of a healthy viable baby moments before birth when the mother's life or health is not substantially at risk. Therefore some compromise should be arrived at, such as the historical "quickening" rules which banned abortion after the baby started kicking, typically midway through the pregnancy, except when the health of the mother was at stake. Reasonable people can agree on that, however any of the candidates, or the presidents list for the emptly seat are clear in their opinion that all abortions should be illegal. They are also clear that LGBQT people have no constitutional protection agains iscrimination of any kind. This nomination goes to the heart of basic rights in america.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LGBTQ people are people, and have all the rights of people.

      The difference is that activist judges act on their own opinions, whereas literalists act on the law as written. We need more of the latter, less of the former, independent of right/left.

      Delete
  24. MsJulie while I enjoy your non political content it is disappointing that your response to anyone who uses summary arguments to criticize Mr Trump gets dismissed with blah,.. no facts,.. TDS.

    I believe Colin Powell, James Mathis, Christine Todd Whitman, John Negroponte(sp?) are just a handful of the Republican party members who find Mr Trumps lying to be beyond the pale even for a politician. Mr Mathis summarized well the point his tendency to say something divisive instead of something uniting. Which is a problem in this country. Who cares though, someone can come up with a list of Democrats who have not endorsed Joe Biden....


    For me its very simple:
    Trump's personal attacks on people (I believe it was the aforementioned repubs he called Human Scum. Thats what I like about his non politician [locker room] talk - call people scum who deserve it - Note: Not terrorists, mass murders, dictators.. no people who disagreed with him...).

    Tweeting negatively about the woman who was the Jury foreman that rendered a verdict he didn't like?? At list the human scum are people in the public eye that signed up for it. Its hard enough to get people in to show up for Jury duty without worrying that the Potus will tweet shit about you...
    Is enough for me to say his handling of these situation is not what I want as a leader of my country. Show a lack of character and self control.
    [ if you want say you grab em by the p--y to impress a guy in what you think is a private conversation. Your an asshole but I dismiss that (I dont dismiss it - it tells a lot to me about his character it more - none of use would want every conversation we had put on the internet/news.

    If there was anything all that great he did maybe there would be some mitigation (no choir boy is becoming POTUS). But I looked outside and I dont see milk & honey flowing down the road. Is everything he did evil, or even bad? No. But I just don't see anything all that special to put up with this public behavior. Pre covid he ballooned the debt and divided the country. I'll give him a push on Covid economics. [If anyone thought that he was saying anything truthful about how great he was doing with - thats on you. I liken it to falling for the Nigerian Prince scam, its wrong for the scammers to lie, but if you fall for that ... come on...

    With his public persona I cant imagine the private person and what he used for selection criteria for cabinet, staff supreme court appointees... There certainly a number of his picks that were going to be great only to find they were human scum.



    Character matters, what you say, what you *try* to say even if you dont really mean it to show empathy, calmn tensions... matters. Trump didnt start the open sewer that passes for discourse in modern American society but he sure is enabling and amplifies it


    Thats just a simple surface of the reasons why it is not good for the US To have another 4 years of this. Would I vote for Kanye? No but I will take my chances that nothing a Biden admin will do that I dont like will turn me off.

    If this is TDS, OK I have it but I am not worried. I hear TDS is not as bad as the flu and you don't need a mask to prevent it you either have it or you dont

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I use the term TDS when someone uses literally no arguments, just ranting without any evidence or irrelevant or made up stuff. You are indeed quite close to that here.

      I do not like Republicans in general (though better than what Dems have become). All those never-Trump you mention are establishment guys. If they liked Trump is when I'd be concerned!

      The jury forewoman in the stone case lied during jury selection and was extremely biased politically. He was right to criticize her.

      There is plenty that Trump has accomplished. Here is a list. https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/

      Many people, myself included, like his forthright language and that he says what's on his mind and that he keeps his promises or at least tries darned hard to.

      Delete
    2. I appreciate that you took time to make a genuine reply (ie not a catchy one liner ). Im sorry that you found my comments too close to ranting and/or lies .

      I assume what you felt was ten irrelevant was not a ranting lie, but that might be a rationalization on my part.

      A thing that is very important to someone called irrelevant to someone else.

      Peace.


      Delete
  25. « You give them the equivalent of an intellectual spanking. In fact, you give them such a spanking that they cry foul and say you are unfair and intolerant and hateful. They will probably even throw a temper tantrum (they always do). But that's ok. You are doing it anyway not just because they deserve it but because they need it. That's the only way they are ever going to learn some humility. That's the only way they are ever going to grow up. »
    Jacques

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true. They should be enjoying their intellectual spanking.

      Delete
    2. I really like your injunctions : Look it up. Do your research. Study up. Do your homework. Seek help. What a zero you are!.
      It's a good introduction to the universe that we will soon discover in your book "Julie's spankings".
      A lot of literalists will soon apply, quite harshly, the law as it is written.

