Tag Archives: political parties

The Supremes, Liberals, and Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

The Liberal, Living Constitution, wing of the Supreme Court is up in arms over losing a case with precedential implications.  The proximate case concerned Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt, in which the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that held that States are not required to grant legal immunity to other States in interstate lawsuits.  I won’t go into that because that’s not the crux of the matter.

Instead, that Liberal wing, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, objected to the precedent reversal not on its merits or on the merits of precedent overturning/preservation, but on the premise that overturning this precedent would lead to overturning the abortion ban restrictions in Roe v Wade.

[L]iberal Justices warn that conservatives by overturning Hall will “encourage litigants to seek to overrule other cases.”

This actually is an unqualified Good. Error should be corrected whenever it’s discovered.

That Liberal wing bellyached further:

It is far more dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later Court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question[.]

This makes no sense, though. It took only five members of the prior Court to make the mistake in the first place, for all that other members might have agreed with it.

And the NLMSM weighed in, showing the Liberal wing’s worries about abortion.

“Clarence Thomas Just Showed How Supreme Court Would Overturn Roe v Wade,” declared one columnist. [Jay Michaelson of the Daily Beast]

This, though, is just another bit of Liberal disingenuosity. Roe is technologically-based. The circumstances under which States are permitted to regulate abortion to the extent of banning them are based on viability of the baby, which the Roe Court suggested began around the third trimester. Modern medical technology makes babies viable much earlier, and so abortions can be restricted much earlier—wholly within Roe.

Though I wouldn’t mind the question coming to court so that the technological aspect can be better emphasized.

A Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Je Biden gave a speech in Philadelphia Saturday at his first official rally.

I have some comments on excerpts from his speech—excerpts because he repeated a few themes time after time after time for 30 minutes.

Instead of debating our opponents, we demonize them.  Instead of questioning judgments, we question their motives.  Instead of listening, we shout.  Instead of looking for solutions, we look to score political points.  …  This politics is pulling us apart, ripping this country apart at the seams.  Our politics today traffic in division, and our President is the Divider in Chief.

This is textbook projection; it’s almost like he was looking in a mirror.  It’s been, after all, Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM who’ve smeared Tea Partiers as teabaggers; who’ve expressed their deep contempt for bitter gun and religion clingers in flyover country; who insist that Conservatives aren’t capable of the nuance of their Betters on the Left; who’ve expressed their hatred for millions of Americans as irredeemably deplorable homophobes, Islamophobes, racists, misogynists; who’ve called Republican Congressmen in discussions over the budget, national debt, and other topics hostage takers and terrorists (it was Biden, after all, who said it was like dealing with terrorists when working the debt ceiling some years ago).  It’s been Progressive-Democrats who smeared a Supreme Court Justice nominee and who currently are attacking an Attorney General.

Although there are exceptions, neither Conservatives nor Republicans have engaged or are engaging in these naked, baseless attacks on the character of those who disagree.

And

He’s just the worst practitioner in politics, that singles out, scapegoats, and demonizes. Holds out the other as the source of all our problems.  You hear it: the immigrants, the Muslims, anyone different in creed or color or conviction.  They’re the problem.  …  That’s been the scheme used by unscrupulous politicians for decades.

See above.  Add to it some additional facts.  It’s the Progressive-Democratic Party who’ve been pushing the modern segregationist policies of identity politics.  It’s members of the Progressive-Democratic Party in Congress—Omar and Tlaib, for instance—who actively spew anti-Semitic slurs, and it’s that same Progressive-Democratic caucus who flatly refused to censor those bigots and who, instead, pretended to express their opposition to bigotry with a deliberately watered, saccharine “condemnation” of bigotry generally.  It’s Party leadership who say no one can be a Democrat and oppose abortion—solidifying Party’s willingness to kill babies in the womb.

And

America guarantees everyone—and I mean everyone—will be treated with dignity.  America gives hate no safe harbor.

Indeed, we try.  It’s why we fought WWII, it’s why we resist the PRC’s assaults on our economy and its sub rosa assaults on the nations surrounding the South China Sea, it’s why we’re in the Middle East—so all of those folks could, and can, be treated with dignity in their own lands, however clumsy our efforts often are. It’s the Progressive-Democrat Party that wants us to retreat from our responsibilities.  Domestic dignity? It’s the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage that traps minorities; the rest of us want everyone—and I mean everyone—to have the chance to see to their own ends, their own prosperity, rather than having to hold their hands out for Party alms.

And

Folks, I’m running to offer our country—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents—a different path.  Not back to a path that never was, but to a future that fulfills our true potential as a country.

Because, like another Progressive-Democrat, his BFF New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, says, we were never great.  This is a sentiment, a disdain for our past, that’s held also by Eric Holder.  It’s a position actively pushed by the Left in our schools, as they move to purge our Founders, removing monuments to them and erasing names and murals.  All because our Founders had feet of clay; they didn’t measure up to Progressive-Democrat purity.

And

[F]olks say Biden just doesn’t get it.  You can’t work with Republicans anymore.  That’s not the way it works anymore.  …  I know how to make government work.  …  I’ve worked across the aisle to reach consensus.  Helped make government work in the past.

Now he’s also living in his past.  It’s not that Progressive-Democrats can’t work with Republicans today—it’s that they refuse to work with Republicans.  They reneged on a deal that would stabilized the status of DACA recipients plus an additional million similarly situated aliens, then they refused even to discuss DACA in later efforts.  Biden’s Party refuses to discuss spending cuts, refuse to discuss permanentizing individual income tax cuts.  Biden’s Party refuses to discuss border security in any serious fashion.

His past?  It’s a past of fighting for ever higher taxes, ever higher spending.  It’s a past of pushing through Obamacare—there was consensus—and then bragging about what a big…deal it was.

Then Biden launched into a litany of his Progressive-Democratic Party progressive goals.  Recall, by the way, that he said some weeks ago that he was more Progressive than anyone else in the race.

Let me be real clear.  Everybody listen. Democrats and Republicans.  If I’m elected your President, I’m going to do whatever it takes to make progress on the matters that matter most: civil liberties; civil rights; voting rights; women’s right to choose; national security; personal security; health care; an economy that rewards work, not just wealth; a climate change policy that will save our children and grandchildren and this planet.

Like the pen and phone he’ll borrow from his mentor, Barack Obama, “whatever it takes” can only mean he’ll rule by fiat if he can’t get Congress to rubber stamp him.  Get Congress to bring our economy to ruin with the Green New Deal; destroy citizens’ votes by eliminating voter identification requirements so anyone—and I mean anyone—can vote; push abortion-on-demand, even at birth; reduce our national security with open, undefended borders and reduced defense spending; one-size-fits-all Government-run health care provision and health care pseudo-insurance; redistribution of hard-earned income through expanded welfare caging.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party’s leading candidate for President.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker (D, NJ) has one in spades. The article at the link was centered on Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke’s mild disagreement with Booker’s position on gun control, but one of the false premises that inform Booker’s misunderstanding was exposed.

Booker argued that just as a driver’s license demonstrates a person’s eligibility and proficiency to drive a car, “a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible and can meet certain safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.”

First, Booker’s analogy is badly flawed.  A drivers license does not at all demonstrate a person’s eligibility to drive a car. Eligibility to drive comes from the person being a US citizen (or, according to many Progressive-Democrats, from their presence in the US and in a State, whether that presence is legal or not) of a State-determined minimum age, and from no other criteria.  The drivers license then demonstrates a minimum level of proficiency and knowledge of State driving laws. Other restrictions on driving then impact whether the person will be allowed to retain that license; they do not change his eligibility criteria to drive, for getting a license.  Indeed, that license must be granted on a will-issue basis on satisfactory completion of training; licensing courses cannot be used to restrict driving.

On the larger issue, a person is eligible to own a gun and to bear it solely from his status as a citizen of the United States.  Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says:

…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there about eligibility criteria. The only addenda to that are State-mandated criteria related to whether the person has a violent felony history.  All a gun license demonstrates is that State-mandated levels of safety and training standards, which include knowledge of State laws, have been met.  And that license must be granted on a will-issue basis on satisfactory completion of training; licensing courses cannot be used to restrict owning and bearing.

Abortion and Busy-ness

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that Georgia has just enacted a law barring abortions once the baby’s heartbeat has been detected.  Busy Philipps, actress and talk show host, objected.

Every woman deserves compassion and care, not judgment and interference when it comes to their own bodies.

Another, more accurate, phrasing might include Every baby deserves compassion and care, not interference or dismissal when it comes to their own bodies.

Philipps went on.

Women and their doctors are in the best position to make informed decisions about what is best for them[.]

How sad. What’s best for the baby doesn’t even enter into it.

A Dishonest Poll

Posted on by
Reply

It’s by that paragon of virtue, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, too.  Here are the cynically loaded questions.

Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are teaming up to force their right-wing agenda on the country. Which issues are you most concerned about with Trump and McConnell in power? (Select all that apply)

Rolling back access to health care
Slashing Medicare and Social Security
Rolling back LGBTQ rights
Restricting women’s reproductive rights
Escalating war and manufacturing crisis
Destroying our environment
Other:

 

Mitch McConnell pushed the GOP’s $1.5 TRILLION tax scam and continues to attack access to affordable health care. Are you concerned Mitch McConnell would rather push the agenda of the top 1% and special interest big corporations than do what’s right for everyday Americans?

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election has led to dozens of indictments, guilty pleas and guilty verdicts by top Trump advisers. Despite this, Mitch McConnell and Republicans won’t commit to releasing the full report of Mueller’s findings. How important is it to you that the complete Mueller report be released to the public?

Extremely important
Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important

 

If we’re going to take back the Senate in 2020, we’re going to need your help. Is it important to you that we do everything we can to elect strong Democratic leaders in the Senate who will stand up to McConnell, Trump and the GOP’s far-right agenda?

Yes, it’s important that we fight back!
No, everything is fine as is.

 

We can’t stop Mitch McConnell and his cronies in Congress unless people like you step up and contribute to help us win. We’ve set a goal to raise $6,000 by 11:59 p.m. tonight, but we’re on track to fall just short of that goal. Can you rush $5 or more right now to stop Mitch McConnell and make sure Democrats take back the Senate?

Yes, I’ll give $5!
Yes, and I can give more!

And the next question took me directly to their funds collections page.

Nothing like loaded questions designed, not to assess voter positions so as to improve their messaging, but solely to sucker their victims into giving money with questions carefully constructed to stampede the herd into the vaults.