Justice Clarence Thomas warns us which other decisions are likely to fall, under the reign of the authoritarian Trump Court: the right of married couples to buy contraceptives; the decriminalization of consensual gay sex in the privacy of one’s home; and gay marriage. Notice he left out the Loving decision, which made interracial marriages legal. Was that to protect his own marriage?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane I don’t believe anything the neo-supreme court says now anyway, after what occurred in the most recent confirmation hearings. And I think their timing is questionable, considering how it overshadows (at least for a while) what we are finding in The Trump Hearings. I can only hope that what we survive can only make us stronger. CBK
ALL: The scariest paragraph I have read in years: (From the recent NPE note referring to an article in Slate Magazine):
“Tuesday’s decision in (the Carson case) takes this radical theory to a new extreme, ordering Maine to extend public education funds to religious indoctrination.
“The upshot of Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the court is that states have no compelling interest in providing public, secular education to children. Indeed, Roberts suggests that the very concept of secular schooling is a smokescreen for ‘discrimination against religion’—a pretext for unconstitutional animus toward pious Americans. His opinion reaches far beyond Maine. About 37 states have amendments to their constitutions that bar government funding of religious institutions, including schools. Carson essentially invalidates those laws while undermining the broader constitutional basis for the nation’s public school system. . . .
First, freedom OF religion is not the same as discrimination AGAINST religion. Second, secular only means DISTINCT, whereas for many in more “staid” religious communities, secular translates into “secularism” and then into “evil.”
And third, and this is the MAIN FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE:
IN A DEMOCRACY, EDUCATION IS A COMPELLING INTEREST OF THE STATE . . .
. . . insofar as power holders (voters) who have little or no education are, by definition, threats to a democratic political climate and state . . . and the freedom of speech THEN secures their right to spout their narrowness and ignorance at every turn. I would claim we are presently involved in exactly that. Even Roberts, it seems, doesn’t understand the central issues that would keep the democratic experiment going. He is opening the way for the “establishment” of religion by law and, not only that, but a perversion of it.
The article continues:
. . . “Roberts reached this astonishing result by overruling broad swaths of precedent respecting states’ authority to separate church and state more strictly than the U.S. Constitution requires. The court previously upheld states’ interest in avoiding the ‘establishment’ of religion by refusing to underwrite the indoctrination of students into a particular faith. No longer. Roberts condemned Maine’s efforts to guard against religious establishment as nothing more than “discrimination against religion”—an effort to “exclude some members of the community” from public benefits “because of their religious exercise.” He also overruled a line of cases that let the government withhold funding on the basis of religious use (like indoctrination) but not religious status (like affiliation with a church). That distinction, he wrote, ‘lacks a meaningful application not only in theory, but in practice as well,’ tossing it in the precedential dumpster.”
Carson v. Makin: The Supreme Court forces states to fund private religious education. (slate.com)
The number of reasons why every eligible voter that values their choices in life and the quality and safety of their life and family should vote November 2022, keeps growing.
We must keep the Fascist Republican’s Party our of power in Congress. In fact, it’s up to voters to increase the Democratic majority in Congress. Every eligible voter that doesn’t vote to keep the Democrats in power is as guilty as every MAGA voter that votes for a Trump fascist in the Republican Party.
That goes for state and local elections, too.
Good catch Dr. Ravitch! I’m surprised he didn’t add Loving to the list. Constitutionally annulling his corrupt marriage to a traitor sounds like the perfect Trumpist escape hatch.
Blind spot
Sent from my iPhone
>
The fact that the Founding Fathers never meant for people like Clarence Thomas to be able to practice law in the first place (let alone vote, or have any other sort of rights) makes his statements unquantifiably hypocritical.
Clarence Thomas is not an Originalist. If he is, he and Amy Coney Barrett should live by the words of the Constitution, which ignored the rights of women and blacks, and resign from the Supreme Court.
Due process? We don’t need no stinking due process!
Just “New Process, aka Thomas says”
Here’s another Thomas gem hidden away in the guns for all decision. We laughed, we cried when Alito went back a few centuries to educate us all about precedents in abortion “law.” We were shocked but not surprised when Thomas finally said the quiet part out loud, that substantive due process has no place whatsoever at the table of American jurisprudence. But you may have missed a real doozy this weekend.
Cited as precedent for the concept of open carry guns, Thomas reached way back and read something into the Dred Scott, something “legitimate” that no one had seen before. Let’s see if you catch it: “A short prologue is in order. Even before the Civil War
commenced in 1861, this Court indirectly affirmed the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in public. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right ‘to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’ Id., at 417 (emphasis added). Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear
arms – a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum America.”
Yes, you read that right folks. A precedent for the right of open carry is the fact that slave owners had to open carry in order to assert their ownership rights on slaves. And to underscore this even further, it was prohibited even to free blacks (sic)…” Gasp! One hundred and fifteen Americans have served on the Supreme Court in its entire history. And to think the two worst now have the power to overturn everything their predecessors and the framers ever intended. All because of the thirst for power of Senate Republicans.
Clarence Thomas looks in the mirror and sees a White man.
Horrifying that anyone would use Dred Scott as precedent. What a slimeball.
Dred Scott
Great Scott
It fills with Dred
To see the rot
In Thomas’ head
Perfect, SomeDAM!
Did I hear that Alito used a 17th(?) century opinion from a guy who believed in witchcraft and sentenced a woman to death as precedent for his opinion? Apparently he also believed in spectral beings.
Yes. Not one reference but several to the views about abortion of Sir Matthew Hale, who condemned women to death for witchcraft, was cited in the Salem Witch Trials, and argued that the fact that there were laws against witchcraft was proof that witchcraft existed (in other words, he was as great a jurist as Alito and Thomas are).
Thomas is Dredful
I can’t use the terms “justice” and “Clarence Thomas” together. I just can’t.
In addition to voting Democratic, we can avoid Catholic hospitals (1 in 6 in the U.S).
After we select a secular hospital, we can call the Catholic hospital and tell them they were rejected because of the Church’s right wing politicking which is anti-democracy.
When we support a Catholic hospital, we can understand what it means by reading the article, “How One Nun’s Excommunication Foreshadowed the Bishops’ Attack on Biden.”(Catholics for Choice, 11-4-2021, by Jamie Manson)
Btw- research showed, contrary to charity, Catholic hospitals provide no more indigent care than other private hospitals.
Cite your research, please. Incredibly broad statement, so broad as to be meaningless.
If your comment is placed here by mistake, I understand.
However, on the off chance that a person has to be lead to the info that informs him/her, nothing that I write is so esoteric that a layman’s internet search of key words would make it difficult to confirm.
Diane has cited the much-referenced, Power Worshippers, as a source for info. about church right wing politicking.
Much has written by media about Catholic hospitals. The single source that could be more difficult to find, although I found it in a general keyword search, is cited in the 3:17 comment.
speduktr and Linda Somehow, I don’t find the fact (if it is a fact) . . . that Catholic hospitals don’t help to the poor any more than any other hospitals who make similar claims . . . to be a particularly damning “accusation,” though your rhetoric makes it sound so.
I have asked Linda to name her sources before . . . . (sigh . . . . ) In my view and especially in today’s environment, her (or anyone’s) reluctance to do so makes her arguments, right or wrong, less believable, especially coupled with the obvious and regular rhetoric of anti-religious hate.
I AM horrified, even frightened, however, by the over-reach of right-wing religious zealots of any “faith” who have no understanding of what “secular” means, Jeffersonian writings, the law, civics, or what empirical method means to education, and who want to return the United States to a one-religion tribal nation, so we can fight with every other tribal nation over religious affiliation. (See my quotes in another note here.)
In my view, the present religious over-reach, in Catholic and other-evangelical orders, is nothing less than a perversion of Christianity. And Linda, you would be surprised at the width and breadth of the dialogue that’s going on in the Catholic Church today. That the Church is playing historical catch-up is no excuse for what the zealots are up to. CBK
Catholic Labor reports that Catholic organizations are the nation’s 3rd largest employer (taxpayer funding made it possible).
SCOTUS ruled religious school employers are exempt from civil rights law. Expect SCOTUS to exempt all Catholic organizations based on the same reasoning and to expand tax-funded services offered by the Catholic Church- functions normally provided by government. Jobs for minority religious will dry up.
When a dominant religion finds success taking away a person’s liberty over her own body, they most certainly will find a way to confiscate the property and rights of religious minorities. Buckle up.
“Btw- research showed, contrary to charity, Catholic hospitals provide no more indigent care than other private hospitals.”
Not out of line to ask for the “research” you are referring to. I should not have to dig through a key word search to find the source of your assertion. I was very interested in looking at the research parameters and what variables they controlled for. I would allow, however, that I should have quoted the section of your comment I was referring to in my original response. I am sorry if that was the source of your irritation.
Worth a read, “How non-profit hospitals get away with the biggest rip-off in America,” 1-17-2020, Medicaleconomics.com
It took 2 seconds to find.
Linda Arrogant contempt is no substitute for precision in truth telling. CBK
So I went to medical economics and plugged in the article target in search. No results. After scrolling around for awhile, … glad it took you two seconds.
Found it by plugging in nonprofit hospitals. NO WHERE in the article do they refer to Catholic hospitals. You cannot equate the two.
spedutr-
Sources (parenthetical below) for the info that concludes rankings similar to the following- Catholic-affiliated hospitals 13.4% revenue from Medicaid, 14.7%, for-profit hospitals, 18.4%, public hospitals.
(ACLU, Merger Watch, Fiercehealthcare.com, ModernHealthcare.com, Rewire News Group, etc.)
In terms of government policy advocacy, the USCCB opposed ACA, framing it as an assault on religious liberty.
Linda and spedukr Linda writes: “. . . In terms of government policy advocacy, the USCCB opposed ACA, framing it as an assault on religious liberty.”
It’s more complicated than that (“framing it as an assault on religious liberty.”) It goes to the abortion issue. The Catholic policy is worded as completely acceptable by most everyone and certainly in line with the ACA. The “hook” is that they mean by “everyone” “person at conception.”
So that hospitals that performed abortions became distinct ON THAT MORE FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE from hospitals that would not perform abortions. Make of it what you will, but foundational issues are much more complex than merely “framing it as an assault on religious liberty.” Everyone already HAS the liberty to NOT have an abortion.
Linda, I don’t deny its plausibility as an argument from someone’s or others’ Catholic or other religious foundations, or its wrongheadedness BTW; but where exactly is the ACA framed at an “assault on religious liberty”? If you really do have such a quote or acceptable paraphrase, please cite.
But on past experience with some of your “stuff” here on this site, I cannot believe you as I would otherwise on the face of it. I feel I should be more diligent than that in this case and where all-things-Catholic are concerned. CBK
Linda and All This from one of your references (see end for signature, from 2017):
” . . . While we supported the general goal of the law to expand medical coverage for many poor and vulnerable people, the USCCB ultimately opposed the Affordable Care Act because it expanded the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion, and it failed to provide essential conscience protections and access to health care for immigrants.
“We recognize that the law has brought about important gains in coverage, and those gains should be protected. The Catholic bishops of the United States will examine health care proposals in greater depth and from various perspectives in the days ahead. But we note for now that a repeal of key provisions of the Affordable Care Act ought not be undertaken without the concurrent passage of a replacement plan that ensures access to adequate health care for the millions of people who now rely upon it for their wellbeing. Particularly for those who would otherwise be required to use limited resources to meet basic needs such as food and shelter rather than seek medical care, the introduction of great uncertainty at this time would prove particularly devastating.
We remain committed to the ideals of universal and affordable health care, and to the pursuit of those ideals in a manner that includes protections for human life, conscience and immigrants. We urge you to approach the important debates in the days ahead seeking also to honor these principles for the good of all.” (my emphases)
Sincerely,
Most Reverend Frank J. Dewane
Bishop of Venice
Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
Gives a much fuller picture of their position.
speduktr I know people who have HAD abortions who are extremely unhappy and some who are okay with it. AND I know people who didn’t go through with one they thought about, and who love their children as much as anyone, but who still think back on their lives and the decisions surrounding it.
To me, and don’t laugh please . . . the best thing is to NOT get pregnant unless you want to, and for men to take better care. But of course, there are myriad circumstances that do not fit my idealism. (I said don’t laugh.)
Considering what I’ve seen in the world, I do not judge either way. In terms of the law, I think it’s up to the culture and our parents to raise us up to be intelligent and responsible, even in the bedroom; but that’s an idealized version also . . . the idealized true and good to aim at.
In the end, for the law in the real-world, I think it’s still a decision that must be made by and between the persons involved, first the woman, the doctor, the family if you have a good one; and in the case of religious people, between the woman and her God . . . Everyone else can air their opinions but should STOP MEDDLING WHERE THEY DON’T BELONG.
. . . and THAT means NOT SCOTUS, or the Governor of Texas, and especially not Florida. . . . it’s a tossup between Mitch McConnell, so-called celibate male priests (how sick is that?), those other idiots in Congress, and the King of Idiots: Trump. Just some thoughts. And I think Linda has it right when she says:
“Buckle up.” CBK
I just hope the outrage over the actions of the Supreme Court in the past few weeks lasts at least through the midterms and gets more people to the polls. This is no time for apathy. I voted early in our primary yesterday. I am in a solidly blue area of a blue state, but there are still choices to make. I want the best candidates running in November. Even though most of the Republican candidates sound like looney tunes to me, there are still people out there who vote for them. No whining about what you didn’t get or think the Democrats didn’t do or should do. If you can’t tell the difference between the two parties now, you never will. This is close as we are ever going to get to white hats and black hats duking it out.
speduktr-
Ascension is referenced in the article. From their website, “Ascension is one of the leading Catholic health systems in the U.S. …operates more than 2,600 sites in 19 states…” Under the History tab, you can read about their rapid growth. Taxpayers help to finance the “non-profit’s” revenue stream.
Linda . . . “Under the History tab (of Ascension) you can read about their rapid growth. Taxpayers help to finance the ‘non-profit’s’ revenue stream.”
If Ascension is like any other “non-profit,” what would be the reason they should not follow the financial or other protocols of other non-profits? CBK
Thank you, Linda. Ascension sounds like a big business although they also say on their website that they provided $2.3 billion of service to the poor and other community outreach. I am always suspicious of the “and other” statements now. I want to know how much went into patient care and how much went into what community outreach programs. The hospital system that I use is affiliated with a private university and has been aggressively trying to build their network. The incursion of business practices over the past few decades has changed most hospitals and not always for the better. It’s that old antagonism between mission and pocketbook. The pocketbook has won out too often as far as I am concerned. I still have many of the same questions as before. The religious zealots of any stripe, particularly of the “Christian” flavor in this country, are especially noxious at this point in time. I seriously doubt that Catholic healthcare, which is probably all (?) nonprofit,is quite as evil as you seem to want to paint most Catholic entities.
speduktr You write: “The incursion of business practices over the past few decades has changed most hospitals and not always for the better. It’s that old antagonism between mission and pocketbook. The pocketbook has won out too often as far as I am concerned.”
That’s exactly the point: the fundamental driving principle of capitalism (at present) is the predatory and “pocketbook,” or profit-making for owners or shareholders.
In my view, for way too many in our culture, the distinction between the principles of capitalism, good government, and service or, as you say, *mission, has gone missing. Even though all the pieces of the two DISTINCT forces are present, in so many people minds, they are fuzzy at best, or even non-existent. Everybody’s out to get theirs. Presently, the “old antagonism,” which can be a balanced tension, hides within it the overreach of capitalist principles, as if they were the only principles worth pursuing. Need I say: greed.
In the case of non-profits, the fundamental driving force is service to their patients or, again, mission; unless of course they have manipulated the language to hide their profit-making under the guise of non-profit as Linda suggests in her note (and like so many charter schools we have heard about on this site). Insofar as that’s the case, then making/taking a profit in fact takes precedence over service or mission which become the means to the end of profit, instead of the end itself. When the profit stops, you close up shop. But when you are under a principle of mission, you go looking for more funding to keep going.
But Linda’s assumption seems to be about all Catholic hospitals and services (as putting quotes around “non-profit” suggests), and I seriously doubt it, though like all human concerns, there probably are some who cheat. Cheating is a human, not a Catholic, thing. It’s not to assume, however, especially as guided by one’s broad-brush bias alone (ahem). In fact, the suggestion is laughable, not to mention expository of the speaker/writer’s bias.
But at present, we are saturated with the capitalist principle. Neo-liberalism wants to get rid of government, especially democratic government where the guiding principle is “for the people’s” well-being as citizens. Frugal spending is important, but not the fundamental driving force. Governments don’t sell for a profit but rather collect taxes as their source of income. A public school is not about making a profit, which is absurd when you think about it.
(That public schools and other services like the Post Office don’t work on the “same playing field” as charter or for-profit schools is a common a complaint from profit-makers, as if public service paid for by taxes is some sort of bad thing. School principals and teachers, however, aren’t supposed to turn a profit for the County or State.)
It seems the general rule for capitalists is that EVERYTHING is transactional on the capitalist principle. In their view, “Government is the problem” for neo-liberals because the government is supposed to regulate businesses on the side of protecting citizens. Don’t get me started . . . . no wonder Upton Sinclair was so angry. CBK
The Speaker of the N.H. House, William O’Brien (2012), and the Majority Leader of the N.H. House, D.J. Bettencourt (2012) made an impassioned defense for the position of the USCCB, repeatedly referencing the Catholic Church, “Obamacare Mandate an Assault on Religious Liberty” (an opinion letter posted in Foster’s Daily Democrat, 2-21-2012).
speduktr-
I focus on Catholic hospitals for three reasons, listed below in descending order of importance. (1) No other religion has cornered nearly the same amount of the medical care market. (2) No other religion has the amount of political influence e.g. right wing SCOTUS.
And, (3) Subjecting women to death needlessly in a religious medical center goes against all I value. Catholic hospitals put women’s lives at risk when they adhere to their religious belief about sanctity of fetus delivery. A Catholic position on ectopic pregnancies and on removal of an unviable fetus (potential for death from toxic shock syndrome) jeopardizes women’s lives.
If you’ll bear with me a moment, I am not a person who makes fun of individuals and if my dry presentation of information is construed as contempt, it is not an emotion behind my words. I won’t pander to further my arguments but, I also won’t intentionally make an individual reader want to dispense with my arguments by deliberately offending
her. I am flip about women, in general, not individual women, who
further patriarchy. I am sensitive to the plight of women in a society that makes it very difficult to stand up to male authority that is couched in religion. As example, I don’t think Josh Duggar’s wife ever had a chance at opportunity and I would not disparage her for what I see as essentially, no choice.
Linda Ectopic self-analyses aside, let’s get on with it. I think we are in agreement on many points; and your own, especially those I agree with, would suffer less in the critically minded here from harboring fewer deliberately misleading logical fallacies, and whether you are aware of them or not. CBK
speduktr Sadly, I suppose we shouldn’t overlook that Linda writes the below quote, that “the USCCB opposed ACA framing it as an assault on religious liberty” then, when asked for a citation, she later cites an OPINION piece from a 2012 “impassioned defense” from 2 New Hampshire representatives who were repeatedly “referencing the Catholic Church.”
Not to mention the timing, we were “informed” earlier that the framing was from the USCCB itself. See also below my further quotations directly from Linda’s sources which she conveniently overlooks. How sad. CBK
(1) Linda writes: “. . . In terms of government policy advocacy, the USCCB opposed ACA, framing it as an assault on religious liberty.”
(2) Later citation: “The Speaker of the N.H. House, William O’Brien (2012), and the Majority Leader of the N.H. House, D.J. Bettencourt (2012) made an impassioned defense for the position of the USCCB, repeatedly referencing the Catholic Church, “Obamacare Mandate an Assault on Religious Liberty” (an opinion letter posted in Foster’s Daily Democrat, 2-21-2012).
NOTE: I like Diane’s site precisely because, in most cases, I have learned to trust the regular contributors here to at least try not the cherry pick and misguide at the behest of their own hate-filled biases. . . in most cases.
Also, I agree with many of Linda’s critiques of Catholic and other Church groups. . . in terms of their present and centuries-old doctrinal right-wing overreach. On the other hand, many of her criticisms are (1) not criticisms or (2) apply to any other situation, e.g., all non-profits and those who have taxpayer support need . . . REQUIRE . . . sunshine policies and outsider-oversight, especially in terms of their stated missions; and (3) as we have found in this situation (see above quotes), Such blanket critique is really red-flag suspicious in any circumstance. CBK
Cutting to the chase
Each person can read info. and form his or her own opinion about whether the Catholic Church hierarchy advanced or stymied ACA and if their support or lack thereof was based on their interpretation of religious liberty. Each person can decide if the hierarchy has successfully driven voter support for Republican candidates or for Democratic candidates.
IMO, there is only one view about SCOTUS jurists’ decision in Roe v. Wade. It was a conservative religious-driven decision. I agree with the opinion of the foreign leaders of western democracies who responded to the decision.
Linda I mean NOT to be an impediment to that process by efforts to mislead, as I think most here also do not. CBK
Americans can also form an opinion about whether conservative Catholicism had an impact on the Trump judge selections steered by Leonard Leo, Don McGahn and Pat Cipollone. Liberal Americans can choose to assess the information as irrelevant and continue to discuss foes in abstract terms using maybe some form of shot gun approach to win their fights.
The Trump SCOTUS confirmations followed the preceding reasoning to avoid the topic of religion.
AOC- “We need sand in every gear…the bare minimum is showing up at the ballot box”
During the 2008 presidential election, Rev. Frank Dewane
stated, “(The) right to life…fundamental…should be carefully considered when voting for a particular candidate, after all in voting we are making moral choices…As Catholics, we are called upon to…protect the rights of all, especially the unborn child…society must be safeguarded…monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.”
ACA is enabled or defeated by decisions to elect Democratic or Republican politicians. Rhetoric is cheap.
Linda Shallow is as shallow says and does. In my view, your own rhetoric shows a view that takes these things far too lightly. It doesn’t take a religious view to understand what “not born yet” means as distinct from “not yet conceived.” CBK
This is actually a very good civics teaching moment that illustrates the difference between a Schoolhouse Rock video or Pearson textbook and the real world of politics and governing. I’m always amused when people act with outrage after they learn of large corporate supporters of organizations and campaigns of the far right. The common response is a boycott. But these corporations could care less about these issues. But here’s what they do know: these issues suck the oxygen out of the political, legislative and regulatory processes. While we let these issues take up our time and energy, and while Congress and legislative bodies around the nation fritter away time, there is none left to address the myriad of procedural, administrative, and political issues that should. And that leads to great frustration with government, and that leads to the ability of fascists to cripple the system or dominate it.
We’re not discussing health or banking regulations, or corporate dominance of public life, or wasteful defense spending, or public schools, or climate change, or the war in Ukraine, or…
Greg Corporate and oligarchs’ lending support to anti-abortion efforts for the Church is a small price to pay (like Trump himself did) for gaining the voices of the pulpit and the votes of parishioners.
The irony is that at least most in the Church who are anti-abortion are genuine in their efforts (even if hypocritical, . . . and they are . . .they really do believe they are saving children); while corporate and oligarch efforts, with only a few exceptions, are just using others’ genuineness at the service of their own lust for money and power. CBK
We have all watched, since 2015, the bizarre spectacle of rightwing Christians, both Catholic and Evangelical, going all praise song about a slimy, ne’er-do-well would-be playboy, casino operator, money launderer, and con man while making excuses about his being “an imperfect vessel.” Well, today their support for Don the Con paid off. The Creep, the Idiot delivered for them.
The Orange Childman with the Blonde Troll-doll Hair showed, in this, the same level of respect that he has always showed to women and their rights to personal dignity and bodily autonomy.
has always shown
Why do you call Trump a “would-be playboy?” He was a play boy who went through multiple women, hung out at nightclubs, called gossip columnists to tell them where was spotted, but claimed he was Trump’s publicist. He was too cheap to hire a publicist.
Yeah, but he really wasn’t ever attractive enough to be anything more than a wannabe. Yes, he had the attraction that money has for people, but that’s it.
Trump did manage to have his way with Lady Graham.
Who is Lady Graham? Lindsey Graham?
More commonly known as Lady G.
Thanks Bob for your comment.
So who is going to stand up and say these decisions shall not stand. Say this illegitimate court is the fruit of the poisoned tree. Trumputin a seditious traitor conspired to win an election with an authoritarian foriegn kleptocrat War Criminal . Then he almost ended our the inadequate experiment in Democracy we had.
Those 3. Justices should step down. .
Some how I doubt I will hear that from those who should be saying it .
x out our
Someone please wake Garland TF up.
How many times do I have to tell you to be quiet? He needs his rest.
If Garland hasn’t done anything so far, he ain’t going to do anything.
I’m beginning to wonder whose side he would be on if he were now sitting on the Supreme Court.
Sometimes people don’t turn out to be who you thought/hoped they were.
The fact that federal agents raided Jeffrey Clark’s home pre-dawn to search for something leads me to hope that the Justice Department is doing its job. Not with fanfare or press releases.
Diane I was thinking the same thing. The morning Jeffrey Home Search was the tipoff. Garland has to have the best case the JD has ever had. I think there is a method there. CBK
Yup. Remember when we were all waiting around for another Republican savior, Mueller?
Garland has actually been accused of “obstructing” the House investigation of Trump
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-oversight-chair-says-doj-obstructing-probe-trump-rcna23386
Not exactly reason for optimism.
Garland’s snail paced “investigation” has all the characteristics of a classic foot’drag.
He could have already indicted Trump if he really wanted to.
Face it, there has not been a legitimate legal attempt to hold a president accountable since Watergate. The efforts since we’re largely a joke. And if anything, the political pressures against such an effort today are probably greater than they have ever been.
Yeah. I’m afraid you are right, someDAM!
As a wise man once said, Garland should either Trump or get off the pot.
YES, please!
The Court actually has no way of enforcing the decisions without support from Congress and the President.
While this wouldn’t matter in the abortion case, since states banning abortion can just do as they please, it would matter in other cases. NY could ignore the supreme court ruling barring their concealed carry law.
GregB
At least you get a laugh out of me. Keep your passport handy .
SomeDAM Hysterical Poet
As well as the funding of religious schools.
I love it turning nullification on its head.
Would that ever piss off the Supremes.
Thomas would prolly blow a head gasket.
Yes, Maine could tell the religious schools to go to Hell.
And Thomas, Alito and the other four Dwarves couldn’t do a damned thing about it.
SDP– Turns out ME already did! Anticipating this decision, they revised their anti-discrimination law last year so that it applies to all private schools receiving public funds regardless of religious affiliation. That’s why both religious schools in the case told press they would not be applying for public funds no matter what the SCOTUS decision. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/opinion/supreme-court-guns-religion.html
Joel “. . . stepping down . . . ” It’s the Jenny Court.” CBK
If all this weren’t bad enough, we also have to listen to Collins and Manchin wailing about being misled by Brett “I’m not a rapist but I do like beer” K and Neilworm Gorsuch
I didn’t watch the Gorsuch confirmation, but anyone who watched K and believed a single word that he said (other than his name) is either brain dead or incorigibly dishonest.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/collins-manchin-misled-kavanaugh-gorsuch-abortion-rights-rcna35230
One part of Alito’s opinion that won’t let go of me is the phrase “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”. Interpreted as he means it, it is the essence of fascism. Although the Idiot has never read about fascism’s intellectual father, Maistre, I would be Alito is fairly well versed in him. Here, for example, it seems odd to use “this Nation’s history and tradition” as part of the justification for a legal opinion. Neither has any empirical value other than to inform the present. History for liberals is a series of guideposts leading to differing places. For far right conservatives, it is a tether to an immovable object.
And compare Alito’s phrase with what Isaiah Berlin wrote about Maistre: “In place of the ideals of progress, liberty, perfectibility he preached the sacredness of the past, the virtue, and the necessity, indeed, of complete subjection, because of the incurably bad and corrupt nature of man. In place of science, he preached the primacy of instinct, superstition, prejudice. In place of optimism, pessimism. In place of eternal harmony and eternal peace, the necessity—for him the divine necessity—of conflict, of suffering, of bloodshed, of war.” This Court is providing the legal framework for a smooth transition to American fascism.
“For far right conservatives, it is a tether to an immovable object.”
Perhaps you are correct, but that immovable object is a picture of history that is a shibboleth containing a Eurocentric view of human history. Every word in the constitution is viewed and filtered through that lens. This is why the justices can preach originalism and commit carnal sin against that exact concept.
For far right conservatives, it is a tether to an immovable object.
And ultimately, for Opus Dei types, to the Pope and through the Pope to God. Ultramontanism, which is the antithesis of democracy.
I have been making the argument that the Supreme Court needs to be much larger i order to assure that it continues to be an impartial judicial body. With only 9 justices, one president with an agenda can change the court in one term. If the court were much larger, a particular president would not have as much power. This would lead to more centrist judges, for the judges themselves would not be as individually powerful.
In a like manner, The House of Representatives should be way larger, as our population has grown considerably.
Finally, recent presidents elected with a minority of the popular vote indicate a sickness related to the electoral college. Because of this, we are all used to hearing about “swing states,” and not much about our state. The electoral college is responsible for the general passing over of much of the electorate. Why should a democrat campaign in Red Tennessee? This leads to a decrease in voting activity (precisely what the Republican Party has in mind) in important places. There are voters in certain states who have seen lifetimes of voting pass without ever having an influence on a winner.
The thing that puzzles me is the number of states that used to elect progressive senators but are now solid Red. Tennessee is one such.
By Gore’s decision to run as Clinton’s VP, Tennessee was past its stage as a typical southern democrat stronghold, split off by the southern strategy and the religious right. The interesting question now will be whether the odd alliance between business libertarians and religionists will hold
Roy-
It will hold as long as religionists steer voters to the pro-business party.