      Delete
    3. I think women who break minor laws should be sentenced to hand or hairbrush spankings across male police officer's laps. Can be a little perk for the police. Get the numbers back up again.

      Delete
  26. Hi Julie,
    What some third world country (USA USA) presents is of little impact to the civilized world. Sorry to get all real, Daughters, granddaughters, any greasy Yank who beats women ( not in a kinky fun way) We don't do that man.
    Respect
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently a full 1/3 of people have no sense of humour 🤔

      Delete
  27. Roe V Wade is tricky business one can't just read an article and synopsis and voila book report,there are many nuances and details. One detail most leave out is that Ms Roe actually had to have the baby the court case was over because the court case took so long to settle. Another fact is that Roe V Wade is also inextricably tied to medical patient privacy such that when Roe V Wade falls, the public and any other inquirer will be able to know what care anyone has had and for what purpose, so all procedures, all medical treatments would become public knowledge. Privacy is what has kept the ruling in place and ethics is what has kept the ruling in question. The fight over the ruling has become big business for more than 3 decades now, Billions of dollars have been raised and changed hands with no change. Enough money to build clinics and birthing centers in every state has been raised and spent on nothing more than lobbying the issue.
    There were many other issues that the Supreme Court has ruled on and these other issues were not hotly contested and debated for a half century.
    Privacy is not the place on which the question of terminating a pregnancy will finally be settled and I think this is why it is continually in the public debate and a question placed before every Supreme Court nominee for 45 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, and other interesting bits is that the woman then came out against abortion, but then revealed many years later that she had been paid to say that and actually supports abortion.

      Delete
  28. If republicans refused to conduct hearings for Obama's nominee, then it is indeed hypocritical of them to conduct hearings now. This has nothing to do with their duty to voters or upholding the constitution. It is just an argument of convenience to advance their own agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference is split Senate-President, 0 chance, won't happen. Same party Senate-President, it's their duty to go for it.

      Delete
    2. Their duty is NOT to "go for it". Your suggestion is completely afoul of our democracy where each elected official carry out their duties when such duty is presented. The idea that if you have the same party in the Senate-President, you should go for it. That is utter and complete BS and I disagree with your viewpoint. Integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking. I see what the Senate (primarily Mitch) is doing is a total lack of integrity, the difference here is that everyone is looking.

      Delete
    3. Your point consists of word salad sputtering. Thank you for conceding. What they are doing is legal, constitutional, well-precedented, and thus moral.

      Delete
  29. Her red skirt is hitched up to her waist, though no higher. Below it the Commander is fucking. What he is fucking is the lower part of her body. She does not say making love, because this is not what he's doing. Copulating too would be inaccurate because it would imply two people and only one is involved. Nor does rape cover it: nothing is going on here that she hasn't signed up for.
    MA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's pretty hot, actually. I have fantasies of "being used" like that...
      As a matter of fact, if women want to do good for the world, one way is to allow themselves to be used like this, completely anonymously, by incels. It should be setup kind of like a food bank. We'd be bent over, naked from the waist down, a curtain covering our upper bodies. 1 hour shifts. Some girls would check the "OK to spank" or "OK for anal" boxes ;-)

      Delete
  30. Julie are you on Twitter? If so I would love to follow you. I agree with what you have written. Most of the left lives on ‘WHAT IF’, Their complete debate is based on false predictions. I am a fiscal conservative with very open view on personal freedom. I believe in FLR and see the benefits. I love the environment and it’s been my profession for over 30 years and it’s frustrating when people make statements that are not based on science, facts or the law. I believe that Barrett is genuinely a good person who does love the USA. She is an extremely intelligent woman. Isn’t that what we want proetecting our rights as an American?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi merlin, I am, but under a different identity.

      Most all of my views on climate were informed by my husband who is a scientist, though I made him run me through it in detail!

      Fiscal conservatism is the one place Trump can really be attacked, but the left isn't because they want to spend even more.

      And yes on Barrett. A normal decent person, brilliant, who was a student of Scalia and believes in an impartial, non-activist court. What is there not to like? The left is terrified Roe will be overturned because they recognize it is such bad law, as did even RBG.

      The anti-science party is now very clearly the Dems. Most scientists see it, it is mainly the artist types who do not, and are fooled by their statements to the contrary.

      I wish you well in your FLR!

      Delete
  31. Polling so far.
    Comments generally agreeing with Julie’s politics and views = 5.
    Comments generally not agreeing with Julie’s politics and views = 81.
    Comments generally not commenting on Julie’s politics and views = 13.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quality, not quantity, and the 81 are basically from 2 guys :-)

      Delete
  32. Hey guys, thank you for your input. Reached the 200 limit for threaded comments so shutting things down now. Apologies if you are cut off mid argument. You can always email me!

    ReplyDelete