Or not.
"Forget sharks; hookworms are lurking at the beach. Sharks will tear open your flesh. Jellyfish will double you over in pain. And now, another villain has joined the list of threats at the beach. Beware of hookworms lurking in the sand. A teenager from Memphis was attacked by hookworms after his friends buried him in the sand at Pompano Beach, his mother says." -- Florida Sun Sentinel
Should we let go of Roe?
With Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court short-circuited the political debate that we needed to have about abortion if the issue was ever to be successfully terminated. It appears that the court is about to short-circuit debate again, with untold harm befalling countless women and families. But
Required reading:
✓ "How can someone who calls herself pro-choice oppose Roe v. Wade? Let me count the ways: Let Roe Go by Megan McArdle (Washington Post).
Extra credit:
✓ Europeans may have stricter abortion laws, but Americans have less abortion access: Abortion Is Different in Europe Because Religion Is Different in Europe by Amanda Marcotte (Slate).
✓ Why Is the US Still Hung Up on the Abortion Debate? A Bioethics Perspective by George Dvorsky (io9).
✓ Leo Varadkar vows legal terminations by end of year after huge vote for change: Ireland votes by landslide to legalise abortion (Guardian).
✓ A proposed law to ban abortion outright has sent thousands of Poles onto the streets, coat hangers held aloft and drawn on posters -- a long-standing symbol of dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions: 'Coat Hanger Rebellion' Grips Poland by Cassandra Vinograd and Eva Gallica (NBC News)
Without Diana Ross, The Supremes couldn't cut it
But the Supremes without Anthony Kennedy won't change a whit. So he hit a few left notes right: he was no moderate.
Three Blue Dog Democrats, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, met with Donald Trump at the White House last week, along with GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley, to discuss the president's plans to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary ideologues.
So far they claim to be in wait-and-see mode, all having raised doubts about whether they would vote for a nominee with a record of opposition to Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act.
But talk is cheap: Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp all crossed the aisle last year to support Rightist blowhard now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, as terrible an appointment as anyone Trump is likely to unearth.
The Democrats have the power to shut down the Senate until they get a satisfactory compromise nominee or the election happens, whichever comes first. Or, for that matter, to achieve any other goal they're serious about (DACA, say).
For Democrats, unfortunately, being able to do something and doing something are two very different matters.
Or: they could hold out for changes to the terms of judges. The primary argument for lifetime appointments, judicial independence, a horse that escaped from the barn years ago, is as well served by single terms longer than a president's two. If justices were limited to 12-year appointments, say, they would still be independent, but you would no longer have the incumbent party trying to control the judiciary decades after it has left office.
An interesting sidebar is what should happen to the terms of justices currently ensconced on the court that exceed the new limit, especially since removing them simultaneously would require also that several new judges be appointed at once. But in politics everything is negotiable. There is nothing impractical in working out a formula to dispose of the longest-serving justices (who are Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito, the latter, conveniently, having been there 12 years) if their removal supported the intention of the reform.
With the promise of more turnover, any single appointment would be less fraught. The Democrats would lose the opportunity to influence this court seat, but by forcing a change to termed justices they might make future appointments less contentious for being less momentous.
Extra credit:
✓ If Democrats refuse to participate in roll call votes, the Senate will come to a halt for lack of a quorum: How Democrats can shut down the Senate by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ Quorum-breaking can be very disruptive but does not provide a long-term option for blocking a Supreme Court nomination: How Democrats can shut down the Senate, part II by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ How can someone who calls herself pro-choice oppose Roe v. Wade? Let me count the ways: Let Roe go by Megan McArdle (Washington Post).
✓ “Massive numbers of women resisted the law” -- a historian on life before Roe: The secret lives of women before Roe v. Wade by Rickie Solinger (Vox).
✓ A testy exchange with Dianne Feinstein helped make a former Notre Dame law professor a favorite of conservatives: How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist by Eliana Johnson (Politico).
✓ Humans are living longer. That means judges are serving longer, too: It’s Time to Retire Lifetime Appointments for Supreme Court Justices by Adrienne LaFrance (Slate).
Three Blue Dog Democrats, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, met with Donald Trump at the White House last week, along with GOP Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley, to discuss the president's plans to pack the Supreme Court with reactionary ideologues.
So far they claim to be in wait-and-see mode, all having raised doubts about whether they would vote for a nominee with a record of opposition to Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act.
But talk is cheap: Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp all crossed the aisle last year to support Rightist blowhard now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, as terrible an appointment as anyone Trump is likely to unearth.
The Democrats have the power to shut down the Senate until they get a satisfactory compromise nominee or the election happens, whichever comes first. Or, for that matter, to achieve any other goal they're serious about (DACA, say).
For Democrats, unfortunately, being able to do something and doing something are two very different matters.
Or: they could hold out for changes to the terms of judges. The primary argument for lifetime appointments, judicial independence, a horse that escaped from the barn years ago, is as well served by single terms longer than a president's two. If justices were limited to 12-year appointments, say, they would still be independent, but you would no longer have the incumbent party trying to control the judiciary decades after it has left office.
An interesting sidebar is what should happen to the terms of justices currently ensconced on the court that exceed the new limit, especially since removing them simultaneously would require also that several new judges be appointed at once. But in politics everything is negotiable. There is nothing impractical in working out a formula to dispose of the longest-serving justices (who are Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer and Alito, the latter, conveniently, having been there 12 years) if their removal supported the intention of the reform.
With the promise of more turnover, any single appointment would be less fraught. The Democrats would lose the opportunity to influence this court seat, but by forcing a change to termed justices they might make future appointments less contentious for being less momentous.
Extra credit:
✓ If Democrats refuse to participate in roll call votes, the Senate will come to a halt for lack of a quorum: How Democrats can shut down the Senate by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ Quorum-breaking can be very disruptive but does not provide a long-term option for blocking a Supreme Court nomination: How Democrats can shut down the Senate, part II by Gregory Koger (Vox/Mischiefs of Faction).
✓ How can someone who calls herself pro-choice oppose Roe v. Wade? Let me count the ways: Let Roe go by Megan McArdle (Washington Post).
✓ “Massive numbers of women resisted the law” -- a historian on life before Roe: The secret lives of women before Roe v. Wade by Rickie Solinger (Vox).
✓ A testy exchange with Dianne Feinstein helped make a former Notre Dame law professor a favorite of conservatives: How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist by Eliana Johnson (Politico).
✓ Humans are living longer. That means judges are serving longer, too: It’s Time to Retire Lifetime Appointments for Supreme Court Justices by Adrienne LaFrance (Slate).
حبيبتي ، بيبي ، تقود سيارتي.
Palestinian cellist Naseem Alatrash and Syrian singer Nano Raies produced this rendition of the Beatles’ 1965 song “Drive My Car” to celebrate of the lifting of the Saudi women’s driving ban. Alatrash arranged the piece, arabizing it both lyrically and vocally, while Raies provided the vocal. ref
Aspirational thought o' the day
When Andrés Manuel López Obrador presides in Mexico, Jeremy Corbyn is British prime minister, and Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is president of the United States, what a better world this will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
