Protecting the Constitution

[TSmith34, Inc.]

the internet and social media are not real life. Abortion rights is down the list of priorities for voters heading into the midterms. As long as inflation continues, shelves in stores are empty (my local grocery stores have empty dairy cases right now), and gas prices remain high, abortion is not going to shift the election significantly. As James Carville said while running Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992, "it's the economy, stupid."

Might need to update your information, Junior.

Simon Rosenberg
@SimonWDC
We now have 3 Congressional Generics since Roe ended:

NPR/Marist           48 Dem 41 R  +7
Morning Consult  45 Dem 42 R  +3
Yahoo/YouGov     45 Dem 38 R  +7
     and in this poll
"Pro-choice Dem" vs "Pro-life R"  is 47-32.

It's a new election.

And...
Poll: Confidence in Supreme Court collapses as just 33% agree with decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

"A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that more than six in 10 Americans (61%) now have little or no confidence in the Supreme Court after its decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade — a near-total reversal from the 70% of voters who expressed at least some confidence in the court right before conservative justices gained a 6-3 majority with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.

This could have political consequences in the 2022 midterms. For one thing, more Democrats now name abortion (17%) over inflation (16%) as “the most important issue to you when thinking about this year’s election,” suggesting that the issue could motivate them to turn out at the polls. Among all voters, abortion (11%) now ranks third behind inflation (34%) and democracy (20%), with crime (4%), immigration (7%), health care (5%) and climate change (5%) trailing well behind.

Likewise, Americans now say the Democratic Party (40%) would do a better job handling abortion than the Republican Party (31%), up slightly from 38%-32% a month ago."

Turns out, a theocracy isn't all that popular.

[pacearrow02]

Might need to update your information, Junior.

Simon Rosenberg
@SimonWDC
We now have 3 Congressional Generics since Roe ended:

NPR/Marist           48 Dem 41 R  +7
Morning Consult  45 Dem 42 R  +3
Yahoo/YouGov     45 Dem 38 R  +7
     and in this poll
"Pro-choice Dem" vs "Pro-life R"  is 47-32.

It's a new election.

And...
Poll: Confidence in Supreme Court collapses as just 33% agree with decision to overturn Roe v. Wade

"A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that more than six in 10 Americans (61%) now have little or no confidence in the Supreme Court after its decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade — a near-total reversal from the 70% of voters who expressed at least some confidence in the court right before conservative justices gained a 6-3 majority with the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.

This could have political consequences in the 2022 midterms. For one thing, more Democrats now name abortion (17%) over inflation (16%) as “the most important issue to you when thinking about this year’s election,” suggesting that the issue could motivate them to turn out at the polls. Among all voters, abortion (11%) now ranks third behind inflation (34%) and democracy (20%), with crime (4%), immigration (7%), health care (5%) and climate change (5%) trailing well behind.

Likewise, Americans now say the Democratic Party (40%) would do a better job handling abortion than the Republican Party (31%), up slightly from 38%-32% a month ago."

Turns out, a theocracy isn't all that popular.

Does YouGov sponsor multiple polls?

https://mobile.twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1542244650282586121

And from that same YouGov poll abortion didn’t crack the top 5 on issues most important to Americans right now.

https://mobile.twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1542167055373328384

[MU82]

  remember the source(abc along with most of the rest of them) censor the schiff out of anything detrimental to their team. if  the people who brought us the steaming pile of schiff we are living in right now would have reported just 1 or 2 very volatile(but true) stories, we would still have $2 gas

Huh?

[muwarrior69]

Rocket does. If you would bother following along with the topic you would see what I am talking about.  A right doesn't have to be explicitly stated for it to be considered a Constitutional right. For instance, interracial marriage is considered a Constitutional right even though it isn't stated specifically in the document. And for 50 years, a woman's right to choose was considered a Constitutional right through the same process.

That five justices now take a different viewpoint, and have decided to rescind that right, is not really relevant to the truth in the above paragraph.

Do you understand now? Or are you going to come back with something else silly?

Actually that is not true either. Marriage is not a right but a contract between two individuals. For most of our history marriage contracts in most states were between two individuals of the opposite sex and same race. Then in 1967 the courts permitted individuals of the opposite sex and different races to enter into marriage contracts and just recently individuals of the same sex. The courts over the years have just expanded which individuals can enter marriage contracts, but again marriage in and of itself is not a right but a contract.


In the Dobbs decision the very first sentence states unequivocally that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

I know you will disagree and I respect your point of view.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

This was before the ruling came down.

As the midterm election approaches, most Americans say that the economy, inflation and rising gas prices are the most important issues in determining how they will vote for Congress this November, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.

With inflation on the rise since last fall, Americans have been significantly affected by the rising cost of goods and services. And, more than eight in 10 Americans (83%) now say that the economy is either an extremely or very important issue in determining how they will vote, in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

The poll also found that gun violence (72% saying extremely or very important) and abortion (63%) are also potentially important drivers of the vote. As the nation waits to see if the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress considers legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, these issues stand just below the top tier drivers of the vote.

So, yeah, the economy, as usual, tops the list.
But no, abortion is not "way down there." It's very important to almost two-thirds of voters.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/economic-issues-top-publics-agenda-poll/story?id=85183412

Agree.  It's dire for Republicans.   Thanks for sharing.

[Pakuni]

Actually that is not true either. Marriage is not a right but a contract between two individuals. For most of our history marriage contracts in most states were between two individuals of the opposite sex and same race. Then in 1967 the courts permitted individuals of the opposite sex and different races to enter into marriage contracts and just recently individuals of the same sex. The courts over the years have just expanded which individuals can enter marriage contracts, but again marriage in and of itself is not a right but a contract.


In the Dobbs decision the very first sentence states unequivocally that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

I know you will disagree and I respect your point of view.

Actually, it is true. Respectfully, you've got it all very wrong.
The basis for both Loving (interracial marriage) and Obergfell (same-sex marriage) are the 14th Amendment's Due Process  and the Equal Protection clauses. In both instances, the Supreme Court ruled that a) marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and b) states would be violating that fundamental constitutional right by denying it to people on the basis of race and choice of partner.

It's worth noting here that like the word "abortion," the word "marriage" does not appear in the Constitution. Which kind of exposes the hypocrisy of Alito, who uses that fact the overturn Roe but claims he couldn't and wouldn't do the same for Obergfell. At least Thomas is honest about the implications of Dodds.
But I still can't figure out why Thomas didn't put Loving in the crosshairs the way he did Obergfell. After all, the general basis for the rulings in both is the same. They both confer a constitutional right that isn't specifically named in the Constitution.
Any thoughts on why Thomas seems to be making an exception inconsistent with his stated judicial philosophy?

[dgies9156]

This was before the ruling came down.

As the midterm election approaches, most Americans say that the economy, inflation and rising gas prices are the most important issues in determining how they will vote for Congress this November, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.

With inflation on the rise since last fall, Americans have been significantly affected by the rising cost of goods and services. And, more than eight in 10 Americans (83%) now say that the economy is either an extremely or very important issue in determining how they will vote, in the latest ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel.

The poll also found that gun violence (72% saying extremely or very important) and abortion (63%) are also potentially important drivers of the vote. As the nation waits to see if the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade and Congress considers legislation in the wake of the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, these issues stand just below the top tier drivers of the vote.

So, yeah, the economy, as usual, tops the list.
But no, abortion is not "way down there." It's very important to almost two-thirds of voters.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/economic-issues-top-publics-agenda-poll/story?id=85183412

Brother Pakuni:

I question what important means.

I go back to what the Late Governor Jim Thompson of Illinois once said in response to Marilyn Quayle and other hard core religious conservatives' efforts to change the GOP. Said the Gov:

The average Illinois woman doesn't wake up in the morning and worry about her access to an abortion. Nor does she worry about whether there is prayer in public schools. She worries about her job, or her spouse's job. She worries about opportunity. She worries about whether her streets are safe and whether her children have access to a strong education. She probably worries about savings for retirement.

That's about the same time Bill Clinton said, "it's the economy.... stupid."

There's a lot of people in this country that are angry right now. And while I agree that a few are truly angry over the Supreme Count, I'm pretty confident the Democrats are in for a a very, very rude awakening in November. What people are angry about is near double digit inflation. Grocery and gas prices that appear to be orbiting Mars. Interest rates that are double what they were just a few short months ago -- rates that are getting close to shutting down the housing market.

There's a lot of hype about the Court ruling but I'll promise you, abortion rights pale in comparison to pocketbook issues. Bank on it!

[Pakuni]

Agree.  It's dire for Republicans.   Thanks for sharing.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

That hurts.  I said I agree with you.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

If you think that who is president is affecting the price of gas right now, then you have zero understanding of economics, and gas prices.

Seriously, spot on.  I've been in Europe the last 2 weeks and they are complaining of inflation and petrol prices.   And both are way way higher than we are seeing in the USA. The worker shortage is the same situation all over Europe and Asia.. Germany has a bigger issue with flight cancellations and there is a luggage handler shortage.  Germans tell me they are screwed because they relied on Russian gas too long and had no plan B.  Many other countries had plan B put in place years ago so are not being as badly effective.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Nm

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

If you think that who is president is affecting the price of gas right now, then you have zero understanding of economics, and gas prices.

He doesn’t understand the basics of constitutional law or virology either so I’m not surprised. 

[Uncle Rico]

He doesn’t understand the basics of constitutional law or virology either so I’m not surprised.

Horse meds to that to people

[rocket surgeon]

  since the scotus roe v wade decision came out, generic polls show that the elephants numbers have gone up and the arses have gone down


no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

  gas is a commodity-potus brain freeze essentially "shut it down" via many decisions including the pipeline, and regulations.  any stock or commodity bases it's price on the future of ongoing operations.  the energy peeps could not see how this sector could sustain and/or grow under this oatmeal breath loser and his policies.  oh yeah, and that damn russiarussiarussia.   we aren't near ready for windmill propelled vehicles.  and, ummm, btw, many of the european coutries are going back to coal.   love how you guys are quick to rush to your "mvp's" defense though. 

[Hards Alumni]

  since the scotus roe v wade decision came out, generic polls show that the elephants numbers have gone up and the arses have gone down


no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

  gas is a commodity-potus brain freeze essentially "shut it down" via many decisions including the pipeline, and regulations.  any stock or commodity bases it's price on the future of ongoing operations.  the energy peeps could not see how this sector could sustain and/or grow under this oatmeal breath loser and his policies.  oh yeah, and that damn russiarussiarussia.   we aren't near ready for windmill propelled vehicles.  and, ummm, btw, many of the european coutries are going back to coal.   love how you guys are quick to rush to your "mvp's" defense though.

You lack a basic understanding of economics.  No one here takes your opinions seriously.

[Hards Alumni]

There were discussions about a possible civil war in the future, or secession of states. I think each of these activist decisions makes it more likely. The reasoning:

1. It is clear that the current makeup of the court will continue to disregard the rule of law to establish right-wing, and/or christian ideals and force them on the rest of America. That has already led to SCOTUS being considered a political, not legal entity, that the average American distrusts.

2. With an activist SCOTUS, one of three things will occur. a) America votes in a democratic house and senate by a significant margin. b) We continue to largely have divided rule in congress/house. c) Republicans control all branches.

For 2a) They should and will either pass legislature undoing many of these decisions. If this occurs, I think conservative states will challenge the legislation, and the conservative SCOTUS will rule those new laws unconstitutional. Alternatively, they pack the court. Expand to 13 justices and undo many of these decisions. Conservative states threaten to secede.

For 2b) We further degrade the rule of law, and liberal states move to leave the union.

2c) See 2b. Republicans will codify into law a lot of these new restrictions that strip Americans of their rights and push it even farther towards the religious right. Liberal states decide their is no hope for change and leave the union.

A year ago I would have thought this type of outcome was highly unlikely. But with each decision that has been coming down lately I think it becomes more and more likely that secession occurs.

There is no mechanism for secession in the constitution, and it won't happen.

[Uncle Rico]

  since the scotus roe v wade decision came out, generic polls show that the elephants numbers have gone up and the arses have gone down


no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

  gas is a commodity-potus brain freeze essentially "shut it down" via many decisions including the pipeline, and regulations.  any stock or commodity bases it's price on the future of ongoing operations.  the energy peeps could not see how this sector could sustain and/or grow under this oatmeal breath loser and his policies.  oh yeah, and that damn russiarussiarussia.   we aren't near ready for windmill propelled vehicles.  and, ummm, btw, many of the european coutries are going back to coal.   love how you guys are quick to rush to your "mvp's" defense though.

Hang this at the Marquette Dental School

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

no answer to drunken driver question though?  why 2 counts of murder for killing a woman with a "clump of cells" in her tummy?

1. My understanding is that's not the case in all states. In some states there isn't a second victim and in others the crime is feticide.

2. The answer is that those who are pro-choice don't agree with the law and think it is incorrect. Just like those who are pro-life think it is incorrect to allow abortions.

3. Why don't we count the unborn on the census? Claim them as dependents on our taxes? Why do pregnant women get tickets for driving in the carpool lane by themselves?

[Uncle Rico]

1. My understanding is that's not the case in all states. In some states there isn't a second victim and in others the crime is feticide.

2. The answer is that those who are pro-choice don't agree with the law and think it is incorrect. Just like those who are pro-life think it is incorrect to allow abortions.

3. Why don't we count the unborn on the census? Claim them as dependents on our taxes? Why do pregnant women get tickets for driving in the carpool lane by themselves?

…cuz presdeint “ice creem barin fereez” and joy behar butt u ale rally around ur mvp and do crt

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

1. My understanding is that's not the case in all states. In some states there isn't a second victim and in others the crime is feticide.

2. The answer is that those who are pro-choice don't agree with the law and think it is incorrect. Just like those who are pro-life think it is incorrect to allow abortions.

3. Why don't we count the unborn on the census? Claim them as dependents on our taxes? Why do pregnant women get tickets for driving in the carpool lane by themselves?

4.  The whole point of the abortion debate is that women get to choose.  If someone else "kills" the fetus, you are taking away that choice.

[JWags85]

…cuz presdeint “ice creem barin fereez” and joy behar butt u ale rally around ur mvp and do crt

At least highlight "oatmeal breath".  Amongst that mess, that didn't make sense as a burn as it was intended, but was actually a funny insult.

[muwarrior69]

Actually, it is true. Respectfully, you've got it all very wrong.
The basis for both Loving (interracial marriage) and Obergfell (same-sex marriage) are the 14th Amendment's Due Process  and the Equal Protection clauses. In both instances, the Supreme Court ruled that a) marriage is a fundamental constitutional right and b) states would be violating that fundamental constitutional right by denying it to people on the basis of race and choice of partner.

It's worth noting here that like the word "abortion," the word "marriage" does not appear in the Constitution. Which kind of exposes the hypocrisy of Alito, who uses that fact the overturn Roe but claims he couldn't and wouldn't do the same for Obergfell. At least Thomas is honest about the implications of Dodds.
But I still can't figure out why Thomas didn't put Loving in the crosshairs the way he did Obergfell. After all, the general basis for the rulings in both is the same. They both confer a constitutional right that isn't specifically named in the Constitution.
Any thoughts on why Thomas seems to be making an exception inconsistent with his stated judicial philosophy?

In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment from others, and these rights have been called positive rights. However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called negative rights; they permit or require doing nothing.

So what you are saying is that once a permission to do something is permitted it become a right and if that permission to do something is taken away then it only follows that that right was taken away.

Abortion will now be treated like guns; each state will have their own laws preventing us from exercising our constitutional rights to some degree.

[Merit Matters]

This has been the best pride month ever for the Constitution and the Country. Gonna be a great Independence Day!

[Pakuni]

A welcome victory for polluters.

@SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

[MUBurrow]

But I still can't figure out why Thomas didn't put Loving in the crosshairs the way he did Obergfell. After all, the general basis for the rulings in both is the same. They both confer a constitutional right that isn't specifically named in the Constitution.
Any thoughts on why Thomas seems to be making an exception inconsistent with his stated judicial philosophy?

Wait wait wait.  Do you have the gall to infer that originalism might be a post hoc justification for interpreting questions of law in a way that is consistent a Justice's personal beliefs, rather than a foundational beacon of jurisprudential philosophy?  That's pure jiggery pokery.

A welcome victory for polluters.

@SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court sharply curtails the authority of the EPA to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. In a 6-3 ruling, the court sides with conservative states and fossil-fuel companies in adopting a narrow reading of the Clean Air Act.

FWIW, the dismantling of the administrative state has been a primary goal of conservative jurists for awhile now.  It bears some similarities to the debate raging about Roe, primarily in terms of the court's willingness to destroy governmental infrastructure without a ready replacement.  Like, there are good arguments that the administrative state has expanded beyond its legislative mandate, but that has generally been out of organizational necessity rather than some sort of underhanded executive branch overreach. To accept cert on these cases and then render decisions that curtail administrative power in specific instances is just leading to a swiss cheese arrangement that sets the administrative state up to fail by making it look incompetent because the court has destroyed key cogs in the system.