Patterico's Pontifications

6/29/2020

Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Clinic Law

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:30 pm



[guest post by Dana]

The law would have provided protection to women having surgical abortions at a clinic by ensuring that the abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals within 30 miles of their clinics:

A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.

Chief Justice John Roberts and his four more liberal colleagues ruled that the law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

In a detailed analysis, Yuval Levin takes on Justice Roberts and his reference to Edmund Burke:

“The question today,” Roberts wrote, “is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.” The answer should be ‘yes,’ he insisted, on the basis of the principle of Stare Decisis, by which prior decisions of the Court are adhered to by default absent strong reasons to regard the underlying matters differently. To defend this particular application of Stare Decisis, Roberts pointed to several venerated voices, including Alexander Hamilton (in Federalist 78) and a number of prior decisions of the Court. But he began these references to sources with Edmund Burke…

It was Justice Thomas who correctly said:

Despite the fact that we granted Louisiana’s petition specifically to address whether “abortion providers [can] be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients,” Conditional Cross-Pet. in No. 18–1460, p. i, a majority of the Court all but ignores the question. The plurality and THE CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional under our precedents. But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. Because we have neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.

(emphasis added)

This:

–Dana

105 Responses to “Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Clinic Law”

  1. Unsurprisingly, I read that Planned Parenthood is fundraising off the decision.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  2. Well yeah. We all know that if Ginsburg dies and Trump appoints a replacement, Roe is toast the next time it gets to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch isn’t going to take the stare decisis path Roberts just took.

    aphrael (7962af)

  3. Gorsuch isn’t going to take the stare decisis path Roberts just took.

    Nor did Harry Blackmun.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8dac67)

  4. Kudos to the SCOTUS for yet again suckering ideologues.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  5. Roberts has proven yet again to be a fraud. He lied in 2016. By his logic he would’ve upheld slavery.

    NJRob (95f515)

  6. “provided protection to women having surgical abortions ”

    The admitting privileges thing isn’t actually for the safety of women anyway. A doctor doesn’t need them for a patient to be admitted and if a patient was in crisis they wouldn’t send them 30 miles away to a hosp where they had admitting privileges, they’d send them to the nearest hosp. It’s a law meant to get around Roe V. Wade and defacto outlaw abortion. And that’s fine. But I’m not going to pretend a law is something it isn’t just for political convenience.

    Nic (896fdf)

  7. https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1277620296485306368

    The SCOTUS abortion decision is worse than you think. It’s not truly 5-4. On the core of the abortion right, it’s more like 8-1. Only Thomas clearly attacks Roe/Casey. The other dissenters say this, essentially “apply Casey.” /1:

    Kishnevi (3a7e14)

  8. I suspect Roberts sees that quite possibly there’ll be Democratic control of WH, HoR, and Senate, and decided that now is not the time to further motivate court packing schemes.

    Kishnevi (3a7e14)

  9. OT
    Don’t see a better place to park this
    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml

    Not mentioned in this, but Devin Nunes’s Cow posted it was among the banned.

    Kishnevi (3a7e14)

  10. The admitting privileges thing isn’t actually for the safety of women anyway. A doctor doesn’t need them for a patient to be admitted and if a patient was in crisis they wouldn’t send them 30 miles away to a hosp where they had admitting privileges, they’d send them to the nearest hosp.

    You are mistaken, nic. The law is for the safety of the patient in that it ensures a minimum of accreditation and competency (as determined by ACGME and ABMS) of the physician. One would hope that the physician would be wise enough to apply for admitting privileges at the nearest hospital, yes? Certainly this information would be important (and comforting) for the woman to know, in order to make a safe and informed opinion.

    felipe (023cc9)

  11. @10 Nope, it’s politics.

    Nic (896fdf)

  12. Correction required:

    “safe and informed opinion choice of provider.”

    felipe (023cc9)

  13. @10 Nope, it’s politics.

    Abortion is, indeed, being politically fought over, and all laws are politically enacted. What exactly is your point? Against what are you arguing with “nope?”

    felipe (023cc9)

  14. It’s a law meant to get around Roe V. Wade and defacto outlaw abortion.

    It seeks to do no such thing. Nor would it in practice, any more than requiring a CDL outlaws trucking.

    felipe (023cc9)

  15. There was an overlooked story about Brett Kavanaugh today in the New York Times.

    It seems like, according to this story

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/28/business/media/martin-baron-washington-post.html

    Brett Kavanaugh was a source for Bob Woodward that he used in a book published in 1999, Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate. but later then wrote a letter to the Washington Post contradicting what he had secretly told Bob Woodward, and in 2018, at the time of the Kavanaugh conformation hearings, Woodward wrote and was going to publish a story revealing all of this but was prevailed upon by the editor of the Washington Post (appointed editor shortly before Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post) not to do this because it would be bad for the {Post and bad for him.

