Last time, President Joe Biden (D) wanted an “exception” to the Senate’s filibuster rule so he could get passed the Progressive-Democratic Party’s voting “rights” legislation on strict party lines—no bipartisanship wanted.
This time, Biden wants an “exception” to the Senate’s filibuster rule so Party can codify Roe v Wade in the law.
If the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this[.]
The Senate’s filibuster rule forces compromise and bipartisanship—a measure of unity—in legislation by requiring at least 10 members of the minority party to agree to the legislation.
There is considerable discussion concerning whether a constitutional right to an abortion existed and was taken away by the Supreme Court’s just released ruling on Dobbs or whether, as Justice Alito emphasized in his Dobbs opinion for the Court that such a right never existed, it was merely the creation of Roe and then claimed again in Casey.
And therein lies the point of this post.
There is no right to an abortion contained in our Constitution, whether couched in the 14th Amendment or in any other part of the document—not literally, not figuratively, not encompassed in any penumbra.
James Freeman, of The Wall Street Journal, has an op-ed out in which he says President Joe Biden should basically stay out of the public’s eye and not speak to us of important things.
For a while this column has been urging President Joe Biden to avoid public speaking, at least when the topic is important.
This column’s argument for the president to stick with prepared statements is not intended…as an ad hoc solution to the president’s reckless habit of making odd off-the-cuff statements about nuclear-armed powers.
Think about the continued protests by abortion activists outside conservative Supreme Court Justices’ homes, protests nakedly intended to force those Justices to change their alleged votes on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, votes which might aggregate into significant alteration, if not reversal, of the Court’s prior ruling in Roe v Wade.
Keep in mind that those…protests…are intended to achieve their goal by terrorizing the Justices and, especially, their families.
Keep in mind, also, that both of those—protests to intimidate court officials into producing a particular outcome to a case, and terrorizing the targets of those so-called protests—are plainly illegal:
Assume, for a moment, that the series of attacks inside Russian territory and unexplained explosions at Russian targets near the border with Ukraine have been carried out by Ukrainian forces and are not just examples of shoddy Russian maintenance or done by disgruntled Russian protestors.
Compare, then, that damage with the damage done by Russian attacks inside Ukraine. “Ukraine’s attacks” have been carefully limited to facilities supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Russia’s continued prosecution of its unprovoked attack.
a fuel depot in Russia’s Belgorod region directly opposite Kharkiv
an explosion sparked a blaze at an ammunition depot near the city of Belgorod
The Supreme Court issued a ruling Wednesday that the press doesn’t like, and the press is calling for President Joe Biden (D) to blithely ignore the ruling and go on about his business. By odd coincidence, the Court’s ruling reinstated a Trump administration rule that a lower court had struck down.
Democrats condemned the decision, but some reporters went even further and called for the Biden administration to ignore the Supreme Court.
Former Niskanen Center Vice President for Research Will Wilkinson posted a Twitter thread explaining why he believes the White House should ignore SCOTUS decisions.
Then-Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden was asked some questions by Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) regarding Biden son Hunter and Biden’s relationship with Hunter’s “business” dealings.
How could former Vice President Biden look any Ukrainian official (or any other world leader) in the face and demand action to fight corruption?
Did this glaring conflict of interest affect the work and efforts of other US officials who worked on anti-corruption measures?
Did Burisma, its owner, or representatives receive special access to, or treatment from, US agencies or officials because of Hunter Biden’s role on the board of directors?
The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are touting the withdrawal of Sarah Bloom Raskin from the nomination to the Federal Reserve Board’s Vice Chairman position, laying that defeat off to this:
But Ms Raskin’s most significant opponent was her oft-expressed view that the Fed and other regulators should deny credit to companies that produce or heavily consume fossil fuels.
It’s good that this one failed, but it’s just an early skirmish.
The problem is broader than this. It’s dangerous to our republican democracy that anyone would be nominated to the Fed or to any Executive Branch position who would willingly abuse that position’s authority to discriminate against any government-disapproved American enterprise.
In the matter of Bianchi v Frosh, a Maryland gun control case in which the State has
designated specified firearms as assault weapons and prohibited them from being transported into the state or from being possessed, sold, transferred, or purchased in the state
Mountain States Legal Foundation has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up the case. The article itself is worth the read, but what drew my eye is this position of the Fourth Circuit in its appellate ruling in Kolbe v Hogan, Jr. referenced in passing by JtN.