Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, May 08, 2022

Charles Blow: If you focus on the Supreme Court's expansion of equal rights since the 1950s ... you [might] ignore the fact that for much of the court's history, it has been used as an instrument of oppression. The potential for persecution is always present in the court, lurking like a recessive gene, waiting for an opportunity to express itself.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The court is a product of the framers of the Constitution. And, for all their flashes of brilliance, they made some terribly flawed decisions about our government. That's why originalists, those who believe that judgments by the court must conform to how the founders understood the Constitution when it was written, are so dangerous.

As Thurgood Marshall put it in a 1987 speech, when the founders wrote "we the people" in the preamble, "they did not have in mind the majority of America's citizens." They did not see white women as equal citizens. They didn't see Black people as citizens at all.

As Marshall would say: "I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever fixed' at the Philadelphia convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a Civil War and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today."

And yet the originalists know that they can turn that clock back. They know the horrendous history of the court, and they want it to rise again. This is the power Republicans want - the power to overrule the will of the majority - and the courts are one of the only areas where that power can be guaranteed. Conservative activists have fought for decades for this moment.

Pretty much sums up this moment; using the Court to create yet another group of citizens without inherent rights because a minority doesn't believe they should have them. It's the American way. Alito says so.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 09:54 PM | Reply

It goes back to the legislature and or the states, Tony Roma.

#2 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 09:56 PM | Reply

Unenumerated rights are not up to the states or federal government to decide. They're inherent. To use Alito's logic, neither women nor blacks would have constitutional or civil rights if the nation's history was used as a determining factor.

Though Roe was initially founded under 14th Amendment considerations, the same rights can be identified under 9th Amendment protections as well. I'm surprised that the modern Court hasn't recognized this, along with the glaring 1st Amendment rights any abortion laws will restrain.

To say that this nation has no history of a right to privacy is to ignore the expressed protections codified in the 4th Amendment as well. There is no way to be "secure" without having the right to keep personal property and papers from government scrutiny, the very definition of expressed privacy.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 10:07 PM | Reply

@#2 ... It goes back to the legislature and or the states, ..

So easy to say.

Yet, such an ignorance of history.

The opinions of SCOTUS and the ramifications of those opinions have guided this Country.

Why do you try to trivialize those opinions in your comment?

Your comment seems to indicate that the opinions of SCOTUS are not relevant, that "It goes back to the legislature and or the states"

So, I have to ask of your current alias, why have a Supreme Court if you seem to think a Supreme Court is irrelevant?

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 10:08 PM | Reply

"To say that this nation has no history of a right to privacy is to ignore the expressed protections codified in the 4th Amendment as well."

I've asked our resident Constitutional Scholars to explain the difference between the right to an abortion and the right to be secure in your person, from the point of view of a pregnant woman.

I've yet to get a response.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-08 10:10 PM | Reply

Rmember when Jeffj was against activist judges? I do

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To go back to the original intent of the Constitution given the rights that women and POC had at that time it was drafted is patently absurd.

#7 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:13 PM | Reply

Rmember when Jeffj was against activist judges? I do

POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-05-08 10:12 PM | REPLY

Only when they didn't go his way that is.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-08 10:13 PM | Reply

#5

I love the quote from Justice Marshall about the fact that our founding documents were self-admittingly flawed yet somehow today's jurists want to base modern law upon the errors of the past.

... the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a Civil War and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today."
The simplified notion of originalism is just a sophistic rationale to keep racism, sexism, misogyny, and white supremacy viable within a legal construct supposedly ensuring "justice for all" during our ongoing struggle to become "a more perfect union."

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-08 10:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" I have to ask of your current alias, why have a Supreme Court if you seem to think a Supreme Court is irrelevant?

#4 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2022-05-08 10:08 PM | FLAG: "

All revoking Roe does is out the issue back to the legislature and the states. Repealing Roe in no way manes abortion illegal.

Your tack is both bizarre and a big non sequitur.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 10:29 PM | Reply

All revoking Roe does is out the issue back to the legislature and the states. Repealing Roe in no way manes abortion illegal.
Your tack is both bizarre and a big non sequitur.

POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-05-08 10:29 PM | REPLY

On what legal authority do men use to say get a vasectomy Jeff?? On what legislative act gave that right to men??

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-08 10:35 PM | Reply

@#10 ... Repealing Roe in no way manes abortion illegal. ...

Actually, in practice, it does.

That's the issue here that your comments seem to be so desperate to deflect away from.

Roe is settled law.

Let me say that again... Roe is settled law.

So what substantiation do you have to offer for negating settled law?

Collins: Kavanaugh sees Roe v. Wade as 'settled law'
www.politico.com

...Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh believes that the high court's landmark case Roe v. Wade is settled law, Sen. Susan Collins said Tuesday....



#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 10:39 PM | Reply

Actually, no bellringer is wrong (or is he lying?). 13 states have trigger laws that go into effect once Roe is overturned. So yes overturning roe outlaws abortion in many states.

truth hurts

#13 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-08 10:46 PM | Reply

Is Roe v. Wade settled' law? Justices' earlier assurances now in doubt (December 2021)
www.pbs.org

...During his confirmation to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh convinced Sen. Susan Collins that he thought a woman's right to an abortion was "settled law," calling the court cases affirming it "precedent on precedent" that could not be casually overturned.

Amy Coney Barrett told senators during her Senate confirmation hearing that laws could not be undone simply by personal beliefs, including her own. "It's not the law of Amy," she quipped.

But during this week's landmark Supreme Court hearing over a Mississippi law that could curtail if not outright end a woman's right to abortion, the two newest justices struck a markedly different tone, drawing lines of questioning widely viewed as part of the court's willingness to dismantle decades old decisions on access to abortion services.

The disconnect is raising fresh questions about the substance, purpose and theater of the Senate's confirmation process that some say is badly broken. And it's creating hard politics for Collins and another Senate Republican who supports abortion rights, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as the nation confronts the potential unraveling of the law....


So...

Do the GOP SCOTUS nominees intentionally prevaricate in order to be confirmed?

It is starting to look that way.

Is that just another step in the GOP's destruction of what has built the Country?


#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 10:53 PM | Reply

@#14

A question I have...

Are the Supreme Court nominees under oath during those Senate confirmation hearings?


#15 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 11:01 PM | Reply

#11 A Vasectomy?

Don't go into Snoofy territory with your arguments. It's a very dark, ugly and ridiculous place.

#16 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 11:24 PM | Reply

Tough question to answer huh?? I understand.

#17 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-08 11:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#16 ... Don't go into Snoofy territory with your arguments. It's a very dark, ugly and ridiculous place. ...

In reality, whenever I've posed a question to the Snoofy alias, I received an answer.

Not so much with your current alias.

So, before your alias casts aspersions upon others, maybe you might want to get your own house in order, and answer questions posed.

Of course, if your current alias is here more to disrupt than to discuss as my current opinion suggests, it all makes sense.

Jus' sayin'

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 11:39 PM | Reply

Tough question? It was an absurd question. What in the heck does a vasectomy have to do with electively slaughtering a developing life (abortion)?

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-08 11:41 PM | Reply

@#19 ... Tough question? It was an absurd question. ...

Do go on. But your comment is merely a deflection. (yet another deflection)

I note that you still have not answered that question, and another (posed in #12)...

Your comment has done little but confirm my opinion of your current alias.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-08 11:47 PM | Reply

All revoking Roe does is out the issue back to the legislature and the states. Repealing Roe in no way manes abortion illegal.

That's a pretty stupid remark. About half our states have trigger laws designed to automatically make abortion illegal to varying extent upon the repeal of Roe. Your comment requires us to pretend we don't all know this. Stupid.

Also, before you say "well then those voters should elect people who will repeal the abortion ban," that is also stupid for three reasons:
1. Many states have a divided or gridlocked legislature that cannot agree on anything, thereby blunting the will of the voters on this issue;
2. Many states have intentionally gerrymandered legislatures that will refuse to repeal ab abortion ban despite the will of the voters; and
3. Even if there were a state where none of those things were true, it would in all likelihood take time to pass a law and also deal with the flood of recreational rightwing litigation that ensued, causing considerable delay and confusion among the populace.
In sum, "leaving it to the states" is entirely insufficient for several reasons, only a few of which i addressed here.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2022-05-08 11:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Tough question? It was an absurd question. What in the heck does a vasectomy have to do with electively slaughtering a developing life (abortion)?

POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-05-08 11:41 PM | REPLY

Men want to take away women's reproductive rights yet they are free to do what they please unencumbered. It's a very appropriate question to ask Jeff. Now answer the question.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-05-08 11:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What in the heck does a vasectomy have to do with electively slaughtering a developing life (abortion)?"

"Slaughtering" isn't really the best term.

Nobody is using fetuses for food.

Not much eating there.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:09 AM | Reply

All revoking Roe does is out the issue back to the legislature and the states. Repealing Roe in no way manes abortion illegal.
#10 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

^
Something you'll never say when it comes to repealing the Second Amendment.
Because you know what will come next, and what already exists in many states: Laws banning abortion.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:10 AM | Reply

Repealing Roe criminalizes abortion for millions of Americans, JeffJ.

Roe doesn't exist in a vacuum. You do.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

With respect to the topic of the thread:

The Supreme Court's history of oppression is hard to miss. Dredd Scott should come immediately to everyone's mind.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:18 AM | Reply

#22 You are comparing apples and pumpkins, Laura Mohr.

Further, speaking for myself, if Roe does end up being repealed I still support it being legal in the first trimester.

The problem with your question is abortion has nothing to do with a vasectomy. Women can have their fallopian tubes tied to the same effect as a vasectomy and I've yet to see any kind of push to have that procedure made illegal.

#27 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 12:40 AM | Reply

Ballwasher remains an ignorant and vapid troll.

#28 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-05-09 12:42 AM | Reply

Further, speaking for myself, if Roe does end up being repealed I still support it being legal in the first trimester.

Why? You called it "elevctively slaughtering" earlier. What other elective slaughters do you support being legal?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 12:46 AM | Reply

@#27 ... I've yet to see any kind of push to have that procedure made illegal. ...

Good thing your comment says, "yet."


But given the current trajectory, how soon before we reach that point?

I mean, the current opinion seems to indicate that women are little more than a baby factory because, as the SCOTUS opinion states, we apparently need more babies.

But all this points to the role of women. And the decisions those women have.

So, do you think that women should be viewed merely as baby factories, with no rights beyond that?


#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-05-09 12:52 AM | Reply

Women can have their fallopian tubes tied to the same effect as a vasectomy and I've yet to see any kind of push to have that procedure made illegal.
#27 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Wow, you're such a slimeball.

If the right to privacy doesn't exist, tubal ligation is absolutely subject to change.

The fact that this hasn't occurred to you telegraphs just how little you care about and understand reproductive rights and privacy.

Today
Voluntary tubal ligation is legal in the USA for any informed woman above 18 years, who is mentally capable to understand the alternatives and consequences. In some states, the minimum age is 21 years. There is no official number of children requirement. While some states have spousal consent laws, these federal law deems these laws unconstitutional and are therefore not in effect. 2

For federally funded health insurance plans, the prospective patient has to give informed consent at least 30 days but not more than 180 days before performing the procedure. Private insurances might apply their own waiting periods. 3

In practice, women under the age of 30 without children often experience heavy pushback and refusals from their doctors. 3
sterilizationaunty.org

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 01:18 AM | Reply

Does Roberts know that this will be FOREVER part of his SCOTUS legacy?

#32 | Posted by fresno500 at 2022-05-09 01:27 AM | Reply

"Does Roberts know that this will be FOREVER part of his SCOTUS legacy?"

I think he knows Pandora/Trump should never have opened that box.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 02:12 AM | Reply

"Women can have their fallopian tubes tied to the same effect as a vasectomy"

That's got to be the dumbest use of Republican Math in history.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 02:23 AM | Reply

#34 There is nothing mathematical about it. A man can be sterilized usually via vasectomy. A woman can have her tubes tied. The vasectomy is far less invasive than tying the tubes, I freely admit that. However, if you scroll back up, you will find that abortion was being compared as equivalence to a vasectomy which is patently absurd.

#35 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 02:28 AM | Reply

"Charles Blow:"

Every single time I've read a piece written by this guy it's been the epitome of being a partisan hack.

