“It was three justices named by one president – Donald Trump – who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.
“Make no mistake: this decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It’s a realisation of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the supreme court, in my view.”
He added: “With this decision, the conservative majority of the supreme court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country. They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world.”
The president admitted that he cannot take executive action to secure a woman’s right to choose. The only hope is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v Wade as federal law, which in turns depends on Democrats winning the midterm elections. “This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” he said. “Personal freedoms are on the ballot.”
Nobody should be surprised that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Friday jettisoned nearly 50 years of precedent upon precedent in overturning Roe v. Wade. Heck, they didn’t even honor their own precedent articulated 24 hours earlier.
In their opinion Thursday morning forcing New York and other densely populated states to allow more handguns in public, the conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that medieval law imposing arms restrictions — specifically, the 1328 Statute of Northampton — “has little bearing on the Second Amendment” because it was “enacted … more than 450 years before the ratification of the Constitution.”
Yet in their ruling Friday morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, setting women’s rights back half a century (and cracking the door to banning same-sex marriage and contraception), the conservative justices, led by Samuel Alito (who was also in the guns majority) and joined by Thomas, argued precisely the opposite. They justified abortion bans by citing, among others, “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise.” That was written circa 1250 and referred to monsters, duels, burning at the stake — and to women as property, “inferior” to men.
No, actually Trump is being rather reluctant to take credit for overturning Roe Vs. Wade. He's not crowing about it the way he usually does. See below.
The Court’s actions signal that other fundamental rights could be at risk as well.
No one should have to cross state lines to exercise their most basic rights and plan their futures. And the burden will fall hardest on the people with the fewest resources, disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and others who have historically been marginalized. They will face the highest hurdles to overcoming state-level restrictions due to this nation’s long history of racism and discrimination. For many with low incomes, little savings, inflexible jobs, child care responsibilities, or no private transportation, those restrictions will mean less personal autonomy and enormous financial hardship — burdens that wealthier people will not face to the same degree.
By creating new legal and financial barriers to health care based on where people live and their resources to seek care elsewhere, the Court’s decision will further worsen health disparities. The U.S. already has unacceptably high levels of poverty and inequality and deep inequities across racial, ethnic, and gender lines. Among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of deadly pregnancy-related complications during or within 12 months of the end of pregnancy. Black women die at significantly higher rates than other groups and are twice as likely to experience serious health conditions resulting from labor or delivery. And births involving unintended pregnancies are more likely to result in adverse health outcomes for women, including death; this risk is higher for women of color than for white women.
Instead of worsening disparities, we should pursue health equity so that all people can access care and lead healthy lives regardless of their race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, the state in which they live, their income, their immigration status, their disability status, or the language they speak. Elected officials at both the state and national level should take action to protect people’s freedom to access vital health care, including abortion care, and make personal decisions to guide their own lives.
According to Rolling Stone: Trump ‘Keeps Shitting All Over’ End of Roe v. Wade June 26, 2022 at 1:26 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 96 Comments
Donald Trump “is anxious about what the end of Roe, and the flood of extreme Republican state-level anti-abortion laws it will unleash, will mean for the GOP’s electoral prospects — and for his own,” Rolling Stone reports.
Said one source who spoke to Trump: “He keeps shitting all over his greatest accomplishment. When you speak to him, it’s the response of someone fearing the backlash and fearing the politics of what happens when conservatives actually get what they want.”
The source added: “I do not think he’s enjoying the moment as much as many of his supporters are, to be honest with you.”
World Leaders Denounce Supreme Court Ruling June 26, 2022 at 5:05 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 53 Comments
“Several female world leaders denounced the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a setback in the global push for gender equality,” the New York Times reports.
“The United States is one of the few countries to restrict access to abortion in the past two decades, while dozens of other countries have expanded access.”
Americans Face New Abortion Landscape June 26, 2022 at 5:04 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 27 Comments
“A new and rapidly shifting reality took hold across America on Saturday as abortion, a basic legal right for nearly a half century, was outlawed in some states, and the initial bursts of elation and shock from the overturning of Roe v. Wade gave way to action,” the New York Times reports.
“At abortion clinics across the country, providers hastily canceled appointments out of fear of prosecution, and stunned women abruptly made plans to cross state lines into places where abortion was still allowed — traveling from Missouri to Illinois, from Wisconsin to Minnesota.”
THIS IS LIKELY NOT TO GO AS REPUBLICANS WERE HOPING.
MAGA means that the 20th century should be abolished.
Striding from the US supreme court to the nearby US Capitol, holding aloft a sign that said “My body my choice” and “Women’s right to choose”, Taylor Treacy was struggling to fathom how she had fewer constitutional rights now than when she awoke that morning.
“It’s heartbreaking,” said the 28-year-old, who works in sports marketing. “The people who have legally gotten abortions in the United States are mostly Black and brown women, yet the five justices able to have the final word were four powerful men and one white woman. We’re allowing more access to guns yet we’re taking away the rights of women. It just seems like we’re going backwards.”
Americans take to streets across US to protest for abortion rights – in pictures
Millions of women had just lost access to abortion on Friday after America’s highest court overturned a near-50-year-old ruling and other precedents enshrining that right. The conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion that Roe v Wade was “egregiously wrong and deeply damaging”, and that states should decide whether to limit or criminalise the procedure.
Republicans Brace for Impact of Reversing Roe June 25, 2022 at 3:24 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 1435 Comments
“Republicans finally got the Roe v. Wade decision they wanted, and in public, they are delighted,” Politico reports.
“More quietly, however, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republican strategists and party officials, they just didn’t want it to come right now — not during a midterm election campaign in which nearly everything had been going right for the GOP.”
IT AIN'T GOING TO BE THAT EASY FRM HERE ON OUT. A LOT OF YOUNGER VOTES ARE ESPECIALLY UPSET.
Now Antiabortion Lawmakers Want More June 26, 2022 at 1:23 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 47 Comments
“On the heels of their greatest victory, antiabortion activists are eager to capitalize on their momentum by enshrining constitutional abortion bans, pushing Congress to pass a national prohibition, blocking abortion pills, and limiting people’s ability to get abortions across state lines,” the Washington Post reports. _______
ALSO NO MORE INTERRACIAL OR GAY MARRIAGES WILL BE ALLOWED.
GOP Candidate Says Roe Verdict ‘Victory for White Life’ June 26, 2022 at 1:17 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 55 Comments
Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) told a crowd at a rally held alongside former president Donald Trump that the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade was a “victory for white life,” The Guardian reports.
Miller is running for reelection in the state’s newly redrawn 15th Congressional District against Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) with Donald Trump’s endorsement.
GOP Candidate Punches Opponent in the Face June 26, 2022 at 1:11 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 29 Comments
“A Providence police officer who was running for state office as a Republican dropped out of the race on Saturday amid a criminal investigation for allegedly punching his Democratic opponent in the face during an abortion protest,” the Washington Post reports.
Said Jennifer O’Rourke (D) on Twitter: “Last night, after speaking at our Roe rally, my Republican opponent — a police officer — violently attacked me. This is what it is to be a Black woman running for office. I won’t give up.”
The crowd in a display of extreme gratitude chanted "THANK YOU TRUMP" in response to President @realDonaldTrump Supreme court picks and the ruling hand down yesterday. -President Donald J. Trump
Watch LIVE Rally coverage on PLUTO bit.ly/plutolive & ROKU: bit.ly/ravroku
It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
But the basis for the ruling IS mentioned in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment.
And as usual, racist democrats were responsible for the injustice:
Anti-miscegenation laws had been in place in certain states since colonial days. In the Reconstruction Era in 1865, the Black Codes across the seven states of the lower South made interracial marriage illegal. The new Republican legislatures in six states repealed the restrictive laws. By 1894, when the Democratic Party in the South returned to power, restrictions were reimposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Ironically, the FJB DOJ is violating the 14th in hundreds of cases involving the J6 protestors.
The irony of today's abortion decision is the primary refrain of Democrats is "Nine unelected men in robes should not decide what I can do with my body"
The Justices said "You're right. We should never have decided that" and returned the decision to the people.
Thomas didn’t suggest overruling interracial marriage rights because they flowed from a separate clause of the Constitution — the equal protection clause — a clause with a very different historical purpose and meaning. The equal protection clause says a state cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” At its core, the equal protection clause is an anti-discrimination clause. The Supreme Court has long said that the equal protection clause bans the government from creating a “suspect class” or “regulated class” of people based on characteristics such as religion, race, alienage, or ancestry.
A 1985 equal protection case explains:
These factors are so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means, these laws are subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Thomas didn’t sketch the precise outlines of his personal equal protection views in Dobbs, but he did mention in another abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), that “the right against discrimination on the basis of race” is simply one of the rights “enumerated in the Constitution.”
And that’s the holding of Loving: Americans have a right to be free of government racial classifications. Thomas sees that legal concept as clearly embedded within the actual text of the Constitution itself. To the contrary, he sees substantive due process as an “oxymoron” that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” That’s what he said in Dobbs. He also called out the “facial absurdity” of Griswold’s analysis, which isn’t quite the same as modern substantive due process jurisprudence but which has since been interpreted as standing among the Court’s decisions in that area.
The Loving opinion explicitly noted that only 16 states — a clear minority — banned interracial marriage; the other states allowed it. The Supreme Court therefore made no qualms about forcing the minority of states to coalesce with the majority. Here’s some of the key language from the opinion; it lays out precisely why every single justice on the Court in 1967 agreed that Virginia’s ban violated the equal protection clause:
Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a “white person” marrying other than another “white person,” a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that the applicants’ statements as to their race are correct, certificates of “racial composition” to be kept by both local and state registrars, and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage.
The Loving court noted with extreme disfavor that Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals had previously upheld the Commonwealth’s interracial marriage ban for reasons that were “obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy.” Virginia’s reasons, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of a separate state court opinion, were “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,” to prevent “the corruption of blood,” to avoid “a mongrel breed of citizens,” and to avoid the “obliteration of racial pride.”
Thomas’s concurrence sees the equal protection clause as separate and distinct from the due process clause. He did suggest that the Court should undertake additional analyses if it desired — as he suggested it should desire — to strip away the substantive due process rights enshrined in current case law. Such analyses might include a privileges and immunities clause analysis, Thomas wrote (citations omitted yet again):
After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights. That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach.
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said the quiet part out loud Saturday when she thanked former President Donald Trump at an Illinois rally for his role in overturning Roe v. Wade by picking conservative justices.
“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court,” she said, to cheers and applause.
“If we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle. Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future,’”
“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court,” she said, to cheers and applause.
I watched the video.
She obviously mis-spoke.
But the left will run with this because they're pathological liars.
After a gunman killed 19 young children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, in May, Miller attacked those fighting for gun safety as “trying to 0destroy our society’s central pillars of faith, family and freedom,” the Tribune reported. “We need to go back to God,” she added.
As for “white life,” some conservatives 0see abortion crackdowns as a way to keep up numbers of white citizens amid evolving American demographics. It plays into the racist “0Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that Democrats and others are covertly plotting to replace whites with people of color and immigrants.
Miller, who has been endorsed by Trump, will face off against rival Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) in a state primary Tuesday.
MAGA Lawmaker Thanks Trump For 'Historic' Supreme Court Ruling For 'White Life' https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mary-miller-illinois-roe-white-life-trump_n_62b7e95be4b0c77098bd26db
Not being able to discern the difference between and acknowledgement and praise is the sign of an imbecile. And/or a pathological liar.
And as the teachers unions have so eloquently displayed, Hitler was absolutely correct on this point.
Currently groomers and drag queens and pedophiles have the youth. They call themselves 'teachers.'
Enjoy spending yet another entire day here, sport. I'm going to hop in the convertible, head up to Fred The Butcher for some massive, mouth-watering strip steaks, and enjoy the 93 degree beautiful day by the pool.
MAGA Lawmaker Thanks Trump For 'Historic' Supreme Court Ruling For 'White Life' https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mary-miller-illinois-roe-white-life-trump_n_62b7e95be4b0c77098bd26db
A deep threat to our country opened up when Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s last nominee for the court, Merrick Garland, on the spurious grounds that it was an election year. Then Trump, a one-term president who had lost the national popular vote by 3m, appointed three justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. It has proven his most significant legacy.
If our democracy survives, Trump’s legacy will be recognized as the greatest threat in history.
This entire charade of the Unselect Committee is a brazen attempt to detract the public’s attention from the truth. The truth is that Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. in massive numbers (but seldom revealed by the press), on January 6th, 2021, to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the Election. Those who are supposed to be public servants are using the power of government against the people who entrusted them with the power. We’ve been betrayed.
This week, Adam Schiff and his friends on the Jan. 6 Select Committee have been pushing a new "Big Lie" on America, that President Trump conspired with state GOP leaders to present "fake Trump electors" on January 6, 2021, whose votes would be substituted for the "real" Biden electors during the ceremonial public count of the votes by the vice president in the Capitol.
According to the breathless committee script, it was a classic switcheroo, conducted in top secret, all by word of mouth or by encrypted text messages, please. In Michigan, electors were said to have hid out in the Capitol building overnight so they could cast their ballots legally in the morning without being detected.
Schiff presented these claims in an eight-minute Sixty Minutes style video, narrated by the committee's investigative counsel, Cosey Lucier, who drove the theme home, presenting snippets of a "secret" meeting of the Arizona "fake electors" presided by state GOP chairwoman Kelli Ward and "fake electors" themselves.
This is how propaganda works. You present one side of the story, you label it, and then you repeat repeat repeat.
We need to go on a national strike against the corruption of the corporations that have become baby killers.
The corporate world added its voice to the pro-abortion chorus: Disney, Meta, Microsoft, CVS Health, Netflix, Bumble, UnitedHealth. Block, Apple, Citigroup, Yelp, Amazon, Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Starbucks, Salesforce, Match, Levi's, Lush, and others decried the decision and assured their employees that they would adjust their health care plans to cover travel to other states for abortions.
These people and companies deplore conservatives and their values. Think about that next time you go to Disney, or go to the movies (or rent one on your TV), or watch Netflix, or take an Uber, or stop at Starbucks, or buy anything by Taylor Swift, or attend a Mariah Carey or Alicia Keys concert, or go to or watch an NBA game.
Fifty-eight percent of voters say President Joe Biden should take a cognitive health test and reveal the results to the American public, a McLaughlin & Associates poll released Friday showed.
The poll asked respondents, “Do you think Joe Biden should take a cognitive health test and release it publicly?” Fifty-eight percent said yes, while 30 percent said no
Now is her moment. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.
Conditions are favorable:
1. Joe Biden is too old to run for re-election. Everyone knows this. Virtually everyone in the Democratic Party is at their wit’s end over what to do about it. The most recent last straw was the cue card. Here’s what the cue card said:
"YOU enter the Roosevelt Room and say hello to participants."
"YOU take YOUR seat. "
"Press enters."
"YOU give brief comments [...]" This note was partially blocked by Biden's finger.
"Press departs."
"YOU ask Liz Shuler, President, AFL-CIO, a question. Note: Liz is joining virtually."
"YOU thank participants."
"YOU depart."
2. It isn’t going to get better. Everyone knows it isn’t going to get better. Which explains this:
A majority of Democratic voters want President Joe Biden off the party’s ticket for the 2024 presidential election, according to a recent poll.
The survey, conducted by Marist, found that among registered Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents, 44% (or 55% of those with an opinion) of respondents want another candidate to replace President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.
Just 36% (45% among those who had an opinion) of registered Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents want Biden to run for reelection. Twenty percent of respondents did not have a clear preference.
3. There is no bench. I made this point in a subscriber note last December. Others did as well. Nothing has changed since then. If anything, veteran Democrats are even more pessimistic about Kamala Harris as a potential presidential nominee. As for the others, former Vice President Al Gore is probably the party’s best bet. He has indicated zero interest in running.
That leaves former Secretary of State John Kerry, Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, California Governor Gavin Newsom and….maybe….possibly….an outsider like Sheryl Sandberg (ex-Facebook COO) or Bob Iger (ex-Disney CEO).
That’s the field. When describing it, the word “formidable” does not spring to mind. Nor do the words “up to it.”
CH, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS ORIGINAL WORDING DID NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO MARRY AN ASIAN.
BEWARE! THE GOP MAY ANNUL YOUR MARRIAGE!
Did it allow for Justice Thomas's interracial marriage?
Like you didn't realize I was married to an Asian, are you one of those duped into believing that Thomas would rule that interracial marriages (like his) are unconstitutional... not knowing his wife is white?
Actually pretty sure it did not say anything about interracial marriage, but the 14th amendment did allow for equal protection.
Thomas’s concurrence sees the equal protection clause as separate and distinct from the due process clause.
Wow... this is someone who has an understanding of what this decision is about and is not just making shit up as he goes.
This is not about "fundamental rights" or "equal protection" or "settled law". This is about the fact that the court has (in the past) used the "due process" clause" which has been used as a catch all manner for "activist" judges to basically legislate from the bench.
The right to "life, liberty, and property" is important, but should not also be defined to include pretty much anything anyone actually wants.
For most of our judicial history the rights that were being protected (not to be taken away without due process of law) were the same rights that existed in the Constitution (or bill of rights specifically).
But judges started to use it to "define" new rights (or new liberties) as they saw it.
The second part of this concept is equal protection. The idea of "marriage" doesn't need protection from due process, but it can need equal protection for all parties (such as allowing interracial marriage).
The difference between abortion and interracial marriage is that abortion is not a fundamental right anywhere other than from a court decision. Marriage exists in every state and the Constitution does demand equal protection for everyone. You would need very serious reasoning to satisfy that there is "due process" involved that requires the courts to turn their back on the unequal treatment of people based on color.
49 comments:
“It was three justices named by one president – Donald Trump – who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.
“Make no mistake: this decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It’s a realisation of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the supreme court, in my view.”
He added: “With this decision, the conservative majority of the supreme court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country. They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world.”
The president admitted that he cannot take executive action to secure a woman’s right to choose. The only hope is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v Wade as federal law, which in turns depends on Democrats winning the midterm elections. “This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” he said. “Personal freedoms are on the ballot.”
I'd we don’t speak, our democracy is at risk.
Nobody should be surprised that the Supreme Court’s conservative justices on Friday jettisoned nearly 50 years of precedent upon precedent in overturning Roe v. Wade. Heck, they didn’t even honor their own precedent articulated 24 hours earlier.
In their opinion Thursday morning forcing New York and other densely populated states to allow more handguns in public, the conservative majority, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, argued that medieval law imposing arms restrictions — specifically, the 1328 Statute of Northampton — “has little bearing on the Second Amendment” because it was “enacted … more than 450 years before the ratification of the Constitution.”
Yet in their ruling Friday morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, setting women’s rights back half a century (and cracking the door to banning same-sex marriage and contraception), the conservative justices, led by Samuel Alito (who was also in the guns majority) and joined by Thomas, argued precisely the opposite. They justified abortion bans by citing, among others, “Henry de Bracton’s 13th-century treatise.” That was written circa 1250 and referred to monsters, duels, burning at the stake — and to women as property, “inferior” to men.
First Sunday funny-- "I did that"
No, actually Trump is being rather reluctant to take credit for overturning Roe Vs. Wade. He's not crowing about it the way he usually does. See below.
The Court’s actions signal that other fundamental rights could be at risk as well.
No one should have to cross state lines to exercise their most basic rights and plan their futures. And the burden will fall hardest on the people with the fewest resources, disproportionately people of color, immigrants, and others who have historically been marginalized. They will face the highest hurdles to overcoming state-level restrictions due to this nation’s long history of racism and discrimination. For many with low incomes, little savings, inflexible jobs, child care responsibilities, or no private transportation, those restrictions will mean less personal autonomy and enormous financial hardship — burdens that wealthier people will not face to the same degree.
By creating new legal and financial barriers to health care based on where people live and their resources to seek care elsewhere, the Court’s decision will further worsen health disparities. The U.S. already has unacceptably high levels of poverty and inequality and deep inequities across racial, ethnic, and gender lines. Among developed countries, the U.S. has the highest rate of deadly pregnancy-related complications during or within 12 months of the end of pregnancy. Black women die at significantly higher rates than other groups and are twice as likely to experience serious health conditions resulting from labor or delivery. And births involving unintended pregnancies are more likely to result in adverse health outcomes for women, including death; this risk is higher for women of color than for white women.
Instead of worsening disparities, we should pursue health equity so that all people can access care and lead healthy lives regardless of their race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, the state in which they live, their income, their immigration status, their disability status, or the language they speak. Elected officials at both the state and national level should take action to protect people’s freedom to access vital health care, including abortion care, and make personal decisions to guide their own lives.
Welcome back to the 1880s
According to Rolling Stone:
Trump ‘Keeps Shitting All Over’ End of Roe v. Wade
June 26, 2022 at 1:26 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 96 Comments
Donald Trump “is anxious about what the end of Roe, and the flood of extreme Republican state-level anti-abortion laws it will unleash, will mean for the GOP’s electoral prospects — and for his own,”
Rolling Stone reports.
Said one source who spoke to Trump:
“He keeps shitting all over his greatest accomplishment. When you speak to him, it’s the response of someone fearing the backlash and fearing the politics of what happens when conservatives actually get what they want.”
The source added:
“I do not think he’s enjoying the moment as much as many of his supporters are, to be honest with you.”
ANOTHER KNEE SLAPPER!
World Leaders Denounce Supreme Court Ruling
June 26, 2022 at 5:05 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 53 Comments
“Several female world leaders denounced the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a setback in the global push for gender equality,” the New York Times reports.
“The United States is one of the few countries to restrict access to abortion in the past two decades, while dozens of other countries have expanded access.”
Americans Face New Abortion Landscape
June 26, 2022 at 5:04 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 27 Comments
“A new and rapidly shifting reality took hold across America on Saturday as abortion, a basic legal right for nearly a half century, was outlawed in some states, and the initial bursts of elation and shock from the overturning of Roe v. Wade gave way to action,” the New York Times reports.
“At abortion clinics across the country, providers hastily canceled appointments out of fear of prosecution, and stunned women abruptly made plans to cross state lines into places where abortion was still allowed — traveling from Missouri to Illinois, from Wisconsin to Minnesota.”
THIS IS LIKELY NOT TO GO AS REPUBLICANS WERE HOPING.
MAGA means that the 20th century should be abolished.
Striding from the US supreme court to the nearby US Capitol, holding aloft a sign that said “My body my choice” and “Women’s right to choose”, Taylor Treacy was struggling to fathom how she had fewer constitutional rights now than when she awoke that morning.
“It’s heartbreaking,” said the 28-year-old, who works in sports marketing. “The people who have legally gotten abortions in the United States are mostly Black and brown women, yet the five justices able to have the final word were four powerful men and one white woman. We’re allowing more access to guns yet we’re taking away the rights of women. It just seems like we’re going backwards.”
Americans take to streets across US to protest for abortion rights – in pictures
Millions of women had just lost access to abortion on Friday after America’s highest court overturned a near-50-year-old ruling and other precedents enshrining that right. The conservative justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s majority opinion that Roe v Wade was “egregiously wrong and deeply damaging”, and that states should decide whether to limit or criminalise the procedure.
Republicans Brace for Impact of Reversing Roe
June 25, 2022 at 3:24 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 1435 Comments
“Republicans finally got the Roe v. Wade decision they wanted, and in public, they are delighted,” Politico reports.
“More quietly, however, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republican strategists and party officials, they just didn’t want it to come right now — not during a midterm election campaign in which nearly everything had been going right for the GOP.”
IT AIN'T GOING TO BE THAT EASY FRM HERE ON OUT. A LOT OF YOUNGER VOTES ARE ESPECIALLY UPSET.
Now Antiabortion Lawmakers Want More
June 26, 2022 at 1:23 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 47 Comments
“On the heels of their greatest victory, antiabortion activists are eager to capitalize on their momentum by enshrining constitutional abortion bans, pushing Congress to pass a national prohibition, blocking abortion pills, and limiting people’s ability to get abortions across state lines,” the Washington Post reports.
_______
ALSO NO MORE INTERRACIAL OR GAY MARRIAGES WILL BE ALLOWED.
GOP Candidate Says Roe Verdict ‘Victory for White Life’
June 26, 2022 at 1:17 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 55 Comments
Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) told a crowd at a rally held alongside former president Donald Trump that the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade was a “victory for white life,” The Guardian reports.
Miller is running for reelection in the state’s newly redrawn 15th Congressional District against Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL) with Donald Trump’s endorsement.
GOP Candidate Punches Opponent in the Face
June 26, 2022 at 1:11 am EDT By Taegan Goddard 29 Comments
“A Providence police officer who was running for state office as a Republican dropped out of the race on Saturday amid a criminal investigation for allegedly punching his Democratic opponent in the face during an abortion protest,” the Washington Post reports.
Said Jennifer O’Rourke (D) on Twitter: “Last night, after speaking at our Roe rally, my Republican opponent — a police officer — violently attacked me. This is what it is to be a Black woman running for office. I won’t give up.”
CH, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS ORIGINAL WORDING DID NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO MARRY AN ASIAN.
BEWARE! THE GOP MAY ANNUL YOUR MARRIAGE!
TRUMP STATEMENT:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/108533658828450303
Unlike what the lying POS "pastor" said
or his Gospel According to Goddard
what a piece of shit (POS)
Real America’s Voice
VIDEO of HUGE RALLY:
https://truthsocial.com/@realamericasvoice/posts/108540910665662923
The crowd in a display of extreme gratitude chanted "THANK YOU TRUMP" in response to President @realDonaldTrump Supreme court picks and the ruling hand down yesterday. -President Donald J. Trump
Watch LIVE Rally coverage on PLUTO bit.ly/plutolive & ROKU: bit.ly/ravroku
of course not covered by FAKE NEWS and Goddard
They only want to spin their lying narrative
swallowed by the subservient lying POS "pastor"
Just your standard leftist reacting to Roe in a standard leftist way...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1540770916401291264
https://youtu.be/l1Uz6xGPV0M
Eugenics is the Democrats play
VIDEO:
Beavis and Butt-Head do 'White Privilege.'
https://gab.com/KeepNHGranite/posts/108538494072887236
ROFLMFAO !!!
Loving v. Virginia
It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Blogger Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
Loving v. Virginia
It's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
But the basis for the ruling IS mentioned in the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment.
And as usual, racist democrats were responsible for the injustice:
Anti-miscegenation laws had been in place in certain states since colonial days. In the Reconstruction Era in 1865, the Black Codes across the seven states of the lower South made interracial marriage illegal. The new Republican legislatures in six states repealed the restrictive laws. By 1894, when the Democratic Party in the South returned to power, restrictions were reimposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
Ironically, the FJB DOJ is violating the 14th in hundreds of cases involving the J6 protestors.
Federalism.
Returning the decision to 'We The People'.
What a novel idea...
The irony of today's abortion decision is the primary refrain of Democrats is "Nine unelected men in robes should not decide what I can do with my body"
The Justices said "You're right. We should never have decided that" and returned the decision to the people.
https://twitter.com/PatriotsOfMars/status/1540392375826223106
Thomas didn’t suggest overruling interracial marriage rights because they flowed from a separate clause of the Constitution — the equal protection clause — a clause with a very different historical purpose and meaning. The equal protection clause says a state cannot “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” At its core, the equal protection clause is an anti-discrimination clause. The Supreme Court has long said that the equal protection clause bans the government from creating a “suspect class” or “regulated class” of people based on characteristics such as religion, race, alienage, or ancestry.
A 1985 equal protection case explains:
These factors are so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means, these laws are subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Thomas didn’t sketch the precise outlines of his personal equal protection views in Dobbs, but he did mention in another abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), that “the right against discrimination on the basis of race” is simply one of the rights “enumerated in the Constitution.”
And that’s the holding of Loving: Americans have a right to be free of government racial classifications. Thomas sees that legal concept as clearly embedded within the actual text of the Constitution itself. To the contrary, he sees substantive due process as an “oxymoron” that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” That’s what he said in Dobbs. He also called out the “facial absurdity” of Griswold’s analysis, which isn’t quite the same as modern substantive due process jurisprudence but which has since been interpreted as standing among the Court’s decisions in that area.
The Loving opinion explicitly noted that only 16 states — a clear minority — banned interracial marriage; the other states allowed it. The Supreme Court therefore made no qualms about forcing the minority of states to coalesce with the majority. Here’s some of the key language from the opinion; it lays out precisely why every single justice on the Court in 1967 agreed that Virginia’s ban violated the equal protection clause:
Virginia is now one of 16 States which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications. Penalties for miscegenation arose as an incident to slavery and have been common in Virginia since the colonial period. The present statutory scheme dates from the adoption of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, passed during the period of extreme nativism which followed the end of the First World War. The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a “white person” marrying other than another “white person,” a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that the applicants’ statements as to their race are correct, certificates of “racial composition” to be kept by both local and state registrars, and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage.
The Loving court noted with extreme disfavor that Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals had previously upheld the Commonwealth’s interracial marriage ban for reasons that were “obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White Supremacy.” Virginia’s reasons, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of a separate state court opinion, were “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens,” to prevent “the corruption of blood,” to avoid “a mongrel breed of citizens,” and to avoid the “obliteration of racial pride.”
Thomas’s Envisioned Path Forward
Thomas’s concurrence sees the equal protection clause as separate and distinct from the due process clause. He did suggest that the Court should undertake additional analyses if it desired — as he suggested it should desire — to strip away the substantive due process rights enshrined in current case law. Such analyses might include a privileges and immunities clause analysis, Thomas wrote (citations omitted yet again):
After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights. That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach.
I
Really great group of Political cartoons
Roger, care to ask ME for "Evidence" again?
Biden called having babies " A radical right wing agenda".
https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/heres-why-justice-thomas-didnt-mention-interracial-marriage-when-he-asked-the-court-to-rethink-several-cases-after-overturning-roe-v-wade/
VIDEO:
Beavis and Butt-Head do 'White Privilege.'
https://gab.com/KeepNHGranite/posts/108538494072887236
ROFLMFAO!!!
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said the quiet part out loud Saturday when she thanked former President Donald Trump at an Illinois rally for his role in overturning Roe v. Wade by picking conservative justices.
“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court,” she said, to cheers and applause.
She has a record of praising Hitler.
“If we win a few elections, we’re still going to be losing unless we win the hearts and minds of our children. This is the battle. Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future,’”
“President Trump, on behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the Supreme Court,” she said, to cheers and applause.
I watched the video.
She obviously mis-spoke.
But the left will run with this because they're pathological liars.
Yawn.
After a gunman killed 19 young children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, in May, Miller attacked those fighting for gun safety as “trying to 0destroy our society’s central pillars of faith, family and freedom,” the Tribune reported. “We need to go back to God,” she added.
As for “white life,” some conservatives 0see abortion crackdowns as a way to keep up numbers of white citizens amid evolving American demographics. It plays into the racist “0Great Replacement” conspiracy theory that Democrats and others are covertly plotting to replace whites with people of color and immigrants.
Miller, who has been endorsed by Trump, will face off against rival Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) in a state primary Tuesday.
Trump is endorcing a fascist like rrb
MAGA Lawmaker Thanks Trump For 'Historic' Supreme Court Ruling For 'White Life'
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mary-miller-illinois-roe-white-life-trump_n_62b7e95be4b0c77098bd26db
Blogger Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
She has a record of praising Hitler.
Not being able to discern the difference between and acknowledgement and praise is the sign of an imbecile. And/or a pathological liar.
And as the teachers unions have so eloquently displayed, Hitler was absolutely correct on this point.
Currently groomers and drag queens and pedophiles have the youth. They call themselves 'teachers.'
Enjoy spending yet another entire day here, sport. I'm going to hop in the convertible, head up to Fred The Butcher for some massive, mouth-watering strip steaks, and enjoy the 93 degree beautiful day by the pool.
Mashed nannas for thee, but not for me.
LOL.
MAGA Lawmaker Thanks Trump For 'Historic' Supreme Court Ruling For 'White Life'
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mary-miller-illinois-roe-white-life-trump_n_62b7e95be4b0c77098bd26db
Fred ships -
https://fredthebutcher.com/
https://fredthebutcher.com/gallery
https://my.sparksmb.com/files/mysparksmb/styles/large/public/business/images/0321/1616097810_ribeye.png
Trump.changed The Court.
And US History.
A deep threat to our country opened up when Senate Republicans blocked Barack Obama’s last nominee for the court, Merrick Garland, on the spurious grounds that it was an election year. Then Trump, a one-term president who had lost the national popular vote by 3m, appointed three justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. It has proven his most significant legacy.
If our democracy survives, Trump’s legacy will be recognized as the greatest threat in history.
Keep saying parroted π¦ nonsense Roger.
"Quite part outloud".
Trump ran against Hillary in part to Void Roe.
He is Still Doing so much Winning
MY Republic is Stronger because of President Trump.
Budin told us The US πΊπΈ is at "War".
He is losing in spectacular fashion.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/26/us-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-democracy?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter
Show your work, Alky
This entire charade of the Unselect Committee is a brazen attempt to detract the public’s attention from the truth. The truth is that Americans showed up in Washington, D.C. in massive numbers (but seldom revealed by the press), on January 6th, 2021, to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the Election. Those who are supposed to be public servants are using the power of government against the people who entrusted them with the power. We’ve been betrayed.
This week, Adam Schiff and his friends on the Jan. 6 Select Committee have been pushing a new "Big Lie" on America, that President Trump conspired with state GOP leaders to present "fake Trump electors" on January 6, 2021, whose votes would be substituted for the "real" Biden electors during the ceremonial public count of the votes by the vice president in the Capitol.
According to the breathless committee script, it was a classic switcheroo, conducted in top secret, all by word of mouth or by encrypted text messages, please. In Michigan, electors were said to have hid out in the Capitol building overnight so they could cast their ballots legally in the morning without being detected.
Schiff presented these claims in an eight-minute Sixty Minutes style video, narrated by the committee's investigative counsel, Cosey Lucier, who drove the theme home, presenting snippets of a "secret" meeting of the Arizona "fake electors" presided by state GOP chairwoman Kelli Ward and "fake electors" themselves.
This is how propaganda works. You present one side of the story, you label it, and then you repeat repeat repeat.
We need to go on a national strike against the corruption of the corporations that have become baby killers.
The corporate world added its voice to the pro-abortion chorus: Disney, Meta, Microsoft, CVS Health, Netflix, Bumble, UnitedHealth. Block, Apple, Citigroup, Yelp, Amazon, Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Starbucks, Salesforce, Match, Levi's, Lush, and others decried the decision and assured their employees that they would adjust their health care plans to cover travel to other states for abortions.
These people and companies deplore conservatives and their values. Think about that next time you go to Disney, or go to the movies (or rent one on your TV), or watch Netflix, or take an Uber, or stop at Starbucks, or buy anything by Taylor Swift, or attend a Mariah Carey or Alicia Keys concert, or go to or watch an NBA game.
Newsmax and Fox News and the coldheartedtruth.
Roger is like Joe.
Fifty-eight percent of voters say President Joe Biden should take a cognitive health test and reveal the results to the American public, a McLaughlin & Associates poll released Friday showed.
The poll asked respondents, “Do you think Joe Biden should take a cognitive health test and release it publicly?” Fifty-eight percent said yes, while 30 percent said no
Those company will give $ equal to those that have children.
Outstanding .
This is funny π
The Clinton Moment.Furies unleashed.
Now is her moment. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade creates the opening for Hillary Clinton to get out of stealth mode and start down the path toward declaring her candidacy for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.
Conditions are favorable:
1. Joe Biden is too old to run for re-election. Everyone knows this. Virtually everyone in the Democratic Party is at their wit’s end over what to do about it. The most recent last straw was the cue card. Here’s what the cue card said:
"YOU enter the Roosevelt Room and say hello to participants."
"YOU take YOUR seat. "
"Press enters."
"YOU give brief comments [...]" This note was partially blocked by Biden's finger.
"Press departs."
"YOU ask Liz Shuler, President, AFL-CIO, a question. Note: Liz is joining virtually."
"YOU thank participants."
"YOU depart."
2. It isn’t going to get better. Everyone knows it isn’t going to get better. Which explains this:
A majority of Democratic voters want President Joe Biden off the party’s ticket for the 2024 presidential election, according to a recent poll.
The survey, conducted by Marist, found that among registered Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents, 44% (or 55% of those with an opinion) of respondents want another candidate to replace President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024.
Just 36% (45% among those who had an opinion) of registered Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents want Biden to run for reelection. Twenty percent of respondents did not have a clear preference.
3. There is no bench. I made this point in a subscriber note last December. Others did as well. Nothing has changed since then. If anything, veteran Democrats are even more pessimistic about Kamala Harris as a potential presidential nominee. As for the others, former Vice President Al Gore is probably the party’s best bet. He has indicated zero interest in running.
That leaves former Secretary of State John Kerry, Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, California Governor Gavin Newsom and….maybe….possibly….an outsider like Sheryl Sandberg (ex-Facebook COO) or Bob Iger (ex-Disney CEO).
That’s the field. When describing it, the word “formidable” does not spring to mind. Nor do the words “up to it.”
CH, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IN ITS ORIGINAL WORDING DID NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO MARRY AN ASIAN.
BEWARE! THE GOP MAY ANNUL YOUR MARRIAGE!
Did it allow for Justice Thomas's interracial marriage?
Like you didn't realize I was married to an Asian, are you one of those duped into believing that Thomas would rule that interracial marriages (like his) are unconstitutional... not knowing his wife is white?
Actually pretty sure it did not say anything about interracial marriage, but the 14th amendment did allow for equal protection.
Now that the moral and legal atrocity known as Roe v. Wade has been overturned, Democrats are entertaining the rest of us by rioting in Democrat-run cities.
Gee, who would have thought that the same people who want to kill innocent babies just because would become violent if they didn’t get their way?
You see, that’s the thing about Democrats…
You take away their slaves; they start a whole Civil War.
You make killing innocent babies a little more difficult; they riot.
But just like most of the Civil War was fought in the Democrat party’s slave-owning South, pro-abortion Democrats are not only rioting in their own cities; they’re rioting in cities where they still have the right to butcher innocent babies. So…
L-to-the-M-to-the-F-to-the-A-to-the-O.
There is no reality TV I enjoy more than watching lazy Democrats riot in Democrat-run cities.
Look at these morons…
Blogger Coldheartedtruth Teller said...
Thomas’s Envisioned Path Forward
Thomas’s concurrence sees the equal protection clause as separate and distinct from the due process clause.
Wow... this is someone who has an understanding of what this decision is about and is not just making shit up as he goes.
This is not about "fundamental rights" or "equal protection" or "settled law". This is about the fact that the court has (in the past) used the "due process" clause" which has been used as a catch all manner for "activist" judges to basically legislate from the bench.
The right to "life, liberty, and property" is important, but should not also be defined to include pretty much anything anyone actually wants.
For most of our judicial history the rights that were being protected (not to be taken away without due process of law) were the same rights that existed in the Constitution (or bill of rights specifically).
But judges started to use it to "define" new rights (or new liberties) as they saw it.
The second part of this concept is equal protection. The idea of "marriage" doesn't need protection from due process, but it can need equal protection for all parties (such as allowing interracial marriage).
The difference between abortion and interracial marriage is that abortion is not a fundamental right anywhere other than from a court decision. Marriage exists in every state and the Constitution does demand equal protection for everyone. You would need very serious reasoning to satisfy that there is "due process" involved that requires the courts to turn their back on the unequal treatment of people based on color.
I think the guy is wrong...
But at least he gets it.
No, it's not Goddard who's saying Trump is privately expressing fears about what Roe Vs Wade may do to him and the GOP politically.
It's his own people and leaders of the GOP.
Post a Comment