What happened to the Democrats! What happened to the Republicans?
Despite being a believer in small government and that the states were intended by the framers to be our primary units of government; despite believing that life in any form is precious and that lawful gun owners pose little danger to the rest of us; despite conservative beliefs that go on and on, I could never be a Republican. Let ME explain.
One of the most formative experiences of my life was service as a commissioned officer in the United States Army. I brought to that service love of country, but what only developed after my commissioning was a profound sense of, and commitment to the concept of honor. What I believe began at West Point as something called the Cadet's Code, I learned as a creed to be followed by every member of the officer corps:
"i will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor will I tolerate those who do."
There remain a great number of Republicans who would satisfy the first part of that Code. They are the ones now appearing before the January 6th Committee, detailing the pressure, threats, and abuse they underwent in order to remain true to our Constitution. Nevertheless, to their dishonor, every one of them has come to simply accept the lying, cheating, and stealing that has been done by other Republicans.
Erick, Republicans did not win control of the Supreme Court by sheer commitment and perseverance of the sort that you described. Rather, Clarence Thomas claimed at his confirmation hearings that despite Roe vs. Wade having been decided while he was in law school, he never really discussed it with any of his classmates. Seriously? I would concede that questions concerning how a prospective justice might rule in any given case are improper. If asked such a question, however, the proper response is to decline comment. Nevertheless, by my count, at least three of the justices in the Dobbs majority effectively answered that question when they termed Roe "settled law." In sum, they all lied their way onto the Court.
When a vacancy occurred on the Court in the last year of Obama's administration, Senate Republicans took the position that it should not be filled in the year before a presidential election. Then when a vacancy they wanted to fill occurred in even closer proximity to such an election, they filled it. In sum, Senate Republicans cheated.
Right now, as the January 6th Committee takes apart the claims of some (not all) Republicans that the 2020 election was stolen, it has become strikingly apparent that is THEY who were trying to steal an election. Hence, we have the completion of the trifecta: lying, cheating, and stealing.
I follow these postings because I find Erick to be a thoughtful, insightful and honest man. However, he just called the only man who failed to peacefully relinquish power as was done by each and every one of his predecessors since Washington, and who to this day persists in telling the most damaging and pernicious lie in the history of our country, a "great President." This is a reflection of the unfortunate fact that every good and decent person in the Republican Party now stands shoulder to shoulder with (i.e., tolerates) a great many cohorts whom he knows will lie, cheat or steal. In sum, I could never be a Republican because yours has become a party without honor.
So when I look at the Dobbs decision and how it's reversal of Roe was ACTUALLY obtained (that is, by lying and cheating), I can only ask . . . . What happened to the Republicans?
Three points from a fellow former commissioned officer and disillusioned Republican that feels the party has pursued overturning Roe at the expense of smaller government and responsible spending. (Now that Roe is gone, the damage in other area may be irreversible)
Firstly, don't look to DC and politicians for virtue on either side. Voting and politics is about pragmatism now, it is no longer aspirational. It is fine to mourn that fact. But the reality is it has become about the lesser of two evils.
Secondly, politics is a game. And in any game, one side can't play by a different set of rules and expect to win. If Dems had controlled congress during key vacancies, would they have behaved any differently? We can expect Republicans to be noble, and they will always be the minority party.
Finally, lying is a serious charge. Or should be for someone that that makes claims about duty, honor, and courage. I habe no idea if any of the justices lied. What I do know is every case is different and no justice may have envisioned a legal situation like they faced in this case. When the solicitor general literally argues you have to choose one or the other, it changes the dynamic. He may regret that the Court accepted his assertion now because maybe they would have been inclined to let Roe stand. But he forced their hand.
I am just tired of so many people assuming everyine else is a bu ch of liars and they are the only honorable person left. It is exhausting. I am not talking about you specifically. But depending on your politics, Mueller is a liar. Barr is a liar. John Roberts is a liar. Raffensberger is a liar. Thomas is a liar.
Calling people liars seems to be the preferred way for people to cling to conspiracies in the face of mounting evidence they are wrong.
I find merit in much of what you say. Let me begin with my claim that some justices in the Dobbs majority lied their way onto the Court. First, it was irresponsible of me to have laid the acknowledgement of Roe as "settled law" at the feet of more justices than the only one (Gorsuch) who actually seems to have made it. And even in that instance, you make a good point to the effect that lying is a charge that is difficult to establish (hence the sparsity of perjury prosecutions), and therefore one we all should hesitate to make.
By way of explanation as concerns the term "settled law," however, I dare say that almost everyone in the legal profession (as am I) would understand that term to refer to a legal precedent, the binding effect of which is no longer questioned. Making this same point a different way, were I to undertake a description of such a case (the binding effect of which is no longer questioned), I frankly cannot think of a better way of describing it than as "settled law." In sum, that is the commonly understood meaning of that term in the legal profession. By way of illustration, when I said these justices lied, I would be shocked if anyone did not understand me to be accusing them of knowingly saying something that is untrue. Why? Because that is the commonly understood meaning of the term, "lied."
Nevertheless, I bow to your point because no one can say with absolute certainty what Gorsuch meant when he acknowledged Roe as being "settled law." Moreover, even if he meant the term exactly as I understand it, one cannot exclude the possibility that his judicial philosophy is one where even "settled law" is subject to being overturned. Such a judicial philosophy would arguably call into question the binding nature of every case since before (and including) Marbury v. Madison, thereby almost entirely turning stare decisis into a nullity. This would make Gorsuch a very bad judge, but not necessarily a liar. So, point taken.
I must take issue with your perspective on (as I understand your argument) the rules of the game, however. They, and their observance, matter a great deal. Presumably referring to what Democrats consider to have been the theft of Merrick Garland's seat on the Court, you ask whether if Dems had controlled Congress during key vacancies, would they have behaved any differently? My response would be to point to almost 200 years of American history in which they have behaved differently; as have the Republicans, for that matter, since they became the other major party.
Judging from your comment to the effect of today's politics being pragmatic rather than aspirational, your view would seem to be that we must simply go forward under the rules of the game as they now exist. My answer would be to almost absolutely assure you that were a vacancy on the Court to arise just five minutes into the term of the next Republican President, Democrats would let it lay vacant for the entirety of his term if they are in control of the Senate. Turning to another area, if Republicans were to get away with claiming fraud when they lose an election, Democrats would do likewise. And lest you think that I expect Democrats to behave any better than Republicans in that event, that includes what happened on January 6th. I mean, can you see where this is going?
More basic to American democracy than even the Constitution is the social compact that if you win an election, you get to govern until the next election. Whereupon if I win, then I get to govern. (And by govern, I also mean appoint justices to the Supreme Court.) That has been the rule ever since the opponents of the Constitution lost the ratification fight. Here, I would emphasize that having just fought a war against tyranny, tyranny in a different form was then an entirely reasonable concern. And yet, those who feared tyranny under this new Constitution nevertheless came together with other Americans with whom they passionately disagreed to make it work.
We've lost that. If we don't somehow get it back, Chris, American democracy is toast.
I would close with an offering of support for your view that success in overturning Roe could undermine the rest of the conservative agenda. Just as Lyndon Johnson once (accurately) predicted that Democrats had lost the South for a generation, Republicans may well have just lost a generation of young women. And need I mention that women constitute the largest single demographic in American politics?
As a former military man, you no doubt understand the concept behind the expression, "a bridge too far."
And do you believe the liberal justices see the individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense to he settled law? I am genuinely asking because in the last decade or so we have three significant rulings that build a strong Foundation in terms of individual right to own a firearm. To get confirmed I'm sure every Justice nominated by a liberal president will say they consider the issue settled, do you believe that is true?
I will defer to your expertise on legal matters, but I do not want to live in a nation where certain legal decisions are never reviewable. That leaves no room for growth as our understanding of so many things evolves. The Supreme Court has overturned themselves many times in the past, correcting what both thr Court and a good portion of the country viewed as mistakes. How many appeals do convicted criminals get before we consider their case "settled law"? We have half the country that doesn't even believe the Constitution is settled law and that it is a living and breathing document, the meaning of which changes over time. It would then be ironic to believe that Supreme Court decisions are set in stone but the document on which those decisions rest is constantly evolving.
As for the rules of the game, I didn't like that McConnell didn't give Garland a hearing. But you seem to feel that was the first salvo is some battle. I can go back to Harry Reid going nuclear on judges and pointed at as the first Salvo.
But overall I agree with you that nobody wins in a race to the bottom. I just have this conversation yesterday with a friend who wants to blame politicians and the real problem is with the voters. We continue to reward the most partisan voices while condemning those who show any willingness to compromise as not being ideologically pure enough. It is a very real problem on both the left and the right and is that the heart of our political dysfunction. Too many people on both the left and the right now feel that not only are their political positions and policies better, but that they are actually better people.
I guess all of that is to say that I agree with you there is plenty of room criticism at the Republican Party, but for me that is policy. Like Republicans now talking about a federal law on abortion after 50 years of claiming it was a state issue. And talking about prosecuting women that travel to other states for an abortion. Those are far bigger issues in my mind because they are inconsistent with the principles the party claims to uphold...in this case federalism. But they have also abandoned the principles of limited government and the free market.
Responding to another important point in your reply, the belief that those on my side are better people is at the heart of our peril as a democracy. I happen to think you guys are wrong on most issues, but I also thought Reagan would get us all killed. Instead, he won the Cold War.
Even were the folks on my side better people, the folks on the other side happen to have been right sometimes. Historically, the genius of this miracle called America flows not from the dominance of either the liberal or conservative perspective, but from the interplay of them both over time as predominance shifts, from one election to another.
To keep that interplay going, people on both sides have to go back to playing fairly with each other. If we don't, we both lose.
I draw a distinction between decisions based on the Court’s interpretation of a statute as opposed to those interpreting the Constitution. Mere statutory interpretations should almost never be overruled because if the Court is wrong, Congress (or a state legislature) can clarify and then reenact the law in question. When the Court basis its decision on the Constitution, however, it has to be subject to reexamination because given the difficult process for amending the Constitution, nobody but the Court can correct any mistake.
That is a long way of saying that you are absolutely right. Adherence to precedent has to be an important goal, not a straightjacket. In my original comment, I only questioned the process by which certain justices made their way onto Court (an unsupportable charge of untruthfulness, since withdrawn), not what they’ve done, having gotten there. I don’t happen to think much of Dobbs as a matter of sound (traditionally considered as conservative) jurisprudence, due in part to the availability of narrower grounds for resolving the particular case at hand (the position taken by Roberts). But the Court has a long history of revisiting prior Constitutional decisions, even (to my dismay) by so little as the 5-4 vote in Dobbs.
That said, as concerns Constitutional cases, I draw a further distinction between those where the Court is taking sole control of an issue – that is, by declaring it a Constitutional matter - versus those where it instead relinquishes control of an issue to, as Alito put it in Dobbs, “the People and their representatives.” Responding here to your other question regarding the Court’s recent decisions making guns a Constitutional issue, because Dobbs is not now the last word on the issue, I have less of a problem with it than with the notion that the rest of us have to keep getting shot at and can do nothing about it.
More directly addressing the question in your other post, I hope those gun decisions get exactly the same treatment that Roe just got.
Exactly, you want judges that will overturn precedent on the 2A. And every Justice nominated by a Democrat president is going to go before the Senate during confirmation hearings and testify that the individual right to bear firearms for self-defense is settled law. Should we assume they are not being completely truthful?
But we should not forget there is a material difference between abortion and the right to own firearms. One is explicitly stated as a constitutional right and the other is not. One is explicitly protected from legislative infringement while the other is completely subject to legislative action.
Again, I am no legal expert, but from what I read it seems Roe would have had a much better chance of surviving had the solicitor general had not argued that for one to stand the other had to fall.
Regarding the Constitution's explicit mention of the right to keep and bear arms as compared with its omission of any reference to abortion, might abortion have indeed been mentioned if EVEN ONE of the "Founding Fathers" had instead been a Founding Mother? I do not believe the Constitution to be a "living" document that changes over time. However, I also realize the existence of certain blind spots in its formation, not all of which have been rectified. I therefore find Alito's grounding of his reasoning on the law as it existed when women could not even vote, much less have any role in determining the content of such law, disingenuous.
In compensating for this blind spot in the doctrine of "originalism," the question I would ask is whether the right not to have one's rapist's baby is a liberty more worthy of protection than other recognized constitutional rights, such as that of keeping and bearing arms for example. The answer to that question being yes for me, I would consider that right to be constitutionally protected. Someone placing greater value on the life of the unborn than any suffering on the part of its mother might well disagree, but at least the reasoning behind that person's no vote would not suffer from the blind spot that exists under the analysis that was applied in Dobbs.
You happen to be mistaken on several points. However, I am going to point to a really serious one and leave the rest. A number of top legal scholars, including Jonathon Turley have explained in graphic detail why it is false to claim that any of these justices lied to get on the court. So don't stand on your high horse and proclaim your honor when you perpetuate this particular lie.
Being a person of good faith, I acknowledge my error and retract that particular assertion (for the reasons just posted in reply to Christian's post, which I shall not belabor here). I would furthermore acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong in my general view, which might be summarized as being that yours is a party that no longer proceeds in good faith. Let me now test that proposition.
I have just acknowledged that I was wrong to have accused those justices of lying their way onto the Court. Can you acknowledge that Senate Republicans were wrong to have withheld even their consideration of Merrick Garland's appointment, only to turn around and confirm Justice Barrett's appointment under precisely the same circumstances?
I am so relieved! Hopefully we can now move on from this issue. When Republicans entered into the unholy agreement with the SBC to support anti-abortion legislation, it diverted much needed resources from critical Republican efforts to limit government. Can we now move on to the critical need to reduce Federal spending and limit the overreach of government in our lives? Please let this issue die forever.
"... culmination of 40 years of effort by conservatives within the Republican party. While Democrats have been embedding themselves within Fortune 500 companies, institutions of education, and mainstream media outlets,..."
Conservatives engage in the democratic process. Biden lamenting this decades long push show what they say is "democracy" is 1984 double speak. Along with the notion that discrimination against conservatives is not discrimination.
Only liberals can be discriminated against and any decent is discrimination.
To liberals using the police power of the Federal Government to impose their will is democracy.
Using Fortune 500 companies to implement their DEI, actually racism (to a liberal a straight, white, Christian can't be discriminated against) is democracy.
Using a minority of people in control of education, demanding you send your children to government schools and accept the induction of CRT and the mental illness of the alphabet gang starting at kindergarten is democracy.
What happened to the Democrats! What happened to the Republicans?
Despite being a believer in small government and that the states were intended by the framers to be our primary units of government; despite believing that life in any form is precious and that lawful gun owners pose little danger to the rest of us; despite conservative beliefs that go on and on, I could never be a Republican. Let ME explain.
One of the most formative experiences of my life was service as a commissioned officer in the United States Army. I brought to that service love of country, but what only developed after my commissioning was a profound sense of, and commitment to the concept of honor. What I believe began at West Point as something called the Cadet's Code, I learned as a creed to be followed by every member of the officer corps:
"i will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor will I tolerate those who do."
There remain a great number of Republicans who would satisfy the first part of that Code. They are the ones now appearing before the January 6th Committee, detailing the pressure, threats, and abuse they underwent in order to remain true to our Constitution. Nevertheless, to their dishonor, every one of them has come to simply accept the lying, cheating, and stealing that has been done by other Republicans.
Erick, Republicans did not win control of the Supreme Court by sheer commitment and perseverance of the sort that you described. Rather, Clarence Thomas claimed at his confirmation hearings that despite Roe vs. Wade having been decided while he was in law school, he never really discussed it with any of his classmates. Seriously? I would concede that questions concerning how a prospective justice might rule in any given case are improper. If asked such a question, however, the proper response is to decline comment. Nevertheless, by my count, at least three of the justices in the Dobbs majority effectively answered that question when they termed Roe "settled law." In sum, they all lied their way onto the Court.
When a vacancy occurred on the Court in the last year of Obama's administration, Senate Republicans took the position that it should not be filled in the year before a presidential election. Then when a vacancy they wanted to fill occurred in even closer proximity to such an election, they filled it. In sum, Senate Republicans cheated.
Right now, as the January 6th Committee takes apart the claims of some (not all) Republicans that the 2020 election was stolen, it has become strikingly apparent that is THEY who were trying to steal an election. Hence, we have the completion of the trifecta: lying, cheating, and stealing.
I follow these postings because I find Erick to be a thoughtful, insightful and honest man. However, he just called the only man who failed to peacefully relinquish power as was done by each and every one of his predecessors since Washington, and who to this day persists in telling the most damaging and pernicious lie in the history of our country, a "great President." This is a reflection of the unfortunate fact that every good and decent person in the Republican Party now stands shoulder to shoulder with (i.e., tolerates) a great many cohorts whom he knows will lie, cheat or steal. In sum, I could never be a Republican because yours has become a party without honor.
So when I look at the Dobbs decision and how it's reversal of Roe was ACTUALLY obtained (that is, by lying and cheating), I can only ask . . . . What happened to the Republicans?
Three points from a fellow former commissioned officer and disillusioned Republican that feels the party has pursued overturning Roe at the expense of smaller government and responsible spending. (Now that Roe is gone, the damage in other area may be irreversible)
Firstly, don't look to DC and politicians for virtue on either side. Voting and politics is about pragmatism now, it is no longer aspirational. It is fine to mourn that fact. But the reality is it has become about the lesser of two evils.
Secondly, politics is a game. And in any game, one side can't play by a different set of rules and expect to win. If Dems had controlled congress during key vacancies, would they have behaved any differently? We can expect Republicans to be noble, and they will always be the minority party.
Finally, lying is a serious charge. Or should be for someone that that makes claims about duty, honor, and courage. I habe no idea if any of the justices lied. What I do know is every case is different and no justice may have envisioned a legal situation like they faced in this case. When the solicitor general literally argues you have to choose one or the other, it changes the dynamic. He may regret that the Court accepted his assertion now because maybe they would have been inclined to let Roe stand. But he forced their hand.
I am just tired of so many people assuming everyine else is a bu ch of liars and they are the only honorable person left. It is exhausting. I am not talking about you specifically. But depending on your politics, Mueller is a liar. Barr is a liar. John Roberts is a liar. Raffensberger is a liar. Thomas is a liar.
Calling people liars seems to be the preferred way for people to cling to conspiracies in the face of mounting evidence they are wrong.
I find merit in much of what you say. Let me begin with my claim that some justices in the Dobbs majority lied their way onto the Court. First, it was irresponsible of me to have laid the acknowledgement of Roe as "settled law" at the feet of more justices than the only one (Gorsuch) who actually seems to have made it. And even in that instance, you make a good point to the effect that lying is a charge that is difficult to establish (hence the sparsity of perjury prosecutions), and therefore one we all should hesitate to make.
By way of explanation as concerns the term "settled law," however, I dare say that almost everyone in the legal profession (as am I) would understand that term to refer to a legal precedent, the binding effect of which is no longer questioned. Making this same point a different way, were I to undertake a description of such a case (the binding effect of which is no longer questioned), I frankly cannot think of a better way of describing it than as "settled law." In sum, that is the commonly understood meaning of that term in the legal profession. By way of illustration, when I said these justices lied, I would be shocked if anyone did not understand me to be accusing them of knowingly saying something that is untrue. Why? Because that is the commonly understood meaning of the term, "lied."
Nevertheless, I bow to your point because no one can say with absolute certainty what Gorsuch meant when he acknowledged Roe as being "settled law." Moreover, even if he meant the term exactly as I understand it, one cannot exclude the possibility that his judicial philosophy is one where even "settled law" is subject to being overturned. Such a judicial philosophy would arguably call into question the binding nature of every case since before (and including) Marbury v. Madison, thereby almost entirely turning stare decisis into a nullity. This would make Gorsuch a very bad judge, but not necessarily a liar. So, point taken.
I must take issue with your perspective on (as I understand your argument) the rules of the game, however. They, and their observance, matter a great deal. Presumably referring to what Democrats consider to have been the theft of Merrick Garland's seat on the Court, you ask whether if Dems had controlled Congress during key vacancies, would they have behaved any differently? My response would be to point to almost 200 years of American history in which they have behaved differently; as have the Republicans, for that matter, since they became the other major party.
Judging from your comment to the effect of today's politics being pragmatic rather than aspirational, your view would seem to be that we must simply go forward under the rules of the game as they now exist. My answer would be to almost absolutely assure you that were a vacancy on the Court to arise just five minutes into the term of the next Republican President, Democrats would let it lay vacant for the entirety of his term if they are in control of the Senate. Turning to another area, if Republicans were to get away with claiming fraud when they lose an election, Democrats would do likewise. And lest you think that I expect Democrats to behave any better than Republicans in that event, that includes what happened on January 6th. I mean, can you see where this is going?
More basic to American democracy than even the Constitution is the social compact that if you win an election, you get to govern until the next election. Whereupon if I win, then I get to govern. (And by govern, I also mean appoint justices to the Supreme Court.) That has been the rule ever since the opponents of the Constitution lost the ratification fight. Here, I would emphasize that having just fought a war against tyranny, tyranny in a different form was then an entirely reasonable concern. And yet, those who feared tyranny under this new Constitution nevertheless came together with other Americans with whom they passionately disagreed to make it work.
We've lost that. If we don't somehow get it back, Chris, American democracy is toast.
I would close with an offering of support for your view that success in overturning Roe could undermine the rest of the conservative agenda. Just as Lyndon Johnson once (accurately) predicted that Democrats had lost the South for a generation, Republicans may well have just lost a generation of young women. And need I mention that women constitute the largest single demographic in American politics?
As a former military man, you no doubt understand the concept behind the expression, "a bridge too far."
And do you believe the liberal justices see the individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense to he settled law? I am genuinely asking because in the last decade or so we have three significant rulings that build a strong Foundation in terms of individual right to own a firearm. To get confirmed I'm sure every Justice nominated by a liberal president will say they consider the issue settled, do you believe that is true?
I will defer to your expertise on legal matters, but I do not want to live in a nation where certain legal decisions are never reviewable. That leaves no room for growth as our understanding of so many things evolves. The Supreme Court has overturned themselves many times in the past, correcting what both thr Court and a good portion of the country viewed as mistakes. How many appeals do convicted criminals get before we consider their case "settled law"? We have half the country that doesn't even believe the Constitution is settled law and that it is a living and breathing document, the meaning of which changes over time. It would then be ironic to believe that Supreme Court decisions are set in stone but the document on which those decisions rest is constantly evolving.
As for the rules of the game, I didn't like that McConnell didn't give Garland a hearing. But you seem to feel that was the first salvo is some battle. I can go back to Harry Reid going nuclear on judges and pointed at as the first Salvo.
But overall I agree with you that nobody wins in a race to the bottom. I just have this conversation yesterday with a friend who wants to blame politicians and the real problem is with the voters. We continue to reward the most partisan voices while condemning those who show any willingness to compromise as not being ideologically pure enough. It is a very real problem on both the left and the right and is that the heart of our political dysfunction. Too many people on both the left and the right now feel that not only are their political positions and policies better, but that they are actually better people.
I guess all of that is to say that I agree with you there is plenty of room criticism at the Republican Party, but for me that is policy. Like Republicans now talking about a federal law on abortion after 50 years of claiming it was a state issue. And talking about prosecuting women that travel to other states for an abortion. Those are far bigger issues in my mind because they are inconsistent with the principles the party claims to uphold...in this case federalism. But they have also abandoned the principles of limited government and the free market.
Responding to another important point in your reply, the belief that those on my side are better people is at the heart of our peril as a democracy. I happen to think you guys are wrong on most issues, but I also thought Reagan would get us all killed. Instead, he won the Cold War.
Even were the folks on my side better people, the folks on the other side happen to have been right sometimes. Historically, the genius of this miracle called America flows not from the dominance of either the liberal or conservative perspective, but from the interplay of them both over time as predominance shifts, from one election to another.
To keep that interplay going, people on both sides have to go back to playing fairly with each other. If we don't, we both lose.
Amen. Both sides have to deal honestly with one another.
I draw a distinction between decisions based on the Court’s interpretation of a statute as opposed to those interpreting the Constitution. Mere statutory interpretations should almost never be overruled because if the Court is wrong, Congress (or a state legislature) can clarify and then reenact the law in question. When the Court basis its decision on the Constitution, however, it has to be subject to reexamination because given the difficult process for amending the Constitution, nobody but the Court can correct any mistake.
That is a long way of saying that you are absolutely right. Adherence to precedent has to be an important goal, not a straightjacket. In my original comment, I only questioned the process by which certain justices made their way onto Court (an unsupportable charge of untruthfulness, since withdrawn), not what they’ve done, having gotten there. I don’t happen to think much of Dobbs as a matter of sound (traditionally considered as conservative) jurisprudence, due in part to the availability of narrower grounds for resolving the particular case at hand (the position taken by Roberts). But the Court has a long history of revisiting prior Constitutional decisions, even (to my dismay) by so little as the 5-4 vote in Dobbs.
That said, as concerns Constitutional cases, I draw a further distinction between those where the Court is taking sole control of an issue – that is, by declaring it a Constitutional matter - versus those where it instead relinquishes control of an issue to, as Alito put it in Dobbs, “the People and their representatives.” Responding here to your other question regarding the Court’s recent decisions making guns a Constitutional issue, because Dobbs is not now the last word on the issue, I have less of a problem with it than with the notion that the rest of us have to keep getting shot at and can do nothing about it.
More directly addressing the question in your other post, I hope those gun decisions get exactly the same treatment that Roe just got.
Exactly, you want judges that will overturn precedent on the 2A. And every Justice nominated by a Democrat president is going to go before the Senate during confirmation hearings and testify that the individual right to bear firearms for self-defense is settled law. Should we assume they are not being completely truthful?
But we should not forget there is a material difference between abortion and the right to own firearms. One is explicitly stated as a constitutional right and the other is not. One is explicitly protected from legislative infringement while the other is completely subject to legislative action.
Again, I am no legal expert, but from what I read it seems Roe would have had a much better chance of surviving had the solicitor general had not argued that for one to stand the other had to fall.
Regarding the Constitution's explicit mention of the right to keep and bear arms as compared with its omission of any reference to abortion, might abortion have indeed been mentioned if EVEN ONE of the "Founding Fathers" had instead been a Founding Mother? I do not believe the Constitution to be a "living" document that changes over time. However, I also realize the existence of certain blind spots in its formation, not all of which have been rectified. I therefore find Alito's grounding of his reasoning on the law as it existed when women could not even vote, much less have any role in determining the content of such law, disingenuous.
In compensating for this blind spot in the doctrine of "originalism," the question I would ask is whether the right not to have one's rapist's baby is a liberty more worthy of protection than other recognized constitutional rights, such as that of keeping and bearing arms for example. The answer to that question being yes for me, I would consider that right to be constitutionally protected. Someone placing greater value on the life of the unborn than any suffering on the part of its mother might well disagree, but at least the reasoning behind that person's no vote would not suffer from the blind spot that exists under the analysis that was applied in Dobbs.
You happen to be mistaken on several points. However, I am going to point to a really serious one and leave the rest. A number of top legal scholars, including Jonathon Turley have explained in graphic detail why it is false to claim that any of these justices lied to get on the court. So don't stand on your high horse and proclaim your honor when you perpetuate this particular lie.
Being a person of good faith, I acknowledge my error and retract that particular assertion (for the reasons just posted in reply to Christian's post, which I shall not belabor here). I would furthermore acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong in my general view, which might be summarized as being that yours is a party that no longer proceeds in good faith. Let me now test that proposition.
I have just acknowledged that I was wrong to have accused those justices of lying their way onto the Court. Can you acknowledge that Senate Republicans were wrong to have withheld even their consideration of Merrick Garland's appointment, only to turn around and confirm Justice Barrett's appointment under precisely the same circumstances?
I am so relieved! Hopefully we can now move on from this issue. When Republicans entered into the unholy agreement with the SBC to support anti-abortion legislation, it diverted much needed resources from critical Republican efforts to limit government. Can we now move on to the critical need to reduce Federal spending and limit the overreach of government in our lives? Please let this issue die forever.
"... culmination of 40 years of effort by conservatives within the Republican party. While Democrats have been embedding themselves within Fortune 500 companies, institutions of education, and mainstream media outlets,..."
Conservatives engage in the democratic process. Biden lamenting this decades long push show what they say is "democracy" is 1984 double speak. Along with the notion that discrimination against conservatives is not discrimination.
Only liberals can be discriminated against and any decent is discrimination.
To liberals using the police power of the Federal Government to impose their will is democracy.
Using Fortune 500 companies to implement their DEI, actually racism (to a liberal a straight, white, Christian can't be discriminated against) is democracy.
Using a minority of people in control of education, demanding you send your children to government schools and accept the induction of CRT and the mental illness of the alphabet gang starting at kindergarten is democracy.