I will continue to read his stuff when he weighs in on a current issue... but the result is always the same - he's a fricking hack.

#36 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 02:46 AM | Reply

"There is nothing mathematical about it."

Are you joking?

How many potential births can you prevent from tying one set of tubes, v. how many potential births can you prevent by one vasectomy? There is EVERYTHING mathematical about it.

Please tell me you were joking, and not that woefully stupid.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 04:03 AM | Reply

Danforth,

I'm definitely not joking but I'm surely woefully stupid.

I reject the premise - abortion is the same as birth control. It's not, at least as it pertains to this discussion.

#38 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 04:10 AM | Reply

"Potential births" - are different from "Actual births."

If we cannot agree on that biological fact than our discussion fizzles.

#39 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-09 04:12 AM | Reply

If we cannot agree on that biological fact

#39 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT

You people bring biology to a religous fight.

#40 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-09 08:01 AM | Reply

I've yet to see any kind of push to have that procedure made illegal.

#27 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Only because religious whackos view women as baby factories who purpose is to fill the deficit in the domestic baby supply

They may consider outlawing tubal ligation

#41 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-09 09:05 AM | Reply

"Potential births" - are different from "Actual births."

^
For exactly the same reason that "Fetuses" are different from "People."

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-09 09:11 AM | Reply

Potential births" - are different from "Actual births."

If we cannot agree on that biological fact than our discussion fizzles.

#39 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

To make that argument one has to ignore Alito's opinion since it considers potential births as a factor

#43 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-05-09 09:13 AM | Reply

"I reject the premise"

The premise of MATH? Don't be silly. How many births can be prevented annually by tubal ligation, vs. how many births can be prevented annually by vascectomies?

"Rejecting the premise" has nothing to do with the actual truth. Nor does being embarrassed by your own myopic post.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-09 10:44 AM | Reply

Did you miss where Mitch already showed their hand?

National Abortion Ban

#45 | Posted by Fidel_Casserole at 2022-05-09 10:49 AM | Reply

It goes back to the legislature and or the states, Tony Roma.

#2 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Repubs have already stated that a national ban is on their radar.

Try again.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 11:02 AM | Reply

They may consider outlawing tubal ligation

#41 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

Consider? Some states already have laws that will essentially criminalize IUD usage.

I have no doubt tubal ligation (is that even still a thing?) would be far behind.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2022-05-09 11:09 AM | Reply

How is it that so many men who support the repeal of Roe v. Wade seem to feel their point of view of when and at what point a woman should be allowed to have an abortion has any relevance whatsoever. I don't care if you think it is "okay" for a woman to have an abortion during the first trimester. Who cares what you think? And women, especially women in desperate need of an abortion, don't care what you think. It is a woman's body. You have zero right to tell her anything on the topic of abortion. At least not until men can become pregnant.

The hypocrisy of so many Republicans is sickening. They are up in arms about being told to wear face-mask in order to protect the lives of people around them. Yet they have no qualms about letting local government give orders as to what they can and can not do with their own reproductive systems. It is barbaric and something out of the dark ages. To say nothing of the conniptions these same Republicans have when the topic is limiting deaths by allowing the government to severely restrict gun possession. Republicans ---- puke.

#48 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-05-09 01:55 PM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY MODER8

Couldn't have stated it better myself, counsellor.

#49 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-05-09 07:54 PM | Reply

This is what the Reich, has always wanted
that court to be...

#50 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-05-10 06:44 AM | Reply

All revoking Roe does is out the issue back to the legislature and the states.

#10 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Why wasn't segregation left up to the states?

#51 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-10 11:10 AM | Reply

#51 Apples and oranges.

Have you noticed how much the needle has moved on segregation since Brown was adjudicated? People rather quickly accepted integrated schools and within a couple of decades it became a non issue.

After Roe public opinion barely moved at all. To this day people are still almost equally divided in the 50 years since Roe was adjudicated.

#52 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-05-10 11:14 AM | Reply

All revoking Roe does is out the issue back to the legislature and the states.

#10 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Liar.

That's not what's happening.

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-10 11:22 AM | Reply

To this day people are still almost equally divided in the 50 years since Roe was adjudicated.