    The article was nearly ready when the executive editor, Martin Baron, stepped in. Mr. Baron urged Mr. Woodward not to breach his arrangement with Mr. Kavanaugh and to protect his old source’s anonymity, three Post employees said. (The three, as well as other Post journalists who spoke to me, insisted on anonymity because The Post prefers that its employees not talk to the media.)

    Mr. Baron and other editors persuaded Mr. Woodward that it would be bad for The Post and “bad for Bob” to disclose a source, one of the journalists told me. The piece never ran.

    What was it that Brett Kavanaiugh spposedly told Bob Woodward?

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/99/07/11/reviews/990711.11lindlt.html

    Like Clinton, Kenneth Starr — to whom Woodward devotes far less attention — is viewed from the perspective of his aides. One is Brett Kavanaugh, who ”looked somewhat like a dark-haired version of the movie actor William Hurt, and he had a similar soft style.” Woodward informs us that ”Kavanaugh was concerned that Starr thought it was the catalogue of Clinton’s sexual behavior that provided a basis for recommending that Clinton should be bounced out of office, rather than the alleged crimes.” When Starr decides to indict Julie Hiatt Steele for testifying falsely in the Kathleen Willey case, ”Brett Kavanaugh was appalled. . . . An indictment of Steele, Kavanaugh wrote in a memo to Starr, would win the ‘trifecta’ for abuse of the independent counsel law.”

    I don;t have the letter that Kavanaugh wrote to the Washington Post in 1999. I don;t know if there is a contradiction between what the book says he thought and what Kavanaugh wrote to the Washington Post, and if so there are probbbably several different ways to assess that,

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  16. If everybody calls a strike a ball, umpire Roberts will, too.

    DRJ (aede82)

  17. @14 My nope is that the law isn’t for the safety of the patient as it doesn’t improve patient safety. It’s meant to achieve the political goal of defacto out-lawing abortion. Pretending it’s for patient safety is just politics and obfuscation. It’s like if I tried to pass a law against building in open, treeless lots (oddly like the one between my house and my view) in order to protect the gray squirrel. The gray squirrel doesn’t need protecting and doesn’t live on treeless lots, I just didn’t want anyone building in a way that cut off my view.

    Nic (896fdf)

  18. felipe, hospitals aren’t required to give anyone admitting privileges, so unless you want to take the decision away from them and place it in the hands of the government, wouldn’t this law have created an effective veto on the ability to perform abortions (and wasn’t that its real purpose)?

    I don’t see the anti-abortion groups complaining today because the Supremes’ decision has gravely endangered women’s health. They are complaining because abortions will not be much harder to obtain in Louisiana.

    Dave (1bb933)

  19. But I’m not going to pretend a law is something it isn’t just for political convenience.

    This is so ambiguous that I can’t help but wonder if you were hesitant to actually say what you really meant. But, otherwise, to take your statement seriously, would only prompt me to ask “so you would pretend a law is something it isn’t for more than political convenience?”

    That position doesn’t speak well of you.

    felipe (023cc9)

  20. It wasn’t overlooked, Sammy. I read it yesterday.

    DRJ (aede82)

  21. @14 sure, keep telling us that, but nobody believes it.

    Nic (896fdf)

  22. @19 I will be more blunt, then. I’m not going to lie about the law’s purpose, unlike the people who passed the laws.

    Nic (896fdf)

  23. @17 I agree. To conjure up an analogy that might resonate better:

    Suppose a 2nd-amendment unfriendly state like NY passed a law saying that in order own or work in a gun shop, you must have a PhD in Social Work. The justification is that this will allow people who sell firearms to better identify gun purchasers who might be a danger to the community, or to themselves.

    *Of course* it isn’t intended to make it harder to purchase firearms, even if it just happens to have that effect…

    Dave (1bb933)

  24. Dave (1bb933) — 6/29/2020 @ 2:15 pm

    No one is saying that hospitals must do this, nor does the law propose to decide such things, Much less shift any power to government. The organizations that do makes decisions about accreditation and competency are private organizations in the medical fields. You wouldn’t argue that they shouldn’t regulate their own fields?