Roy-
To me, the more interesting question is how long the Democratic Party (Center for American Progress) can have it both ways- baby steps to correct income inequality, to protect public education, to protect minority rights etc. while satisfying international business oligarchs/ corporations. The number now who we can identify clearly as right wing, Chick-fil-A, Home Depot, Ashley Furniture, Hobby Lobby has the potential to grow exponentially if corporations whole heartedly abandon a pretense at being liberal.
The Supreme Court is an archaic, undemocratic relic of the past.
The idea that a modern democratic state let’s 9 (or any number) of unelected people (in ridiculous black robes, which are more than a little reminiscent of religious frocks, not incidentally) have the final say about the most far reaching and intimate aspects of our lives is just absurd.
If they actually adhered to the law and Constitution, there might be a reason for keeping them around to advise Congress on legal matters (not to be the ultimate Deciders)
But they don’t.
So what it comes down to is the fact that just six unelected, elitist, partisan individuals make decisions for 330 million people.
I think the time is long since past to pass an amendment to do away with this relic — along with the Senate, another elitist , undemocratic relic of the past that does nothing but throw wrenches in the works of government.
Make that “just five unelected,. “
Wow! SDP is ready to do away with the checks and balances?
You mean like the check the Supremes just put on the right of tens of millions of women to get an abortion?
And the way they “balanced” their ideological decision against the health and well being of those tens of millions?
A Supreme Court that makes arbitrary decisions based on little more than ideology (including religious ideology) is worse than none at all.
Just my opinion, of course.
The Supreme Court is a lot like a group of medieval monks.
Seriously, is this where we are still stuck after hundreds of years of scientific and technological development?
Listening to a group of monks making proclamations about a sacred scroll?
LOL. GREAT metaphor, SomeDAM!
Uh, analogy. It’s much closer than metaphor. Much, much closer.
SDP: Some of those medieval monks were pretty sharp. Not a bad gig growing grapes and praying as opposed to fighting the Vikings
They weren’t sharp enough to see that their incantations were bullshit.
LOL. Nailed it, SomeDAM!!!
You got it. We are ignoring the 9th Amendment
bingo
Freedom of conscience, freedom of faith, freedom of religion took the biggest hits today I have ever known in my lifetime. The U.S. has become a country where the phrase “Bully Pulpit” gets a Strange New Warp. We now live under the thrall of people who recognize no religion but what they affect to believe, whose minds are so closed they cannot imagine more than one way of being religious, indeed, more than one way of being Christian. Freedom to them is freedom to oppress.
Magnificently said, Jon. Thank you.
Yes.
Payback Time
Upon the bench
A sweet revenge
For “high tech lynch”
By Joe and friends
The decades passed
But hate did not
Within his grasp
Redress he’s got
Here’s what Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe said in 2018: “The John Roberts I’ve known since he was my student in constitutional law leans toward the right (Shelby County, Obergefell dissent) but searches for compromise (ACA) and is deeply committed to preserving the Court as a stabilizing nonpartisan force.
Leans toward the right?
Deeply committed to preserving the Court as a stabilizing nonpartisan force?
Ha ha ha
Guess he didn’t know his student very well.
Can you say “suckered”?
Here’s what we must do. We must say to these people, in clearly, in action and deed, “We will not comply.”
We will not comply.
Sorry. Go back to the 17th century. We will not comply.
We must say no to these people. We must pay for people to travel out of state for abortions, for them to receive medications in the mail. We must march and picket and vote. We must refuse to comply. And we must make true what Rachel Maddow said of the Supreme Court this evening, that it is “the dog that caught the car.”
Biden said in his speech today that medications would still go through the mails. Post offices are federal facilities. Interfering with their operations is a crime. Are states going to try to do that in order to stop medications from going through the mail? Biden threw down the gauntlet on that today. Good for him!!!!
So, this is how it begins. People doing DIY abortions with pills while not under the supervision and care of a doctor.
What could go wrong?
I think that the pills are safer than a lot of alternatives, just as long as people follow the instructions and don’t take it beyond the time recommended. Complications are rare.
Yes. Understood. That’s why I support Biden’s call for the Postal Service to continue sending them across state lines, even where they are prohibited. Did you catch his remarks about that yesterday? Surprising. He really threw down the gauntlet. I hope he follows through.
Stop all tax breaks for religious real estate scammers. Young people keep emptying out those anachronistic oppressive churches shoveling their anti-human jive. When you base modern democratic society upon violent sexist Bronze-age mythology you get what you pay for.
Thanks for the comment, Callisto.
Here’s some positive news on this front: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/opinion/supreme-court-guns-religion.html
I found this an invigorating read: See #s 3, 4, 5 for best paths forward: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/24/roe-supreme-court-forever-war/
Susan Collins advised us yesterday that lying religionists now rule our lives from SCOTUS.
Aided and abetted by lying Susan Collins.
Collins says she was “misled.” People in her office took notes while K spoke, and he gave explicit and repeated assurances that he would not vote to overturn Roe.
She is a fool and he is a liar.
Diane It’s even worse at SCOTUS when you remember the shenanigans of those liars actually getting on the Court, e.g., Mitch McConnell’s arbitrarily overriding the selection process. They have made a mockery out of the whole thing. And Collins isn’t the only one in Congress who is an ignorant naive optimist. The columns are crumbling. CBK
She’s such a poseur.
Incredulously, we are expected to believe that Manchin and Collins were surprised that right wing SCOTUS members of their own sect would lie. Religionists have built-in justifications that make lying easy.
(1) Advancing God’s will has no boundaries and, certainly democracy shouldn’t stand in the way e.g. Rusty Bowers is still a Trump supporter. (2) A person’s religion confers superiority upon them – the superior are entitled, man’s law doesn’t apply to them- the one and only true church. (3) Belief makes them into an all-knowing tribe. They’ve got talismans as proof and the words, objects, etc. are only accessible to the tribe. Outsiders’ deserve to be lied to because they are ignorant. (4) Religionists are made to think their sects are under attack, making all fair in love and war.
I can understand some men choosing patriarchy out of self-interest.
I think women who choose it are desperate, indoctrinated against women’s rights or are stupid.
Linda I think Rusty got it right about the Constitution being “divine inspired.” (Much more could be said about that in another context.) However, . . .
. . . what didn’t make sense was that, by still supporting Trump, he failed to understand that Trump is a direct threat to that same Constitution.
No one can look inside someone’s doctrinal thoughts, but that seemingly conflicting set of ideas puts an ideology of being “Republican” above even the Constitution and (what he thinks is) a divine-inspired document. <–IF SO, THERE’s the hypocrisy that he apparently is unaware of. In religious language, “REPUBLICAN” becomes the idol that, through people like Rusty, runs interference for those who would destroy the Constitution.
As an aside, I have often thought that, whatever/whomever God is, human irony is up-there on “their” list of loves. CBK
For those who say “Democrats had 50 yrs to codify Roe,” this is a faux talking point. Passage of Roe in 1973 was as shocking to the public as yesterday’s decision; the public was majority anti-abortion until about 1970, and evenly split on the issue in ‘70’s. At no time since 1973 has there been sufficient public support to get a law codifying Roe through Congress—and it 1992 they ditched it for Casey which allowed states to legislate more restrictions.
Actually, my “YES, please!” comment was directed to Bob Shepherd’s 6/24 3:48 PM comment.
All of your comments, actually, RE: mg substantiating my assertion that mg was yet another Obama (dis) appointment.
Linda: My comment went to moderation. CBK
Linda So you did a search and reached back to a 2012 opinion piece, and the State house of New Hampshire, to find such a quote which, under the guise of passive voice, you earlier put forth as a sweeping position of the Catholic Church. Incredible. Did you just think that already and THEN go fishing for a supportive quote? You should work for the propagandists on the other side. (BTW, it’s 2022 now.)
I like Diane’s site in part because I have come to think that most here at least try to clear their sources (or claim their ideas as their own), correct their errors when they make them, and try to see things fairly. In brief, I have learned to trust most here so that one need not check every reference or be suspicious with every statement that is written with the ring of truth to it . . . with some notable exceptions. CBK
Linda/June 25, 2022 at 7:35 pm/The Speaker of the N.H. House, William O’Brien (2012), and the Majority Leader of the N.H. House, D.J. Bettencourt (2012) made an impassioned defense for the position of the USCCB, repeatedly referencing the Catholic Church, “Obamacare Mandate an Assault on Religious Liberty” (an opinion letter posted in Foster’s Daily Democrat, 2-21-2012).
“On June 2012, SCOTUS decided in a 5-4 vote, that the Affordable Care Act is Constitutional”
correction, “In June 2012”
In 2022, the USCCB was not attempting to influence SCOTUS about ACA. In the intervening years since 2012, more conservative Catholic jurists have been added to the court and when a solid majority was achieved by McGahn, Cipillone and Leonard Leo (and, aided by conservative church politicking for Republican candidates), the USCCB’s influence moved on to abortion, prayers on the fields of public schools and taxpayers funding Catholic schools.
FYI ALL: This editorial just in from Commonweal (online) Magazine: A Lay Catholic publication exploring today’s issues. (See my emphases below, cbk)
“The End of Roe
“Nearly two months after Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was first leaked to the public, the Supreme Court has officially issued its decision repealing the constitutional right to abortion. It is clear that the new ruling does not provide a final resolution to this country’s fraught debate about abortion, and it would be a mistake for those who believe in the value of all human life to assume or pretend that it does.
“In their latest editorial, the editors discuss the political and social implications of the decision to overturn Roe. American opinion has long been split on abortion, and now American law will be too—between states where it’s banned or heavily restricted and states where it’s broadly permitted. It is likely that roughly half of the U.S. population will soon live under restrictions that would have been impossible before the new Supreme Court ruling. Meanwhile, a number of other states are codifying legal access to abortion, in many cases with minimal restrictions, with some calling themselves “sanctuaries” for women seeking abortions.
“The decision will also have serious consequences for the U.S. Church. In their insistence on treating abortion as the “pre-eminent” political priority, many bishops seem to have lost sight of the need to create a culture and society that values and protects all human life. In their headlong pursuit to outlaw abortion by any means necessary, they tied the institutional church to a political party hostile to the very policies that would help women and families raise children—a party now willing to abandon democracy in order to attain and keep power. Church leaders who use the Eucharist as a tool to enforce their single-issue politics alienate many ordinary Catholics, who understand intuitively that the legal and political dimensions of abortion are more complex and less certain than the moral issue.
“The editors write, ‘It is not a contradiction to seek to protect unborn children and also to be concerned about these and other possible consequences of overturning Roe.’ People who believe in the sanctity of all life, including the unborn, can recognize that abortion law is a particularly complicated matter because of the competing goods it must balance: the life of a child, the health and self-determination of the mother. The state has an interest in protecting both. Ultimately, ‘restricting access to abortion is morally irresponsible if it’s separated from fulfilling obligations to support women who are pregnant or might become pregnant.’
“You can read all of ‘The End of Roe’ here, and find more of Commonweal’s writing on abortion and law since Roe here.” CBK (my emphases)
editors@commonwealmagazine.org
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/end-roe?utm_source=Main+Reader+List&utm_campaign=922766f477-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_407bf353a2-922766f477-92562883
I subscribe to Commonweal. Good editorial!
I toyed with converting to Catholicism before I got married. My husband was raised Catholic and, of course, the church wanted us to raise any children as Catholics. I was willing to do so, but my husband never signed the papers. As it turned out, it became obvious to me that I could not accept many of the doctrines of the church. Catholic was just not me. I have heard that converting seems to bring out the desire to be an even better believer than those raised within a particular belief system. My Catholic friends are much more able to mold their faith to their lives with no guilt about “straying from the flock.” I am finding that trying to define any religion in narrow, rigid terms may very well miss the essence, which I can respect without embracing.
These meanderings are as clear as mud. I hope you can make more sense out of it than I did. Maybe it explains my discomfort with the attack on faith based beliefs systems that is not at all uncommon on this blog. Being “holier than thou” is certainly not restricted to those who believe in some creative force beyond physics.
speduktr I am not a “cradle Catholic” but joined relatively late in my life, around 10 years ago having come from an eclectic religious background where I was badgered by really stupid qua sick so-called religious relatives for years to be “saved” (puke). They did more to quash my interest in being a part of a religious community for years than to inspire it.
By happenstance (I was asked to give a philosophical seminar), I became acquainted with and attracted to the rich historical and intellectual tradition of the Jesuits and to many Catholic writers (a thread which comes through in the Commonweal and other groups), many who are women, through a local community at the time. So, in my unique situation, I found a similarly rich philosophical dialogue among more liberal-minded members who were also critical of the Church itself, from the inside. My work took me away from that area, however, but I remained with the Church, partly out of convenience, and sought and found through it a similar community of academics and others who brought more liberal thinking to that tradition.
As you might guess, I follow Francis and the more ecumenical threads and abhor what’s going on now in the overlord right-wing of the Church. I don’t see much there that is truly Christian. Though I am highly critical of the Church’s power players at present, to me, it’s worth remaining for many personal reasons. I am not “lapsed,” though some might disagree with that.
Like my own early experience with refusing to be “saved” by my relatives (we don’t even talk anymore), however, I think the constant and loud din of the idiots in all of the various Churches have done what they can to cover over what I find is enriching and much needed by the spirit in the secular community, and present if you get past all the cxxp. They give the impression, however, that THAT’s all there is to it and only offer what is most distorted about their own views, which is what most others are acquainted with.
I appreciate your thoughts. CBK
Speduktr-
Does an expectation of live and let live stop at the point where a democratic government takes away the right to be free from religion because one sect wants power and tax money? Should one ignore religion when it is the basis for laws and policies that reflect one sect’s man-interpreted mandates instead majority rule, minority right?
Are you serious? I don’t remember “live and let live” as part of the Constitution. That sounds rather libertarian to me, which is diametrically opposed to a democratic form of government, as far as I am concerned.
I don’t think the Constitution said anything about being “free” from religion either. The founders were interested in making sure that there would be no state religion. Over the past several decades we have let very conservative forces, religious and otherwise, build a power base that we now have to actively oppose. We cannot ignore the potential control of our society by a regressive minority, in this instance from the right. It took a powerful, deep-pocketed elite to engineer this attempt at a takeover. I hope it is not too late. You are unrelenting in your attack on the Catholic church. You come across as someone who wouldn’t eat pretzels because of the story, apocryphal or not, that Italian monks made them to represent praying hands/arms
In short, I don’t endorse bigotry of any kind.
So that I am clear on your logic- (1) I (with no power) call out those who have power, who ACT on their bigotry against women and against those of other faiths (or no faith) by taking away their rights (2) Are those two situations the same or different? (3) In your opinion, should I shut up in totality or, pretend the powerful religious behind the bigotry against women, gays,… has no name? (From my perspective, that is how we got to where we are.)
The evidence there is not discrimination against Catholics is the fact that the public has been gobsmacked, beginning in 2020, by SCOTUS’
advancement of the interests of the Catholic Church. Secondly, by the impunity with which Leonard Leo filled the courts with conservatives. Thirdly, the success of Paul Weyrich in promoting theocracy, including parallel schools to destroy public schools. And lastly, the public’s support (tax dollars) that led to Catholic organizations as the 3rd largest employer despite the fact that a significant number of them dispense with the civil rights that the American majority believe in.
There is a quote from Barbara Taylor Brown that Nancy Flanagan just used in her June 29 blog Teacher in a Strange Land, “Are Christians to Blame for the Political Mess We Find Ourselves In?” that captures how I feel. I don’t disagree with the dangers you point out; I am totally opposed to what the Supreme Court has been doing and the role conservative Christianity has played in it. There is good reason for maintaining the Constitution’s mandate on the separation of church and state. However, the situation we are in now is due to far more than a “Catholic cabal.”
Yes- it is the right wing Catholic political power (it is not a cabal because the Church’s power plays and successes have been in the open) and, it is right wing impact from other sources.
Adding, it is dangerous for women to have one in 6 hospitals following USCCB guidance and for those women to be unaware that the hospitals discriminate against women’s rights. A recent news article about St. Luke Hospital’s initial response in patient care after the state’s mandates followed Roe v Wade’s overturn makes clear a problem.
Linda One in six hospitals? So, we certainly should keep the public informed.
But this, and in the context of your other notes: it’s no wonder regular religious people so often feel on the defensive in an existential sense (“someone wants us entirely gone”). It’s such extremes that make for untenable conflict in a system that was set up to at least modify such conflicts, IF we can make that happen individually and concretely. What is it about that idea that you (apparently) do not understand?
Also, on a news show the other day, the historian Michael Beschloss referred to our present SCOTUS as a cabal, and our present trajectory as towards fascism. (He is not known for overblown argumentation.)
Of course, in common/ordinary language such terms can have many meanings, some of which are fuzzy. I knew what he meant by cabal, however, and I am guessing that you do too. CBK
FYI:
I was born in Houston at St. Joseph Hospital, staffed by nuns.
My older son was born in Augusta, Georgia, at St. Hoseph Hospital, staffed by nuns.
My younger son was born at Mt. Sinai Hospital, a nonsectarian hospital in NYC, probably founded by Jews.
Diane . . . for the former births in your note . . . not if extremist religion-haters were in charge . . . CBK
Linda: my reply/comment in moderation. CBK
Diane-
It is your privilege to believe that women with ectopic pregnancies, with fetuses no longer viable and, those in need of emergency contraception, will find the proper care at Catholic hospitals.
We will agree to disagree about the advisability of strengthening Catholic organizations (already the U.S.’ 3rd largest employer) in the current climate of SCOTUS- imposed theocracy. The ruling that exempts religious employers from civil rights employment law is of grave concern to me. The flagship Catholic Universities e.g. Notre Dame and Georgetown lagged considerably in admitting Black students.
Linda,
I don’t recall writing that “women with ectopic pregnancies, with fetuses no longer viable and, those in need of emergency contraception, will find the proper care at Catholic hospitals.” I said I was born in a Catholic hospital, and so was my older son. Those are facts.
Diane,
I appreciate that you give me the opportunity to warn women and the men who want the best for them about Catholic hospitals e.g. the immediate decision following Roe’s overturn by St. Luke’s in Kansas City.
Greg, in a more recent post thread than this one, wrote about Debbie Reynold’s experience in 1989 with a non-viable fetus.