#52 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Seems like an excellent reason to keep Roe.

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-10 11:23 AM | Reply

To this day people are still almost equally divided

#52 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

That's not even true.

#55 | Posted by Zed at 2022-05-10 11:24 AM | Reply

"To this day people are still almost equally divided"

What kind of math are you using on that one?

Or are you admitting up front, you're not in a serious conversation?

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-10 11:32 AM | Reply

#52

Americans remain broadly opposed to overturning the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, following the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would strike down the landmark ruling. Sixty-six percent say Roe v. Wade should not be completely struck down, and 59% would support Congress passing legislation to establish a nationwide right to abortion.

The findings were roughly in line with the latest data from the Pew Research Center - which conducted its survey before the leak - pointing to 61 percent of Americans who believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Similarly, a CBS News poll conducted by YouGov found 64 percent of the country wants the justices to maintain the status quo in place and not overturn the Roe precedent.

A smaller majority (58 percent) in the same poll endorsed federal legislation to protect existing abortion rights.

Last week, a well timed Washington Post-ABC News poll also showed Americans, by a nearly two-to-one margin, want to see Roe upheld, not overturned.

www.msnbc.com

#57 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-05-10 11:47 AM | Reply

"Apples and oranges."

Is that because one is a denial of rights, while the other is a denial of rights?

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-05-10 11:53 AM | Reply

In your apples and oranges refutation you mention Brown, but not Plessy. Plessy, in 1896, 31 years after the 13th amendment abolished slavery, upheld segregation, so long as the states provided separate but equal treatment. Leaving the issue up to the states didn't resolve the issue or protect citizen's rights, in fact it made it easier for states to continue segregation and other discriminatory behavior. Brown wasn't decided for another 58 years, and still didn't settle the issue.

Point being that protecting individual's rights, as Roe does, is too important to send back to the states, many of which already have trigger laws in place. We know about Texas. Tennessee has already taken action against abortion medication. These theocracies aren't content with just outlawing abortion within their borders, they will also make it illegal for women in the state to travel outside the borders to obtain the procedure. And they won't stop until abortion is outlawed everywhere. If you don't see that you're just being intellectually dishonest.

#59 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-10 12:10 PM | Reply

To this day people are still almost equally divided in the 50 years since Roe was adjudicated.

#52 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

news.gallup.com

www.washingtonpost.com

www.forbes.com

You're partially right in that the percentage of people who want at least some form of legal abortion hasn't changed in 49 years. It's not an equal division. It's about 80% for some form of abortion. Other recent polls show high-60s to low-70s percentages in favor of keeping Roe. Only 20% want a complete ban on abortion. There is majority support for abortion rights even among most religious groups, other than white Evangelicals.

#60 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-10 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You're partially right in that the percentage of people who want at least some form of legal abortion hasn't changed in 49 years. It's not an equal division. It's about 80% for some form of abortion. Other recent polls show high-60s to low-70s percentages in favor of keeping Roe. Only 20% want a complete ban on abortion. There is majority support for abortion rights even among most religious groups, other than white Evangelicals.

#60 | Posted by El_Buscador

But that's republican math. "my 20% = your 80% because...founding fathers or something"

#61 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-05-10 12:40 PM | Reply

#61 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

You know, I could respect the opinion of someone who just came right out and said, "I oppose abortion and think it should be illegal in all cases because I think it's unethical". I'd still disagree, but at least the conversation would begin at a point of honesty. This constant specious justification, deflection, twisting, b-b-but her emails, denying, Hunter's laptop!, obfuscating, endless stream of crap is, I think, demeaning to the person spouting it.

#62 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-05-10 01:21 PM | Reply

JeffJ actually believes his own propaganda.

That's what happens when you spend too much time holding your wife's head under the covers and giving her the Dutch Oven.

After she leaves you, you realized what you really cherished in your marriage was smelling your own farts.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-10 01:35 PM | Reply

"Have you noticed how much the needle has moved on segregation since Brown was adjudicated?"

We have. You haven't.

School choice, charter schools, and vouchers are all reactions against forced desegregation.

Texas Governor Abbott wants to eliminate public education as we know it, again a reaction against forced desegregation.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-05-10 01:44 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort