It’s the inconsistency, hypocrisy, sophistry, sinister motivation and barber shop tribal partisanship that I most reject. That, and the dishonesty.
Any sentient person knew the day SCOTUS took up the Mississippi case that Roe was going to be overturned. That became certain beyond certain when Alito’s draft was leaked a month ago. It being a Friday in now late June, I got up at three o’clock this morning pretty certain the decision would be read today.
I didn’t have to wait long. Still, it was a gut punch.
Is there a “compare and contrast” section on the LSAT? If so, I’m pretty sure five of our SCOTUS justices limped through it, and had to make it up in other sections titled Arrogance, Pomposity, Chicanery and Pretzel Logic just to get into law school.
On Thursday, we were told that gun laws must be uniform among the 50 states.
A day later, the same folks now tell us that abortion laws are up to each individual state, no matter how draconian and punitive. The very same folks. Keep in mind, the right to an abortion had until today been Constitutionally protected for a half century.
In penning Friday’s majority ruling, Alito went out of his way—no doubt dishonestly—to stress that the Roe decision should not be considered a harbinger of future decisions on other subjects. He doesn’t mean that. Of course. He lied at his confirmation hearing, just as Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett did at theirs. But Clarence Thomas absolutely meant it later Friday when he wrote that today’s decision opens the door toward banning gay marriage and—get this—contraception. And he’s eager to rodeo.
In fact, I fear a gay marriage ban is now inevitable. Based on what?
Based on these zealots’ religion, that’s what.
Gee, you’d kinda hope that those nine people on the High Court at least would understand the whole “separation of church and state” thing, wouldn’t you? I mean even if nobody else in the country does. So, yeah, you know, that was disappointing.
And spare me the “nowhere in the Constitution does it mention separation of church and state” claptrap. Of course it does. Loudly. Prominently. Unambiguously. It’s called the Establishment Clause. Have they not read it?
So, you want to talk about things that aren’t mentioned in the Constitution? Alito based his dishonest dodge on the fact the Constitution does not specifically reference abortion.
OK. Are AR-15s specifically addressed in the Constitution? Is gay marriage mentioned. Is contraception cited?
And all of this—all of it—is driven by religious fundamentalism. All of it. If I wanted to live in Afghanistan I would.
They lied when they looked Senate Judiciary Committee members in the eyes and said they considered Roe “settled law” and pledged allegiance to the principle of judicial respect for precedent known as “stare decisis.”
What I’m giving them back now is just a blank, incredulous “stare.”
I agree with “Conservatives” that the Constitution is fundamentally about preserving individual rights.
Wouldn’t that start with guaranteeing an individual control over that individual’s individual body?
All I ever ask for is consistency. So you can probably understand why I’m a little cranky right now.
