Is there a median position on abortion? It seems that on this issue the majority of the Supremes, three nominated by Trump in term one, are badly out of step with public opinion. That court's Dodds decision, striking down Roe v Wade, made the reproductive rights of women a matter of a lottery, depending on the state she lives in.
It's not a lottery the state you live in. Unless you are a quadriplegic, you can always get on a Greyhound and be gone. I am happy that decisions regarding abortion now rest with the states, so that the preferences and convictions of each state's citizenry can prevail.
One might say that Supreme Court's decisions permitting abortion pills to be available nationwide are inconsistent with Dobbs which establishes state control of the issue.
The middle ground is the libertarian position .. neither outlaw it nor subsidize it. By the way, I noticed you did not mention the fate of the potential offspring as being even more a matter of a lottery, only the mother. The mother can always give away the child .. the child cannot choose another mother.
Did I say a fetus was a child? That came from your own internal arguments. I've not thought such for a moment in my life. (The ending of a particular fetus, does however prevent the existence of a particular individual with a particular personality and impact on human events that cannot be replaced by a dozen future births from the same mother.). A fetus is definitely a highly evolved and advanced life form. I have never been anti-choice for the simple reason I do believe some lives are more important than others .. and I will never be in a position to have the evidence to render a judgement on the comparative worth of a particular mother versus a potential child who's fate is tied to a particular fetus. (Or for that matter, to compare this child to any future one that would not be born if this one was allowed to be). My wife aborted two kids by two different one night stands a few years before we met .. I am eternally grateful that she did so, as that allowed our own two children to be born. However I am cleared eyed that I am grateful because I personally value my kids over those other two who would be now alive. I am also clear eyed that I would be willing to murder two other children of any age to save my own.
The man in Canada who crusaded in Canada for legal abortion, Dr Henry Morganthaler, experienced the Holocaust and saw, at the extreme, what happened to unwanted children. The case R vs Morganthaler (1988) saw the Canadian Supreme Court declare that the abortion law he was prosecuted under was unconstitutional.
Re: "A fetus is not a child." What I should have said, to be clearer, is that the law doesn't recognize the fetus as a person so abortion cannot be considered murder as humans understand it.
This “theory” is disingenuous. This analysis ignores all of their recent shadow docket rulings that give the [current] GOP president the powers of a king, while taking power from themselves AND the legislative branch to do so. Most of the public disagrees with Trump on almost every major issue now, and his numbers keep falling and will only continue to do so. What about abortion? I know it was decided in a previous term, but it’s relevant in that it was a MAJOR unpopular decision that not only overturned a SCOTUS precedent to get a result they wanted, but it cited pre-enlightenment, magical thoughts from several centuries ago to do so (see Alito).
The theory that majority SCOTUS is making decisions to coincide with public opinion doesn’t square with SCOTUS’ historically low current approval rating, and I also find it dangerous. The relatively ‘safe’ consensus issues cited here as proof that SCOTUS appeals to the average “median voter” only gives SCOTUS legitimacy as they upend the separation of powers, as laid out in our Constitution, while they simultaneously make a mockery of our rule of law as they hand more wealth to oligarchs and more power and hierarchical status to [white male] “Christian” nationalists, and I guarantee you that the average “median voter” does not agree with these efforts.
Nope .. that is a technical issue .. it is still withing the purview of the Court as to the degree they utilize shadow dockets .. just as it has been the soveriegn, independent choice of Congress to delegate broad policy and even war-making powers to the Executive Branch. It is not up to a President to refuse them .. if Congress simply says "make all water potable", then it really is put to the President to decide how or at what pace.
I have said for decades that the authority the citizenry would have given to the trusted and popular JFK would have been inherited by Richard Nixon. People are sometimes confused by the Constitution making it so hard to "do good" because the Founders were acutely aware of this. The French Revolutionaries, not so much. The reason I am increasingly delighted that Donald Trump was elected, despite never having voted for him, is that people, especially Democrats and other statists, is that perhaps they finally understand this. They seem to have finally grasped the value of State's rights.
Unpopular opinion, but I think the Founding Fathers would be impressed the system of government they invented is still working as well as it is. The three branches idea is absolutely brilliant.
The three branches are definitely a Rube Goldberg contraption, but power centered in one man's hands is just not going to work better.
In retrospect, I have recognized that the slogan “run government like a business” implied an unconscious turn away from our constitutional system. In the eyes of the average American, a business is run by one man whose ideas are followed without question. That is exactly the type of government that Trump is trying to establish.
My only quibble is that the ire is directed at the man (any man) for accepting that power. It is Congress (and to a far far lesser degree, the Judicial Branch) who ceded it to him. So far though, there is nothing a President can do if that power is taken back. (Not one Democrat even presented a vote to declare bombing Iran off-limits - but if that operation had gone awry, every Democrat would have campaigned on it - and there is your answer as to why they won't take back their authority)
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia Presented a resolution the minute Trump started talking about bombing Iran. The press didn't cover it extensively.
A good column, which should help restore people's faith in the court. Unfortunately, until Thomas and Alito are gone, my faith won't be restored at all.
The title of this article is utter lunacy. The median voter is not a racist, christi-fascist, that loves billionaires and corporations for anything else, and is supporting an imperial presidency, and the destruction of democracy. That is a maga and billionaire agenda
Agreed. And it’s also worth considering that the concept of a “median voter”has likely shifted in recent years, especially as the Overton Window has moved significantly to the right, altering what we define as centrist or mainstream.
Courts should follow the law not public opinion The six supreme court justices claim they are originalists I'm not sure what Constitution they are reading They are even throwing out long standing court opinion
Good for Comey-Barrett Maybe she should take Clarence Thomas in a room and give him some instructions
Two issues dealt with "should the federal government..." or "should the FDA..." regulate ghost guns or flavored vapes. While majorities of people may support regulating those items, it doesn't mean it has to be Uncle Sam. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce of ghost guns, yes. States can regulate them internally. Same for flavored vapes.
We The People tend to look to Washington when we should be looking to our state capitals.
We are supposed to be "a soverign nation of soverign states."
Emphatically yes. Also it backfires .. it is not appreciated how the 55 mph speed limit affected to this day the DNA of the traditionally moderate big Midwest States. They don't even know why they are now reflexively suspicious of federal governance, when at one time they paved the electoral path for everything from environmental to labor laws .. but I remember.
While I appreciate your perspective that at least this year, the Court has supported decisions that match the "median voter," so much has already happened to put the finger on the scale. The fact that this year the Court voted with "median voters," provides not one whit of solace. (You have been able to pull me away from the abyss a couple of times, but this isn't one of those. Next letter, maybe?)
Extreme how? This court has actually reduced the ability of the Judicial Branch to veto decisions made by the two elected branches. (There was no excuse for any one of countless local federal courts to be able to halt policies from any Party on a nationwide level .. there only power should be in their own district or to kick it upstairs.)
ALOHA.... “Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power.”
For what it is worth, saw a poll, based on the popularity of the Supreme Court this morning, do not remember who did it, unfortunately. They are now up to 47% positive, still not quite above water, but 9 points up from last year, which was up from the year before. Dobbs seems to have been digested, and the results are either moving with one's feet elsewhere or acceptance.
Is there a median position on abortion? It seems that on this issue the majority of the Supremes, three nominated by Trump in term one, are badly out of step with public opinion. That court's Dodds decision, striking down Roe v Wade, made the reproductive rights of women a matter of a lottery, depending on the state she lives in.
It's not a lottery the state you live in. Unless you are a quadriplegic, you can always get on a Greyhound and be gone. I am happy that decisions regarding abortion now rest with the states, so that the preferences and convictions of each state's citizenry can prevail.
One might say that Supreme Court's decisions permitting abortion pills to be available nationwide are inconsistent with Dobbs which establishes state control of the issue.
The middle ground is the libertarian position .. neither outlaw it nor subsidize it. By the way, I noticed you did not mention the fate of the potential offspring as being even more a matter of a lottery, only the mother. The mother can always give away the child .. the child cannot choose another mother.
A fetus is not a child. On occasion, it murders its own mother.
Did I say a fetus was a child? That came from your own internal arguments. I've not thought such for a moment in my life. (The ending of a particular fetus, does however prevent the existence of a particular individual with a particular personality and impact on human events that cannot be replaced by a dozen future births from the same mother.). A fetus is definitely a highly evolved and advanced life form. I have never been anti-choice for the simple reason I do believe some lives are more important than others .. and I will never be in a position to have the evidence to render a judgement on the comparative worth of a particular mother versus a potential child who's fate is tied to a particular fetus. (Or for that matter, to compare this child to any future one that would not be born if this one was allowed to be). My wife aborted two kids by two different one night stands a few years before we met .. I am eternally grateful that she did so, as that allowed our own two children to be born. However I am cleared eyed that I am grateful because I personally value my kids over those other two who would be now alive. I am also clear eyed that I would be willing to murder two other children of any age to save my own.
Fulsome answer!
The man in Canada who crusaded in Canada for legal abortion, Dr Henry Morganthaler, experienced the Holocaust and saw, at the extreme, what happened to unwanted children. The case R vs Morganthaler (1988) saw the Canadian Supreme Court declare that the abortion law he was prosecuted under was unconstitutional.
Re: "A fetus is not a child." What I should have said, to be clearer, is that the law doesn't recognize the fetus as a person so abortion cannot be considered murder as humans understand it.
Dah!
This “theory” is disingenuous. This analysis ignores all of their recent shadow docket rulings that give the [current] GOP president the powers of a king, while taking power from themselves AND the legislative branch to do so. Most of the public disagrees with Trump on almost every major issue now, and his numbers keep falling and will only continue to do so. What about abortion? I know it was decided in a previous term, but it’s relevant in that it was a MAJOR unpopular decision that not only overturned a SCOTUS precedent to get a result they wanted, but it cited pre-enlightenment, magical thoughts from several centuries ago to do so (see Alito).
The theory that majority SCOTUS is making decisions to coincide with public opinion doesn’t square with SCOTUS’ historically low current approval rating, and I also find it dangerous. The relatively ‘safe’ consensus issues cited here as proof that SCOTUS appeals to the average “median voter” only gives SCOTUS legitimacy as they upend the separation of powers, as laid out in our Constitution, while they simultaneously make a mockery of our rule of law as they hand more wealth to oligarchs and more power and hierarchical status to [white male] “Christian” nationalists, and I guarantee you that the average “median voter” does not agree with these efforts.
Nope .. that is a technical issue .. it is still withing the purview of the Court as to the degree they utilize shadow dockets .. just as it has been the soveriegn, independent choice of Congress to delegate broad policy and even war-making powers to the Executive Branch. It is not up to a President to refuse them .. if Congress simply says "make all water potable", then it really is put to the President to decide how or at what pace.
I have said for decades that the authority the citizenry would have given to the trusted and popular JFK would have been inherited by Richard Nixon. People are sometimes confused by the Constitution making it so hard to "do good" because the Founders were acutely aware of this. The French Revolutionaries, not so much. The reason I am increasingly delighted that Donald Trump was elected, despite never having voted for him, is that people, especially Democrats and other statists, is that perhaps they finally understand this. They seem to have finally grasped the value of State's rights.
Unpopular opinion, but I think the Founding Fathers would be impressed the system of government they invented is still working as well as it is. The three branches idea is absolutely brilliant.
The three branches are definitely a Rube Goldberg contraption, but power centered in one man's hands is just not going to work better.
In retrospect, I have recognized that the slogan “run government like a business” implied an unconscious turn away from our constitutional system. In the eyes of the average American, a business is run by one man whose ideas are followed without question. That is exactly the type of government that Trump is trying to establish.
Even ethical well intended businessmen couldn't run government like a business That was why I didn't vote for Ross Perot
My only quibble is that the ire is directed at the man (any man) for accepting that power. It is Congress (and to a far far lesser degree, the Judicial Branch) who ceded it to him. So far though, there is nothing a President can do if that power is taken back. (Not one Democrat even presented a vote to declare bombing Iran off-limits - but if that operation had gone awry, every Democrat would have campaigned on it - and there is your answer as to why they won't take back their authority)
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia Presented a resolution the minute Trump started talking about bombing Iran. The press didn't cover it extensively.
A good column, which should help restore people's faith in the court. Unfortunately, until Thomas and Alito are gone, my faith won't be restored at all.
Another brilliant analysis.
The title of this article is utter lunacy. The median voter is not a racist, christi-fascist, that loves billionaires and corporations for anything else, and is supporting an imperial presidency, and the destruction of democracy. That is a maga and billionaire agenda
Agreed. And it’s also worth considering that the concept of a “median voter”has likely shifted in recent years, especially as the Overton Window has moved significantly to the right, altering what we define as centrist or mainstream.
imperial presidency? this is not Cambodia.
Courts should follow the law not public opinion The six supreme court justices claim they are originalists I'm not sure what Constitution they are reading They are even throwing out long standing court opinion
Good for Comey-Barrett Maybe she should take Clarence Thomas in a room and give him some instructions
Two issues dealt with "should the federal government..." or "should the FDA..." regulate ghost guns or flavored vapes. While majorities of people may support regulating those items, it doesn't mean it has to be Uncle Sam. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce of ghost guns, yes. States can regulate them internally. Same for flavored vapes.
We The People tend to look to Washington when we should be looking to our state capitals.
We are supposed to be "a soverign nation of soverign states."
Gene McFaddin, Houston.
Emphatically yes. Also it backfires .. it is not appreciated how the 55 mph speed limit affected to this day the DNA of the traditionally moderate big Midwest States. They don't even know why they are now reflexively suspicious of federal governance, when at one time they paved the electoral path for everything from environmental to labor laws .. but I remember.
While I appreciate your perspective that at least this year, the Court has supported decisions that match the "median voter," so much has already happened to put the finger on the scale. The fact that this year the Court voted with "median voters," provides not one whit of solace. (You have been able to pull me away from the abyss a couple of times, but this isn't one of those. Next letter, maybe?)
I agree Gnosticthefirst and that is not the only decision the public is out of step with this court.
The extreme court is also supposed to rule on Law and not on the latest Fox and corporate News massage public opinion
Extreme how? This court has actually reduced the ability of the Judicial Branch to veto decisions made by the two elected branches. (There was no excuse for any one of countless local federal courts to be able to halt policies from any Party on a nationwide level .. there only power should be in their own district or to kick it upstairs.)
Very helpful. Thanks for explaining.
ALOHA.... “Fear is the tool of a tyrant, wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place. A fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power.”
That picture of the Supreme Court full of Susan Collins is the stuff of nightmares!
For what it is worth, saw a poll, based on the popularity of the Supreme Court this morning, do not remember who did it, unfortunately. They are now up to 47% positive, still not quite above water, but 9 points up from last year, which was up from the year before. Dobbs seems to have been digested, and the results are either moving with one's feet elsewhere or acceptance.