Saturday, June 25, 2022

Five Wingnut Ideologues Gut A NY Gun Law, Kill Roe v. Wade And Aim For Other Rights - And What We Can Do About It


"This is a dreadful day, firstly for women, but also for those who believed in an enlightened, liberal America... This is plainly the largest setback for the legal standing of American women since the liberal turn most of the Western world made in the 1960s."  - Financial Times Editorial today.

 "Guns one, women zero."  Bill Maher in opening Real Time monologue last night

"This is not about the constitution or originalism. This is about the raw exercise of power.  This is about five unelected justices who have a near veto proof majority over the rest of the country." - Chris Hayes last night on ALL In.

"The necessary first step toward forcing the court to give up its power is to delegitimize it in the eyes of the public...The court should be the object of derision, mockery and contempt.  We need to start making fun of the pretensions of the justices."  - Louis Michael Seidman, 'The Problem of the Supreme Court'. The Nation,  June 27- July 4, p. 20

The Financial Times Editorial header encapsulated to a tee the judicial cataclysm that occurred yesterday:

opinion content. A devastating blow to women’s rights in America

Noting that the "human costs will proliferate"  as "less safe alternatives proliferate" given "abortions will not be stopped, only safe ones."  

But how did this abomination occur?  Given it was years, decades in the making as anti-abortion reactionaries slowly pecked away at Roe using state laws. But it took the Russian-assisted insertion of a diehard traitor named Trump to bring it to fruition - given that once illegitimately installed, he got to pick three puppets to serve his fascist -bigot agenda.  As the FT editorial put it: "It was the worst and most tangible legacy of Donald Trump" - and underscores why this orange fungal.turd cannot be allowed near the levers of power ever again.

Those three Trump puppets and boot lickers would then join with the two extremists already there - Samuel Asshole Alito and 'Uncle Tom' Thomas - to shiv American women.

 Thus, five renegade reactionaries recklessly ended five decades of precedence for women's abortion rights yesterday (in the primary ruling - based on the earlier leaked draft)  that had been in place nearly 50 years by overturning Roe v. Wade .  NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd warned us about these sanctimonious reprobates in her May 12 piece, e.g.

"They are strict constructionists all right, strictly interested in constructing a society that comports with their rigid, religiously driven worldview. It is outrageous that five unelected, unaccountable and relatively unknown political operatives masquerading as impartial jurists can so profoundly alter our lives.

To borrow an image from the great Mary McGrory, Roberts seems like a small man trying to walk a large dog. At this point, he can’t even see the end of the leash."

In the same column Ms. Dowd encapsulated the pervy justice Thomas who now plans to make women's lives a living hell:

"a connoisseur of so-called “freak-of-nature” porn, especially the movies of Bad Mama Jama, a porn star so sadly obese she could barely move."

All of which is also well documented in Jill Abramson and Jane Maher's book, 'Strange Justice' on how Thomas and his shameless defenders got to turn the truth on its head and character assassinate Anita Hill.  Knowing all this now, Ms. Hill was correct in her testimony and the turd never should have been an SC Justice.  

This Roe perfidy followed an equally gob-smacking ruling the day before:  gutting a 100 year -old New York law banning concealed carry weapons.  I will expatiate on both of these in turn.

In the first case, Sammy 'Asswit'  Alito already signaled his scorn and disrespect for the Constitution  in a leak of his draft  6 weeks ago, e.g.

While employing legalist-sounding mumbo-jumbo, i.e.

"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." 

That any high school senior taking a Government course would know is codswallop. Make no mistake this is all rhetorical window dressing. This fool does not know what he's talking about given Americans have unenumerated rights under the Ninth amendment of the Bill of Rights.  Prof. Gary Wills, a long time constitutional law expert, articulated such rights in his excellent book,  A Necessary Evil: A History Of American Distrust of Government’,  i.e.

"The unenumerated rights are all those rights not already specifically declared or described in the existing document. The Founders thereby realized and understood there could exist rights in the future they hadn’t conceived of at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and so allowed those (then) undefined rights to become realized later. 

In other words, the rights allotted citizens are not limited to the rights actually and specifically delineated, i.e. in the Bill of Rights."

Did Alito not understand that?  Of course he did! Which means his draft leading to the ruling in  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization  was exclusively based on the exercise of raw, reactionary thug power  There was no scintilla of constitutional input or heft and only a moron would believe so.  Alito and his 3 Trump puppet bootlickers (Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, Kavanagh) and one Uncle Tom house slave (Clarence Thomas) knew they had the power thanks to Traitor Trump to veto women's rights and they did. Case closed. Let's not mince words. 

And speaking of  Clarence 'Uncle Tom' Thomas, let's note he delivered a shot over the bow of the unwary (or foolish) that he and his ilk are coming for other rights too.  His concurrence with Alito signaled the analogous pseudo rationale, i.e. of ignoring unenumerated rights, can also be extended to other landmark cases, such as Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling  allowing the use of contraception for married couples.  Oh and let's not forget Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case establishing the right of gay couples to marry and a more recent ruling, Lawrence v. Texas.   He thought briefly of including Loving v. Virginia too, then realized he'd put his own interracial marriage in the target sights, so backed down.

Clarence the Clown  wrote that the court “should reconsider” all three decisions, saying it had a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. Then, he barked: “overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions protected the rights established."

This kind of  asinine, ignorant language is just what advocates for reproductive rights and for L.G.B.T.Q. rights had been fearing. Defenders of the right to abortion, for example,  had repeatedly warned that if Roe fell, the right to contraception and same-sex marriage would be next.  But too many got dumb and complacent and thought they were being "hysterical". 

In the words of Colorado House Majority leader Daneya Esgar   who sponsored this year's state law protecting the right to abortion:

"We knew this could happen. We knew this was coming. We know that there are going to be states where folks don’t have this access and we’re going to be the place they seek. … I’m hoping we have the capacity.”

I hope the state does too, and from what I ascertain in The Denver Post, there are efforts underway to create that capacity - including importing providers and also from Planned Parenthood. Right now, the main practical actions being considered in response are twofold:  First, deploying multiple vans, RVs with abortion facilities (Mobile clinics)  to park along the borders with Reich wing anti-abortion states. Then the women in need of procedures need only get across the border to Colorado to obtain necessary services. According to the medical director  of 'Just the Pill', Dr. Julie Amaon (quoted in the NY Times):

"By operating on state borders, we will reduce travel burdens for patients in states with bans or severe limits. And by moving beyond a traditional brick-and-mortar clinic, our mobile clinics can quickly adapt to the courts, state legislatures, and the markets, going wherever the need is.”

This marks a brilliant 'end around' to what is needed to circumvent the fascists. There is also the effort underway to making the abortion pill (Mifepristone)more widely available, and especially without prescriptions to women who may need it.  For backward, regressive anti-woman countries,  this strategy has already been pioneered by Dutch physician Rebecca Gomperts.  She also forecast as early as 2018 the U.S. - with its backward track - may also need such strategies as well. She was prescient in that respect.  Her aim and that of Colorado's mobile providers is to ensure safe procedures so that impregnated women don't perish from this foolhardy, criminal ruling. And by the way, give the Biden administration credit for having moved to protect access to the so-called abortion pill even in states that try to ban it.

Are these efforts "lawless"?  NO, the court is lawless, given it has demonstrated the will to violate the Bill of Rights (Ninth Amendment) with impunity. It is a rogue court, a renegade court, acting under a facade of justice that is really injustice - no different from the Reich courts Hitler set up in the 1930s. Indeed, for all intents and purposes, two thirds of the country will ignore it.  As Prof. Daniel Epps, from Washington University in St. Louis put it:  

"The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It doesn’t have an army. The only thing it has power to do is write PDFs and put them up on its website.”

Given this current radical fascist court has already been deemed illegitimate the chance of its rulings being followed by ordinary citizens is slim and none. People outraged - friends of women potentially affected-   will act as rebels, storing up RU-484 pills as suggested by Dr. Rebecca Gomperts (for dispensing later) or assisting in transport to pro-choice states or mobile clinics.  All the latest SC ruling really amounts to then, is an empty blurtation on a pdf.  That's what it's come to and the new war between the states is just starting.  

But of course knowing this won't stop the extremists and religious crazies.  One 70-year old matron in Tupelo, MS was recently quoted in a NY Times piece as saying: 

"Whatever I do, when I pray I say let it be for the end of abortion. “Let it be that one child be saved today."

But what this sad, deluded woman doesn't get is that "one child" may not be saved.  Its mother's life will merely be put at more risk on account of using a much riskier means to terminate the pregnancy.  All that ending Roe did was halt safe abortions, not abortions overall.

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers and candidates justifiably unleashed a torrent of angry, defiant statements Friday, promising to make abortion rights a decisive issue for voters in November.  Well, duh, of course it must be!  As I wrote in one online comment on the WSJ site, if this doesn't electrify somnolent Dem voters then they're already dead.

And if consistent Dem voters - especially women - were lackadaisical or discouraged before in terms of the midterms, they now need to be fired up to incendiary proportions. Not to stalk justices in front of their homes or toss Molotov cocktails at "pregnancy centers" but to get out, organize sisters and VOTE!  Don't get mad, in other words, get even.  And most importantly, don't allow the Reeps to control congress to do what they're yearning to do: pass a nationwide abortion ban.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), speaking to reporters shortly after the SC decision was announced, offered a preview of the Democrats’ campaign message for the next several months. “The Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. They cannot be allowed to have majority in the Congress to do that. That’s their goal,”

As for the other strong-armed thug ruling, tearing down New York's ban on concealed carry,  this is also a spit in the face of the law-abiding. In particular, writing for the majority,  Clarence the Clown was equally deranged.  Making an equally egregious statement to his concurrence with Alito's Roe decision, he babbled this balderdash:

"“The Second and 14th Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home"

No they do not, sonny. In fact, Heller (2008), to which reference has been made, only established an individual right of armed self-defense within the home.  And furthermore, Heller stated that assault weapons are not protected, e.g.

Again: There Is NO "Right" To Own An AR-15 -

A not so subtle point left out in most media accounts. Gov. Kathy Hochul on CBS Mornings yesterday, when asked by Gayle King what was so bad about New Yorkers protecting themselves with a concealed piece, said 'Everything!- If it means firing in a confined public space like a subway or dimly lit theater to get a bad guy.  What more likely happens is that ten times more innocent bystanders get killed for being in the way or catching richochet. This is the problem with offering concealed carry weapons as a right, say as opposed to having to prove a need for "protection".  What good does it do if an angry driver, enraged at being cut off in NYC traffic, whips out his Glock 9mm and fires at the presumed offender, hitting innocents? Consider the duality at work: The fascist court in its insanity is now on record telling a woman to protect a clump of unconscious cells within her, but 'By god we take away your right to be safe on New York City streets or subways!'

As for the "bipartisan" gun legislation just passed, don't make me laugh. It's hollow and punchless and besides the extremists on the Supreme Court just neutered it by enabling concealed carry weapons. Now the cops won't even be able to tell the good guys from the bad, nor will a bank teller- say if a bulge is noticed in a person's jacket pocket. Everything will be a guessing game and the bad guys will take advantage of the uncertainty. 

The fact WSJ Troll Kim Strassel was lapping it up yesterday in her piece ('Democrats Lose ‘Gun Control’', p. A17) about how Reeps played us was also galling, writing:

No universal licensing. No bans on classes of firearms or types of magazines. No raising of the purchase age or limits on firearms purchases. No national database to track gun owners. Instead, the overwhelming bulk of this “gun” bill consists of provisions aimed at mental health, school safety and tougher prosecution of gun crimes—precisely where conservatives have insisted for years that the federal focus needs to be."