    I disagree that improving requirements for those physicians who wish to provide abortions act to veto a qualified practitioner. Rather, compliance with the law ensures that a minimum of competency is met. One that would be verifiable by the patient. This is the real purpose of the law. But then, we may not find out how much women would have benefited from this law since it was not allowed to go into effect.

    For those who earnesly make a case against the laws benefits, wouldn’t data collected after its implementation settle the matter?

    felipe (023cc9)

  25. The practical issue that that case deals with is that, because of social ostracism, no hospital nearby will give an abortion doctor admitting privileges. But the courts have probably allowed a lot of other Catch-22s to exist.

    Maybe a law saying that they are required to have admitting privileges to the closest hospital that will have them will pass muster.

    Sammy Finkelman (3102d6)

  26. Dave (1bb933) — 6/29/2020 @ 2:30 pm

    That is a better analogy, but still not good enough since having a PHD in social work is not as relevant to selling guns, as admitting privileges are to medical emergencies.

    I do agree that the desired effect was to reduce the number of abortions.

    felipe (023cc9)

  27. I think it varies, Nic. There are anti-abortion motives for some people and not others. For instance, there are geographically large Texas counties that have only one (or no) hospital and limited medical care. An abortion clinic in such a county often has only one doctor who does not have admitting privileges at the local hospital, so there will be problems if the abortion goes wrong and that doctor needs help/resources. I think this is also the case in some Louisiana parishes. So while this may be a pretext problem in big cities, it is not a pretext everywhere.

    DRJ (aede82)

  28. I had some exposure to how hospital administration can be run. For at least some the admitting privilege is linked not to medical credentials but to how many patients the doctor refers for inpatient or outpatient services. IOW what the MD contributes to their revenue stream. And they’ll withdraw the admitting privilege if the quota is not met.

    Kishnevi (6b8fa6)

  29. DRJ (aede82) — 6/29/2020 @ 2:46 pm

    You are quite correct, DRJ. Some remote clinics don’t even have a resident physician, but must share an M.D. with several clinics (none with surgical resources) which gave rise to telemedicine abortion. One might think that this would drastically reduce the number of M.D.s needed with admitting privileges, and thus, any undue burden, but nothing less than unrestricted abortion – even after birth – will do for the culture of death.

    felipe (023cc9)

  30. DRJ,

    If there are complications during an abortion wouldn’t the patient be admitted through the ER and need to see a specialist anyway?

    If you start bleeding or go into shock during plastic surgery or a root canal, it’s not the plastic surgeon or dentist who’s going to be in charge once you get to the hospital, and I imagine the same would be true after an abortion.

    Dave (1bb933)

  31. Kishnevi (6b8fa6) — 6/29/2020 @ 2:56 pm

    Interesting, Kish. Abortion is an “essential” industry a (irony alert) “growth” industry.

    felipe (023cc9)

  32. I can’t speak for every place, Dave, but in West Texas — if there is a hospital at all, it is often no different than the urgent care/walk-in clinics in our cities. Anything more than routine accidents or injuries are airlifted to the larger cities that may be 200-300 miles away. Some hospitals don’t even have doctors, maybe PAs or nurse practitioners. And many are closing every year because they can’t get staff or funding. Covid is undoubtedly accelerating that process. So having elective procedures that can burden the system more is a real problem.

    DRJ (aede82)

  33. @23 That’s a good analogy.

    @27 The doctor doesn’t have to have admitting privileges for a patient to be admitted, it doesn’t actually provide the doc with more help or resources, it’s meant to help with continuity of care with a primary care physician if a patient is admitted, but few doctors have admitting privileges any more, an OBGYN who provides abortions isn’t a primary care physician, and hospitals now provide the people who do the care. When they looked at that as part of the Texas admitting privileges law, the pro-law lawyer couldn’t come up with any cases at all where having admitting privileges would have helped.

    Nic (896fdf)

  34. @31 It’s not actually a growth industry. The number of abortions/yr been declining since the early 80s.

    Nic (896fdf)

  35. Out here, doctors who perform surgery are expected to have admitting privileges because we have limited hospitalists and limited surgical facilities outside the hospitals. In smaller counties (population, not geography), there may not even be hospital doctors and most surgeries are sent to the bigger cities.

    DRJ (aede82)

  36. To conjure up an analogy that might resonate better

    Wow, you guys have to make up examples?

    How about, it’s like a law to require presidential candidates to release their tax returns, in order to improve the integrity of elections. Ah, but you like that law, so that’s no good….

    beer ‘n pretzels (314f40)

  37. Texas provider shortage:

    How bad is the provider shortage in Texas?

    A survey commissioned by the North Texas Regional Extension Center provides some details. It found that:

    185 counties in the Lone Star State with a combined population of more than 3.1 million people, equal to or greater than 21 states, have no psychiatrist.

    158 Texas counties with a combined population of 1.9 million, equal to or greater than 14 states, have no general surgeon.

    147 Texas counties with a combined population of more than 1.8 million people have no obstetrician/gynecologist.

    80 counties have five or fewer physicians.

    35 counties have no physician.

    DRJ (aede82)

  38. Nic (896fdf) — 6/29/2020 @ 3:17 pm

    -Sigh- OK, so I needed to put the sarc tag on that, in addition to the irony alert.

    felipe (023cc9)

  39. Getting an abortion can go wrong and there may not be any help in some of these counties. It isn’t a political thing to try to stop clinics in places like that.

    DRJ (aede82)

  40. Getting an abortion can go wrong and there may not be any help in some of these counties. It isn’t a political thing to try to stop clinics in places like that.

    That may be true, but the SCOTUS arguments in 2016 showed the data for similar types of clinics didn’t support that, the same as this case.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  41. 40. Data for similar types of clinics in an entirely different state. I feel the same way about this that I feel about Roe V. Wade: It’s something the Supreme Court should have never taken jurisdiction over in the first place.

    Gryph (08c844)

  42. The Lincoln Project
    @ProjectLincoln

    Kavanaugh tried to strike down a 4 year precedent, but instead strikes down Susan Collins’ 24 year Senate career.
    __ _

    JERRY DUNLEAVY
    @JerryDunleavy
    ·
    Not only is this an inaccurate characterization of what Kavanaugh did (read his actual narrow dissent before sending out a hot take) but this tweet has nothing to do with Conserving Conservatism or anything like that – it is a pro-abortion attack on a moderate Republican senator.

    __ _

    Just in case you still thought The Lincoln Project was either honest or conservative….or even wanted a Republican Senate majority.
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  43. @39 True, it’s very uncommon, but possible. However, that’s a different issue and I think bigger than an abortion one. I think that one falls more under “is having accessible medical care across the board a right or a privilege”. Probably more people need care for a broken bone or significantly bleeding wound than want an abortion.

    Nic (896fdf)

  44. There is a little town in West Texas that is in the heart of the oil boom — the boom that was and is now gone because of Covid. The official population of the “town” for the past 10 years was 3. There are no stores, gas stations, or hospitals there, just two intersecting highways and a couple of old houses. But with the boom came unimaginable drilling and mancamps/rv cities/and mobile homes housing over 150,000 people. The nearest small town is 45 miles and it has 5 doctors. The nearest large town is 175 miles away.

    DRJ (aede82)

  45. Well, I’ll be the first to admit my ignorance on the subject, but according to this article from last Fall, there are only 22 abortion clinics in Texas, and (as logic would suggest) they are clustered in the cities where the most people are.

    There are far more hospitals (365, or 16.6 hospitals per abortion clinic). The average size is 160 staffed beds per hospital, so most of these must be more than glorified urgent care centers.

    Dave (1bb933)

  46. It’s a no-win for pro-lifers because any effort, no matter how reasonable and how much it attempts to protect the woman seeking the abortion, will be seen as anti-abortion, and nothing more. The politics will always be used a cudgel, and will always overshadow any effort to prevent medical emergencies from happening, whether it would be especially important to a small town, or even in a large city. At the end of the day, politics wins.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  47. DRJ, at 37: that speaks to a broader crisis in public economics, i’d argue. One that i’d love us to have workable ideas about how to fix.

    But economies of scale and baumol’s cost disease mean that services to rural areas are increasingly expensive and it’s super hard to stay afloat economically providing them, and much easier to simply consolidate the services up to a larger, more populated region.

    aphrael (7962af)

  48. Not only is this an inaccurate characterization of what Kavanaugh did (read his actual narrow dissent before sending out a hot take) but this tweet has nothing to do with Conserving Conservatism or anything like that – it is a pro-abortion attack on a moderate Republican senator.
    __ _

    Just in case you still thought The Lincoln Project was either honest or conservative….or even wanted a Republican Senate majority.
    _

    harkin (5af287) — 6/29/2020 @ 3:35 pm

    I agree this was a revealing and very stupid argument for them to make. These guys had put together a lot of awesome attack ads holding Trump accountable from a conservative point of view. Unfortunately, Trump was partly possible because of insincere RINOs and condescending (and often irrational) moral superiority from democrats. For nevertrumper conservatives, not a lot to do but eat popcorn when either side fails, trying to forget we’re certainly not succeeding either.

    Dustin (739c8b)

  49. The nearest large town is 175 miles away.

    And the nearest abortion clinic is in Midland.

    Dave (1bb933)

  50. Just in case you still thought The Lincoln Project was either honest or conservative….or even wanted a Republican Senate majority.

    I’m curious why Trump and TrumpWorld sycophants, who have attacked Collins viciously many times, get a pass.

    I obviously don’t speak for the Lincoln Project, but they may have been making an observation about the practical effect rather than what they want to happen.

    On the other hand, Collins voted to whitewash Trump’s abuses and keep him in office, so she has arguably proven herself unfit for office, just as he has. She should repudiate Trump and her vote to acquit him.

    Dave (1bb933)

  51. It’s one of those laws that says it’s doing X, but it’s doing Y, and the original arguments for it were Y, not X.

    If you want to do Y, create a law that says Y, and argue for Y. The 5th circuit was handed this back in 2016, after getting reversed they said “hold my beer”.

    Louisianna’s argument was basically that we don’t want to argue the merits again, we want to argue that the plaintiff’s didn’t have a right to sue, even though the SCOTUS had already ruled on the merits from the 5th circuit, hoping the makeup of the court would change the decision in only 4 years. Is that Robert’s punting on reversing the court, sure, I guess, but punting is a valid play. It’s not like Robert’s has been anti-regulation of abortion in the past, the arguments in this case were fundamentally designed for him to side with Stare Decisis, he’s said as much in the past, I don’t think anyone should be surprised today. The LGBT decision was a more jarring, and he wasn’t the deciding factor then.

    If you want a better outcome, start with a better law to argue.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  52. For nevertrumper conservatives, not a lot to do but eat popcorn when either side fails, trying to forget we’re certainly not succeeding either.“
    __

    I’m also a ‘nevertrumper’ inasmuch as I could never vote for him.

    But I also disagree with the coup attempts such as the Obama plots on collusion and the impeachment. If they want Trump out so bad vote him out.

    I have a few conservative friends who also refused to vote for him in 2016, they’re almost all voting for him this time after the past three years and especially the past couple months.

    ‘We don’t want to become Seattle, Minneapolis or Chicago’ is not a statement that any sane person can counter.
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  53. Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827) — 6/29/2020 @ 4:21 pm

    Good comment, Klink. You make a good case.

    felipe (023cc9)

  54. “ On the other hand, Collins voted to whitewash Trump’s abuses and keep him in office, so she has arguably proven herself unfit for office, just as he has.”
    __ _

    Have fun supporting this ‘fit’ guy:

    Joe Biden
    @JoeBiden

    Children should be released from ICE detention with their parents immediately. This is pretty simple, and I can’t believe I have to say it: Families belong together.
    __ _

    Andy Grewal
    @AndyGrewal

    The Obama Administration argued, successfully, that it could keep parents separated from their children. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d. 898 (9th Cir. 2016).
    __ _

    Antisocial Butterfly
    @antisoc_bfly
    ·
    So typical of Biden. He’s been around Washington as long as I’ve been alive and now he’s running on fixing all the things that he either ignored or actually helped cause for half a century.

    __ _

    Real Bidenism has never been tried.
    _

    harkin (5af287)

  55. I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016, but I will now. I don’t expect much from any politician, other than to continue doing what they have always done. But I will not vote for anyone who will further the destruction of the innocents. Yes, life is one issue, but the one issue that matters most to me and my one vote.

    felipe (023cc9)

  56. ‘We don’t want to become Seattle, Minneapolis or Chicago’ is not a statement that any sane person can counter.

    Unfortunately the left is going to take its victory in November as a mandate to really screw some things up. And the resentment we’ll feel from radical politics will usher in a dumber alt-right. Our enemies will keep pushing the right buttons. We’re in a lot of trouble as a country and unless some Mt. Rushmore grade leader comes along, it’s going to be hard for our kids.

    Dustin (739c8b)

  57. Roe v. Wade being reversed is a recurring nightmare to both Republicans and Democrats. It’s what gets half of them elected and reelected. Horse manure laws like this one are not going to save one single baby’s life and they know it. Just smoke and noise.

    nk (1d9030)

  58. And you have to figure, some of the post 2015 golden staircase Right isn’t particularly bothered by the demographic distribution of the Roe body count and might cringe at its actual repeal.

    urbanleftbehind (e0ae19)

  59. Exactly. They profit from both the front end and the back end. The front end by inflaming the Pro Life voters, and the back end by reducing the number of Natural Born Democrats. (Or whichever is which.)

    nk (1d9030)

  60. I wish Dustin and nk were wrong.

    But they’re not.

    Dave (1bb933)

  61. Have fun supporting this ‘fit’ guy

    Effective governance (and effective opposition to the Democrats) requires getting the lunatic out of the pilot’s seat and restoring a Republican party that stands for American values.

    Things may get worse before they get better, but they will never get better until Trump and his cult are ostracized.

    Dave (1bb933)

  62. The Legacy of George W. Bush… the gift that keeps on giving.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  63. Dustin, at 56: and the dominant frame of thinking on the left right now is that 2016 proved that compromise and seeking the middle path, like the Clintons did, is useless. If the reward for being middle of the road is Trump, then clearly it’s the wrong solution, and pulling far to the left is preferable.

    at this point it’s certain that the 2021 congress is the most left-wing since 1973. the question will be, is it the most (economically) leftist since 1933.

    From the perspective of the long-term interest of the right, Trump is going to turn out being just as big a disaster as from everyone else’s perspective. It’s just going to take longer for them to realize it.

    aphrael (7962af)

  64. That bearded clam Rick Wilson is a grifting fraud.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. … and the dominant frame of thinking on the left right now is that 2016 proved that compromise and seeking the middle path, like the Clintons did, is useless.

    I deplore the mischaracterization of what the Clintons were all about. Revisionist history!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  66. The real danger here is that a left-leaning 2021-2025 sparks an even more reactionary angry trumpist right and that we teeter totter back and forth between increasingly aggrieved side with each side increasingly doubting the legitimacy of electio results until the entire system loses legitimacy and is replaced by a dictatorship.

    It was bad enough before. But both sides have major legitimacy issues *growing* over time, now.

    aphrael (7962af)

  67. Haiku: (a) i’m reporting, not endorsing. (b) the different views of what the clintons were about developed *during the bill clinton administration* and hasn’t substantially changed since then. it’s not revisionist history, it’s a continuation of what clinton’s base thought at the time. they may have been *wrong* but it’s not revisionist.

    aphrael (7962af)

  68. In the last 50 years, the GOP has appointed 15 of the last 19 justices who have been confirmed. The 4 liberals on the court now are the 4 exceptions. At no time did any 5 of those 15 GOP judges feel they should strike down Roe.

    Of the 7 justices who voted FOR Roe, 5 were GOP appointees, including the author of the opinion. One of the dissenters was a Democrat appointee.

    There is really no reason to believe than anyone intends to overturn Roe (or Casey). Ever. Both parties are running a scam.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  69. until the entire system loses legitimacy and is replaced by a dictatorship.

    Please to call it a popular leader elected by acclamation.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  70. Effective governance (and effective opposition to the Democrats) requires getting the lunatic out of the pilot’s seat and restoring a Republican party that stands for American values.

    The real issue is, too many people in the U.S. do not want effective governance. Whether on the left or right. Effective government entails accountability. Politicians don’t want to be held accountable, and because we are so incredibly polarized as a nation, constituents don’t want to hold them accountable either. Far better to go along for the ride n order to make sure that your people keep their hands on the levers of power.

    Dana (25e0dc)

  71. The left has taken over the schools the media the top ranks of corporate america and they are enforcing their hegemony with susan rosenbergs iron fist,

    Narciso (7404b5)

  72. They want no guns no cops no flag and 57 genders also no church, there is little doubt

    Narciso (7404b5)

  73. @70 I agree.

    There are also a lot of people who don’t particularly want to hear the truth, so they tend to punish people who tell it to them and reward people who tell them what they want to hear.

    Nic (896fdf)

  74. @71 No. We had this discussion last week. Curriculum is controlled by the school board.

    Nic (896fdf)

  75. Try to find a non constructivist curriculum anywhere, common core is just he 2.0 version

    Narciso (7404b5)

  76. Dana (25e0dc) — 6/29/2020 @ 6:39 pm

    You make a good point; a closely-related pathology is the impossibility of any kind of constructive compromise.

    In a 51-49 country, both sides will only settle for getting 100% of what they want, and anyone who entertains the thought of some kind of deal with the other side is a heretic who must be burned at the stake.

    This, too, is extremely convenient for the politicians, since the herd instinct of doctrinal purity minimizes personal risks.

    Dave (1bb933)

  77. Try to find a non constructivist curriculum anywhere, common core is just he 2.0 version

    Common core has nothing to do with the content of what is taught. It specifies what verbal (reading, writing, oral) or math skills should be acquired by what grade.

    Anyone interested in the truth can read the standards here.

    Dave (1bb933)

  78. And the nearest abortion clinic is in Midland.

    The nearest PP elective abortion clinics are in El Paso, Austin and DFW. There aren’t any in Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, or Abilene, although I am sure all those cities have OB/GYNs who can provide medical abortions.

    DRJ (aede82)

  79. @75 I went through the whole process with you last week, explaining how curriculum is selected. And I explained that history is not a standardized testing area which means that common core (which is skills based, not content based) doesn’t actually matter.

    Nic (896fdf)

  80. You dont really know anything about these systems

    http://invisibleserfscollar.com/

    Narciso (7404b5)

  81. @80 Yeah…. as you are a person who doesn’t know anything about curriculum development recommending a person who also doesn’t know anything about curriculum development, but tells you what you want to hear, instead of what actually happens, probably you aren’t going to be super convincing to a person who does, in fact, know something about curriculum development and how that actually works as part of an actual school system. Your… school… district… approves… the… curriculum. If… they… do… not… like… it… they… say… no. It… is… not… a… national… plot… to… make… kids… liberal. Unless… being… able… to…. read… and… do… math… makes… kids… liberal.

    Don’t drink bleach.
    Vaccines do not cause autism.
    Fluoride isn’t mind control.
    Bush did not cause 9/11.

    Nic (896fdf)

  82. Curriculum is controlled by the school board.

    Not all of it. Be honest. Much of it is mandated by the state. For example, sex education is required starting from 4th grade in my state, and my state is hardly an outlier. Certain topics are required to be taught by state law. The school district can’t say no.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7dbf31)

  83. @82 Much of the content is not mandated by the state.

    Even if the state requires certain things under narrow circumstances, the school board still chooses which curriculum to use and parents can still opt out. In CA, sex ed is a single unit of health class (or sometimes of science as part of life sciences in 7th grade, depending) that takes less than a month and parents can choose to have their student do alternate assignments outside the classroom during that time (we usually only have 2 or 3 per period, so they usually work independently in the library, but some schools might have 15-20, so they will have a classroom with a teacher during that time). The difference between comprehensive sex ed and abstinence only is maybe 2 days of lessons and most curriculum providers offer both options.

    There are skills mandated by the state mostly in English and math, but content itself is not mandated. So, for example, a student may need to be able to write a persuasive essay, but the district (school board) can determine topic lists. School board chooses what novels are available for students to read, what documentaries are approved to watch, etc. History class is entirely determined by the district. There are guidelines issued by the state, but they are non-binding and they are not tested with standardized tests.

    Nic (896fdf)

  84. Supreme Court opens door to state funding for religious schools

    In a ruling that could open the door to more public funding for religious education, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of parents in Montana seeking to use a state scholarship program to send their children to religious schools.

    The court said that a Montana tax credit program that directed money to private schools could not exclude religious schools.
    The 5-4 ruling was penned by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by the court’s four conservative justices.

    That damn Bush justice Roberts.

    /sarc

    Dave (1bb933)

  85. Chief Justice Roberts might be the 2nd Catholic President, although corrupted by legacy of Vatican II.

    urbanleftbehind (e80cfe)

  86. unofficially of course

    urbanleftbehind (e80cfe)

  87. Heh! Wait till the Montanans find out they have to include Muslim schools.

    nk (1d9030)

  88. There is no alternative, in fact state funding means they can push this soviet dedigned garbage into the private schools

    Narciso (7404b5)

  89. Nk:

    Is the Montana tax credit program analogous to the IL tax credit program that supports the Big Shoulders and Empower Illinois scholarship programs?

    urbanleftbehind (e80cfe)

  90. I don’t know urbanleftbehind. I only made the above comment because it happened in neighboring state, where tax credit legislation was sailing through the legislature, and then they found that there were also Muslim parochial schools in the state and killed it quicker than you can say madrassa.

    nk (1d9030)

  91. A sweetener put in by emmanuel for quradawi, care of doha.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  92. The state with Coeur D’Alene in it?

    urbanleftbehind (e80cfe)

  93. Philosophically, I agree that Roe’s legal reasoning was very thin…emaciated even…and that the basic question should have been left to states in 1973.

    Practically though that horse has left the barn. Not only has the basic question been revisited by different lineups of the Court with the same basic result left in tact (after 47 years), public opinion remains on the side of some basic abortion access. The other reality is that supporters for “choice” will simply pivot to Equal Protection arguments — that restrictions to abortion must be viewed as gender discrimination because of the unequal impact on women, particularly single women.
    It’s not a frivolous argument and may be why the Court will hesitate to upset the apple cart to then have to confront it.

    It still comes down to how people view a non-viable fetus and government compelling women to take pregnancies to term. I say work to make abortion alternatives more attractive.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  94. Under the more draconian proposed state laws, doctors would go to prison for performing abortions. But the laws generally exempt the mother from the same punishment. Can anyone explain why? I mean, she is the one requesting the killing of her unborn child. She should at least be charged with conspiracy.

    I also don’t understand the “it should be left to the states” argument. If it is immoral per se to allow a person to kill their unborn child, why should some states allow their citizens to do it? If its wrong to allow it nationwide, it is wrong to allow some states to continue to legalize it.

    RipMurdock (d2a2a8)

  95. Practically though that horse has left the barn. Not only has the basic question been revisited by different lineups of the Court with the same basic result left in tact (after 47 years), public opinion remains on the side of some basic abortion access. The other reality is that supporters for “choice” will simply pivot to Equal Protection arguments — that restrictions to abortion must be viewed as gender discrimination because of the unequal impact on women, particularly single women.

    This is what the judges are thinking, yes, but it’s this protection of ultimately a bad argument, the insecurity the left and the right will always have on Roe that makes this issue dominate the selection process. That means more important issues are barely discussed.

    And the truth is, a lot of people want different levels of access to abortion, believe there should be more protection for unborn lives, and these legitimate political views can’t be exercised across the country. Such a powerful political imposition should come from the people, not the unelected power. Not that you’re disagreeing or anything, but if the left considers this to be a really important right, they should amend the constitution. If abortion is as important as a jury trial, well, we have a way of showing it.

    Dustin (739c8b)

  96. OT: Attention ladies; today’s Biden Gaffe:

    “I like to be out there to get the greatest feel.” – Joe Biden, Wilmington, DE 6/30/2020

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  97. OT:

    O.M.G.– JoeyBee admits he has not been tested for Covid-19 after speech insisting everybody in America should be should be ‘tested, tested, tested.”

    Idiot.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. I haven’t been tested and I think more testing is good. Does that make me an idiot?

    Is it really the Trump / Russia plan to call all Americans who haven’t gotten tested, but think testing is good “idiots”?

    Dustin (739c8b)

  99. @99.I haven’t been tested and I think more testing is good. Does that make me an idiot?

    You’re not running for president nor just delivered a speech telling everybody they must do just that.

    That makes him an idiot.

    “Never mind what I told you. I’m telling you.” – The Captain [James Cagney] ‘Mister Roberts’ 1955

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  100. I guess that’s a good point on some level. But if Biden did get a positive test, wouldn’t people tell him he was a political idiot to create that information? Neither candidate is planning to get any positive diagnosis this year. I guess we could say Trump is consistent intellectually in that he doesn’t want America to be fully tested because that more hits are bad news (and indeed the numbers are manipulated by the media to harm him).

    But lots and lots of Americans will see going to a testing location as a great risk, only going if they really think they are sick. They aren’t going to be persuaded by this new attack at all.

    Dustin (739c8b)

  101. Go ahead, Righties; diss him:

    Roberts is Reagan Seed.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  102. @88 I have told you how the entire process works. In detail. If you choose to continue to wear blinders and posit untrue things, you conclusions will be drawn from a false set of beliefs and built on a foundation that exists only in imagination.

    Nic (896fdf)

  103. FAR more important, the Supreme Court struck down the Blaine Amendments that forbade any use of public funds by any faith-based organization. The Amendments, passed in a wave of anti-Catholic, anti-immigrant hysteria in the 1880s, were intended to keep public schools Protestant (which was viewed at the time as non-sectarian, unlike those evil Catholic traps of Satan).

    The federal Blaine Amendment failed (as did James Blaine’s presidential candidacy) but most states added the language to their state constitutions. These have been used by the teacher’s unions to kill vouchers and tuition tax credits in several states.

    Now these amendments are dead letters. Thank you, Institute for Justice, a cause well worth your donations.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  104. Roberts was the deciding vote here, too.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3645 secs.