That's your characterization, not mine. But let's do away with legal niceties for a moment, and make it more intellectually honest, as you like to call it. Am I going to boo-hoo if a legally suspect justification (Roe) that essentially enshrined the extinguishing of innocent children under false constitutional pretenses might be given…
That's your characterization, not mine. But let's do away with legal niceties for a moment, and make it more intellectually honest, as you like to call it. Am I going to boo-hoo if a legally suspect justification (Roe) that essentially enshrined the extinguishing of innocent children under false constitutional pretenses might be given the sword for being the crap decision that it was? No. Not especially. And not solely because it was crappily reasoned. (As many pro-choice scholars have pointed out, not just Alito's draft opinion.) But also because of what it lead to. I.E., the snuffing out of 63 million or so children. I know it's inconvenient to be reminded of them in an abortion debate, as long as we're talking intellectual honesty - the same way it's somehow considered bad form to introduce sonograms or pictures of what the carcasses look like post-abortion. But......seems fair game to me. The same way I think it's fair game to grill anti-abortion lawmakers on how they plan to strengthen the social safety net if abortions get banned. Since we ought to face what we're talking about square in the eye on all sides. You should be able to look at what you espouse. I could send you some photos from Randall's most recent abortion-clinic/remains caper in DC that would curl your hair, if you had the stomach to look at them. Holes punched in the back of the head. One eye open, etc. (They've been published. Photos available upon request.) As long as we're talking about hiding behind badly-dressed legal arguments............But if you want to further explore hypocrisy and/or get back to legal niceties, I highly suggest reading yesterday's piece from the Washington Post's legal columnist, Jason Willick, who makes a pretty strong case that overturning Roe (which remember, doesn't ban abortions - it just doesn't maintain the federal protection for them) actually makes America more democratic, not less. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/06/overturn-roe-v-wade-states-decide/ Excerpt:
"But if the court does in fact have a “structural” bias in favor of the GOP, that’s all the more reason for policy to be decided at the state level as a matter of democratic fairness. State legislative districts have strictly equal population sizes (unlike the states represented in the U.S. Senate), and there’s no electoral college in gubernatorial races. If Roe falls, alleged democratic shortcomings in the Supreme Court confirmation process are irrelevant; authority over abortion policy would lie primarily with state officials, who are more responsive to political majorities than justices appointed by presidents of either party."
That's your characterization, not mine. But let's do away with legal niceties for a moment, and make it more intellectually honest, as you like to call it. Am I going to boo-hoo if a legally suspect justification (Roe) that essentially enshrined the extinguishing of innocent children under false constitutional pretenses might be given the sword for being the crap decision that it was? No. Not especially. And not solely because it was crappily reasoned. (As many pro-choice scholars have pointed out, not just Alito's draft opinion.) But also because of what it lead to. I.E., the snuffing out of 63 million or so children. I know it's inconvenient to be reminded of them in an abortion debate, as long as we're talking intellectual honesty - the same way it's somehow considered bad form to introduce sonograms or pictures of what the carcasses look like post-abortion. But......seems fair game to me. The same way I think it's fair game to grill anti-abortion lawmakers on how they plan to strengthen the social safety net if abortions get banned. Since we ought to face what we're talking about square in the eye on all sides. You should be able to look at what you espouse. I could send you some photos from Randall's most recent abortion-clinic/remains caper in DC that would curl your hair, if you had the stomach to look at them. Holes punched in the back of the head. One eye open, etc. (They've been published. Photos available upon request.) As long as we're talking about hiding behind badly-dressed legal arguments............But if you want to further explore hypocrisy and/or get back to legal niceties, I highly suggest reading yesterday's piece from the Washington Post's legal columnist, Jason Willick, who makes a pretty strong case that overturning Roe (which remember, doesn't ban abortions - it just doesn't maintain the federal protection for them) actually makes America more democratic, not less. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/06/overturn-roe-v-wade-states-decide/ Excerpt:
"But if the court does in fact have a “structural” bias in favor of the GOP, that’s all the more reason for policy to be decided at the state level as a matter of democratic fairness. State legislative districts have strictly equal population sizes (unlike the states represented in the U.S. Senate), and there’s no electoral college in gubernatorial races. If Roe falls, alleged democratic shortcomings in the Supreme Court confirmation process are irrelevant; authority over abortion policy would lie primarily with state officials, who are more responsive to political majorities than justices appointed by presidents of either party."