So never mind the phony PR and "upselling". This law is simply ceding the Reeps the priorities they always insisted upon, while giving the Dems zippo. For all practical purposes we are no further than we were before Uvalde. Don't believe me?  Count the number of mass shootings between now and Labor Day.

As for the midterms, the developments of the past week and especially the last 24 hours, shows no one - especially no woman of childbearing age- has the luxury of sitting out this November's elections. Nor does anyone who treasures freedom and democracy have the option to vote Repuke, as if that needed saying. True, there is little chance of one election or several reclaiming the lost right to abortion - BUT a sufficiently energized Dem- left turnout will prevent the loss of the right nationally. Because that is numero uno on the Repuke House and Senate agenda IF they regain a majority - and they will go after other rights too.  

Bear in mind whether the individual right targeted concerns abortion, contraception or choice of marriage partner, at root the issue is one of control: control of one's person, and one's life choices. The fascists want to take that control away and make it theirs. It is up to us, by intelligent voting, not to let them carry their plans to their utter, disastrous ends.

In the meantime, Colorado is preparing for a flood of women from neighboring states seeking abortions and hoping enough people vote D in the midterms to stave off efforts to implement a nationwide abortion ban.

See Also:

by Joan McCarter | June 30, 2022 - 7:27am | permalink

The radical conservative majority’s damage to the Supreme Court cannot be undone


by Amanda Marcotte | June 25, 2022 - 7:25am | permalink

— from Salon


Donald Trump may be out of office, but his stubby misogynist fingers are still grabbing Americans by the pussy. Any hope that the reaction to the leaked draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health would shame the Republicans on the Supreme Court into not overturning Roe v. Wade was crushed on Friday morning. Justice Samuel Alito — a human-shaped incel forum crammed into an itchy judicial robe — was determined to make these words the public record: "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled."


by Amanda Marcotte | June 28, 2022 - 7:08am | permalink

— from Salon


You have to hand it to Clarence and Ginni Thomas: Their marriage is an exemplar of spousal teamwork. Ginni Thomas worked hard on the inside game for Donald Trump's coup: exchanging emails with Trump co-conspirator John Eastman, pressuring state legislators to throw out electors that President Joe Biden won and blitzing Trump's chief of staff Mark Meadows with potential coup strategies. Meanwhile, her husband just handed the Trump's volunteer street fighters, the sort of folks that stormed the Capitol on January 6, a Supreme Court decision that will make it much easier for them to arm themselves with heavy firepower in the future.

The radical implications of Thursday's Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, in which the Supreme Court struck down New York's strict regulations on who can carry guns in public, are only starting to be understood. As Slate's legal expert Mark Joseph Stern wrote, this decision doesn't just strike down restrictions on concealed carry in some of the largest states in the country, it's "a maximalist opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas that renders most of the nation's gun control laws presumptively unconstitutional.


by Meaghan Ellis | June 25, 2022 - 7:03am | permalink

— from Alternet


A new analysis is breaking down the context of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg explained how Thomas' remarks appear to suggest that the abortion ban could only be the beginning of the conservative attack on civil rights.


Biden, other critics fear Thomas’s ‘extreme’ position on contraception


We must protect life from conception until the moment of birth!


by Joan McCarter | June 24, 2022 - 7:22am | permalink


by Robert Reich | June 25, 2022 - 6:50am | permalink

— from

Bans on abortion, birth control, and same-sex marriage are at stake in November's elections.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is extreme, but what's just as alarming is the logic Justice Samuel Alito used to justify it, which puts a whole range of other rights on the chopping block, too.


by Pierre Tristam | June 25, 2022 - 6:22am | permalink


No comments: