Catching Roe: Republicans Face The Peril Of Success Of A Pro-Life Majority

Supreme CourtBelow is my column in USA Today on politics over Roe and the Supreme Court vacancy.  The new vacancy and the the earlier pro-life pledge of President Donald Trump is something of a bill come due for Republicans. It is a bill that some Republicans privately do not want to pay.

Here is the column:

“I’m like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn’t know what to do if I caught one.” That famous line  from the Joker in “The Dark Knight” could well be delivered by dozens of Republican senators this month. For decades, Republican politicians have run on pro-life platforms and promises to reverse Roe v. Wade with a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. That mantra was picked up most recently by President Donald Trump, who pledged to supporters that overturning Roe v. Wade “will happen, automatically” because he would appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.

The problem for the Republican Party is that Trump could actually succeed with the nominee he announces Monday to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Many Republicans say privately it is the last thing they want to happen, given the potential for backlash in House and Senate elections that could turn on thin margins. Polls put public support for Roe v. Wade as high as 70 percent, with a majority opposing a nominee who wants to reverse it.

That includes many of those suburban moms critical to the Republican majority. Roe is approaching 50 years, but it is still driving our political debate. It is one thing to chase a court and another thing to catch one.

Trump didn’t get the memo on abortion

The biggest concern in Washington is that Trump did not get the memo about sounding pro-life without actually being pro-life. One of the most fascinating aspects of the Trump administration is the remarkably high number of promises that Trump has actually kept. Voters are used to presidents discarding promises, or being unable to keep them, after they assume office.

Given his reputation for hyperbole and distortion, few really expected Trump to make good on many of his promises. Yet he has assembled an impressive record on deliverables, from tax cuts to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to dismantling Obamacare; from cracking down on illegal immigration and trade he calls unfair, to moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, to rolling back environmental and other regulations.

If Trump were to deliver on reversing Roe, he would have accomplished something that five Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, could not achieve for decades. In other words, Trump might just mean it, and that is precisely the problem for many senators.

More: Kennedy’s retirement threatens abortion rights even if Roe survives

Who should Trump nominate to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court?

Kennedy retirement plunges court into politics. Here’s how to turn down the heat.

Republican senators such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski support abortion rights, and Collins has said that a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade would “not be acceptable.” The question is whether such members are as serious in guaranteeing the continuation of Roe as Trump has been in pursuing its end.

For his part, Trump has announced that he “probably won’t” ask any nominee where he or she stand on the case. This would allow all sides to have plausible deniability, though virtually everyone on Trump’s list is believed to oppose the reasoning of Roe v. Wade. As a result, the only way for Collins to be sure about Roe v. Wade is to demand an express assurance that the decision will be preserved by the nominee. What she is likely to receive is the same meaningless mantra from nominees that they respect precedent and will keep an open mind.

Since 1973, Roe has been the perpetual motion machine of American politics. It is likely to remain so for the next 50 years — regardless of the nominee. Even if Trump’s nominee were to vote to overturn Roe, the new majority may find Chief Justice John Roberts a hard sell for a frontal attack on Roe as opposed to narrowing decisions along its edges.

Roberts is the ultimate institutionalist and might get sticker shock from the political price of directly overturning the decision. (Roberts broke from the conservative wing to save Obamacare in 2012 rather than disrupt heath care coverage across the nation.)

Political momentum for abortion rights

However, even if Roe were overturned, the political controversy would only shift to the states, where each state would vote on the availability of abortions. Most states would likely protect the right.

Indeed, in 2013 Ruth Bader Ginsburg surprised an audience at the University of Chicago by saying that Roe v. Wade may have been a mistake in such a sweeping form. She said the politics of the decision were not good for the pro-choice cause: “That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly. … My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.”

That momentum would likely be regained by any reversal of Roe, given the overwhelming majority that supports the right. Indeed, Ginsburg’s comment might prove prophetic if Roe is kept barely alive by the court. On a political level, it might be better for pro-choice advocates to see the opinion overturned entirely rather than left effectively dead by a thousand paper cuts.

If Roe lives, even in a greatly reduced form, the right will continue to reside in the Supreme Court. If it is overturned, momentum will likely approach madness as an estimated 70 percent of the country move to recreate the right in their states.

That is the car that Republicans fear to catch.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, where he teaches constitutional and tort law. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

265 thoughts on “Catching Roe: Republicans Face The Peril Of Success Of A Pro-Life Majority”

  1. The appropriate response to questioning on Roe v. Wade by anyone is

    “The Supreme Court doesn’t take sides on abortion as such. It upholds the Constitution and whether lower courts obeyed the Constitution and the intent of the lawmakers who drafted laws at the center of disputed rulings. If I am confirmed, I won’t know where I stand on Roe v. Wade until I’ve heard arguments from both sides and conferred with the other Justices. I don’t have anything else to say on the subject.”

    That probably won’t shut the chiliasts on both sides of the debate up, but in a perfect world, it would.

    1. It’s a BS answer. Why should it shut anyone up?

  2. I lament of times past when politicians were not as interwoven into the general thought processes of individuals who are unwilling to allow topics of other interest or discussion to purely provide meaningful ideas.

    Here, the topic at hand is a race horse’s demise, and the almost obligatory example comment:

    …also working against Green Monkey [the horse] was some casual knowledge of Hillary Clinton’s many crimes…he risked being another victim of “Arkancide,” like Seth Rich and many others.

    1. Really sad when such a young horse struggles with laminitis and then is ultimately lost.

      It’s quite a painful affliction. When he founders, the coffin bone can rotate or even detach from the hoof capsule. That’s why, when it’s bad, they can’t keep their feet and have to be put down.

      Since he was so young, he may have had a metabolic condition that made him more susceptible. Or there are many other causes. Poor laddie.

  3. roe v wade was judicial legislation. but overturning it would be more of the same. if abortion is to be restricted then it should be done legislatively.

    republicans have not wanted to change this all along. they could have stripped the SCOTUS of jurisdiction all along. it’s an article III court and they can define jurisdiction under the constitution. hello!

  4. Congress must be shaking in their elegant chairs. My God. They might have to legislate yet another tough issue they have run from for decades.

    To further insert irony in this predicament, the “Roe” in this case, Norma McCorvey, is now pro-life and has spent many years fighting to overturn her landmark court case.

    “I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought ‘legal’ child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie,” she said in the ad. “Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave. Please, don’t follow in my mistakes. DO NOT vote for Obama. Obama murders babies.”

    “Back in 1973, I was a very confused twenty-one year old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy,” she says in the ad. “At the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had an abortion.”

    “I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie…. I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name,” McCorvey says.”

    Does it change anything that the entire premise of Rove v Wade, rape, was a lie made for political purposes?

    I truly believe that most Pro-Choice people have more in common than Pro-Life than they think. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people agree that there needs to at least be restrictions on abortion. For instance, there is very little support for killing a full-term fetus. The limit “has not yet drawn air” is arbitrary. Full term abortions do not save the mother from any risk of labor and deliver. She still has to deliver the child, who has his spinal cord cut in the birth canal.

    Having an abortion in the second trimester also involves fully dilating the cervix. Only, the child is dismembered in the womb and taken out in pieces. That’s not “a ball of cells”. That’s the blastula stage of development, which lasts but a moment and is long past by the time the mother learns she is pregnant.

    So here is where we are at. As a nation, we are united in opposing infanticide. If you give birth to a baby, you cannot smother her in a plastic bag and throw her body in the trash. That’s murder, without question. We are nearly united in feeling the same way about a full term baby, who is killed in the process of being born through induced labor. Many people support preventives like One Step, which prevents implantation of an embryo.

    One can argue that it is no one’s business if a woman gets an abortion. But the majority of Americans do find it their business if a woman deliberately kills her baby during birth, or at any time thereafter. At some point, whether they will admit it or not, most Americans believe the baby has a right to live more than the mother has a right to decide whether to give birth.

    So…when does that right kick in? This is one of the hardest arguments we have to make, because it doesn’t just affect us personally. We are making decisions that will impact others. The discussion does have to take place, however. We already agree that we have the right to stop a mother from killing her full term baby the second before he draws breath. Is that the limit? 9 months? What about 8 months? 7 months? When he feels pain? When he is formed? At what point does that girl or boy in there have the right to live and not be harmed by another person?

    I always assumed I was Pro Choice. That’s what every girl I knew was. Then when I was pregnant, I had an ultrasound at 10 weeks. My little peanut was adorable in there, and reacted at the pressure of the sonogram. I could hear his little heart beating like a hummingbird. All of a sudden, I realized that this was the gestation where many women abort, or even later. It was sobering, when I felt such intense protectiveness.

    It is also sobering to see the remnants of Progressive Eugenics. It is still encouraged as the right thing to do to abort babies with Downs Syndrome, often at quite late gestations.

    What about the father’s rights? What if he wanted to save his child but the mother wanted to kill him? What if there were no restrictions at all on abortion, and the mother could choose to kill her full term baby in the birth canal, after undergoing the trial of labor, and there was not a darn thing the father could do about it? Would that be a civilized society?

    I still haven’t solidified exactly where I stand on this. Where do the mother’s rights end and the child’s take precedence?

    I honestly think that people have a responsibility to learn about gestation and what actually happens in an abortion in order to make an informed decision, not only for themselves, personally, but in voting.

    We have got to figure this out as a community.

    1. I found the video of the abortion provider describing a 24 week abortion to be compelling. Inhumane. Does a mother have the right to do that to a child 16 weeks away from delivery, to a baby the size of a hand and a half, whom she has felt kick for a month? To rip him apart one piece at a time, when he is still alive and struggling? When he can feel pain and fear?

      Is that a civilized society?

      Her cervix still got dilated. She still felt those labor pains of dilation. What if her life was not in danger and she just didn’t want to have to give her live baby up for adoption, and would rather he die instead? On the other hand, what if she had cancer and could not start treatment while pregnant?

      Tough decisions require us to face all of the difficult facts.

  5. Turley beaten to the punch:

    Roe Block
    Why the Republicans don’t actually want to repeal Roe v. Wade
    William Saletan
    2018 Jul 03

    Same arguments, better presentation. So there.

  6. If Democrats had political courage and brains, they would use the abortion issue to their advantage, rather than be afraid of it.

    Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer should immediately propose a vote on a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade. Give Republicans what they want and let Republicans go on the record on eliminating abortion rights.

    Any Republican voting against it would enrage the party base and disillusion their voters. Any Republican voting for it would be seen as radicals who want to amend the constitution to support a minority position.

    This would be a savvy political strategy, since over 50% of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

    It would also be Armageddon for the Christian Right. But Pelosi and Schumer are too spineless or brainless to do it. It is why we need new congressional leadership.

    1. You realize that Ryan and McConnell would not let such a Democratic measure up for a vote. They control their respective calendars.

      1. They might allow for a vote if Pelosi and Schumer had a public press conference proposing such an amendment. McConnell and Ryan’s base are itching for a vote on a constitutional amendment overturning Roe and would pressure them into allowing one.

  7. Perhaps the new Trump Court will allow each state to decide if they wish to have abortions legal. That would be a good thing. Then pregnant moms can move to a state which allows abortions and get one. Trump might be happy with that. States Rights!

  8. Can’t trust these republicans to appoint good justices. After Lincoln appointed Ruth Balter Ginsburg I just don’t trust them anymore.

  9. The American Founders established a restricted-vote republic not an ochlocracy or one man, one vote “democracy,” in which the unwashed masses may engage in any activity they desire. Laws are to be obeyed not violated. Fundamental law, such as the Ten Commandments and Constitution, necessarily provide a rational human structure. The abortion travesty is emblematic of the mob rule that has persisted in America from “Crazy Abe’s” unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” when the Constitution was first voided, through the “Progressive” implementation of the anti-constitutional principles of communism – control of the means of production, central planning, redistribution of wealth and social engineering, all the way up to the unconstitutional ensconcement of a wholly ineligible, unconstitutional president. The Constitution was intended to hold dominion in perpetuity, but at the inflection point of the totalitarian Lincoln debacle, fundamental law began its evolution into the “If it feels good, do it” anarchy of the prevailing ochlocracy.

    1. Please post more of this type of material. It reassures me that real people are safe from contact with you while you are distracted posting your ridiculous and nonsensical screed here.

      this is to “just wait and see what I post when this new batch of “shine” is ready” georgie

  10. I remember another election some time ago when a Virginia Republican, Marshall Coleman, launched a campaign against an upstart black Virginia politician and joined the battle on the issue of outlawing abortion. Virginia women heard the trumpet and Virginia elected Doug Wilder, the first black Virginia governor since Reconstruction.

    1. Woman Suffrage
      By Emma Goldman

      Thus woman has been the greatest supporter of all deities from time immemorial. …the Christian religion has no greater supporter, none more devout, than woman

      The most ardent churchworkers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body.

      …the greatest supporter and worshiper of war is woman

      …suffrage is an evil, that it has only helped to enslave people, that it has but closed their eyes that they may not see how craftily they were made to submit

      Woman, essentially a purist, is naturally bigotted and relentless in her effort to make others as good as she thinks they ought to be

      American hypocrisy and bigotry, so manifest in the principle of Prohibition, which sanctions the spread of drunkenness among men and women of the rich class, yet keeps vigilant watch on the only place left to the poor man.

      …woman’s narrow and purist attitude toward life makes her a greater danger to liberty wherever she has political power

      If her body can be bought in return for material consideration, why not her vote?

      Her life–long economic parasitism has utterly blurred her conception of the meaning of equality

      Else how is one to account for the tremendous, truly gigantic effort set in motion by those valiant fighters for a wretched little bill which will benefit a handful of propertied ladies, with absolutely no provision for the vast mass of workingwomen?

      …the economically superior class, and that the latter already enjoy too much power by virtue of their economic superiority. little sense of justice when they concern themselves not at all with those whom, as they claim, it might serve most.

      What would become of these idle, parasitic ladies, who squander more in a week than their victims earn in a year, if not for the eighty million wage workers?

      In her exalted conceit she does not see how truly enslaved she is, not so much by man, as by her own silly notions and traditions.

      In the darkest of all countries, Russia, with her absolute despotism, woman has become man’s equal, not through the ballot, but by her will to be and to do.

      1. “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop.”

        Women have been idled by illegal and undesirable invasion and immigration.

        Women are not contributing naturally to the nation, they are killing it.

        90% of the global population is non-European.

        Women are not making the population.

        The population is being imported.

        The American fertilization rate is in a “death spiral.”

        The nation is being undermined and destroyed.

        Foreign invasion is “fundamentally transforming” America.

        In 100 years, there won’t be an American left in America.

        Repeal the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments.

        These amendments have not only “injured the Constitution,”

        they have mortally wounded the United States of America.

        “…if there are amendments…as will not injure the constitution,…”

        James Madison
        Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

        ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

  11. Somehow I don’t think Roe v Wade will be overturned. But I do think there may be a new wrinkle added to it.

    1. That’s the dilemma.

      Republicans will soon be able to abolish abortion.

      Under the feckless direction of McConnell, Boehner et al. they have not been equal to the task.

      Trump must lead conscientiously.

      1. More typical progressive twat baloney. Overturning Roe turns the debate over to the States, from whence it should never have been stolen. Only a liar and/or brainless idiot progressive like yourself (one and the same) thinks overturning Roe “outlaws” abortion.

        Does the fact that progressives have a high religious sacrament called “abortion” justify killing 60M unborn innocent Americans?

  12. The current result of Roe:
    1st Trimester: no reason is required to justify an abortion
    2nd Trimester: any reason is required to justify an abortion
    3rd Trimester: a specific reason is required to justify an abortion, such as “the baby gives the mom a headache,” or “I prefer a male over the female gender of my baby.”

    Above is absolute truth, not hyperbole. Taxpayers currently and daily fund gender preference abortions.

    Show video of a typical 3rd trimester abortion, tell voters/taxpayers that Roe requires they purchase 3rd trimester gender preference abortions, redo the Roe v. Wade poll, and show the results. I’ll bet 10 to 1 <30% approval v. the stated 70% approval.

      1. I dunno. I just don’t like to see helpless innocents dismembered by perverted gynecologists. I’m funny that way.

      2. Peter Shill evidently thinks women reproduce via parthenogenesis.

        1. I think it’s strange that Republicans who deny climate change and gun violence are so obsessed with the unborn. Its seem disingenuous, of course. Like their priorities aren’t really consistent.

      3. Thanks for confirming a zygote is a one celled human being, and Roe caused over 60M innocent American unborn deaths.

        1. Unfortunately for you and others of your ilk who hide behind the make-believe bodies of imaginary “children,” women are now in control of their own lives and are no longer the chattel property of their nearest male relative. That control necessarily included the decision to use birth control, which Roe guaranteed. Moreover, even were Roe overturned, you’d still have great difficulty convincing any females to interact with you with any more intimacy than that one uses in paying for their dry-cleaning. So, your problem is not remedied by attempting to reassert control over women, your problem more accurately resides in the fact that you are a moral, ethical, social and political, reactionary troglodyte.

          this is to “ya, iffen I really cared about ‘children’ I’d be against the new concentration camps my klavern leader set up” joey

          1. Mark M:

            I see your point.

            However, full term abortions are illegal. At some point, the baby’s right does supersede the mother’s right to kill what is growing inside her body.

            The overwhelming majority oppose full term abortions. So, that means that they agree that at some point, the unborn child’s right to live and not be purposefully harmed, supersedes the woman’s right over what’s growing inside her body.

            The question is, at what point does the child have that right? Because society does recognize that it exists. Does it kick in at 9 months? 8? 7? It’s not a biological question, but a cultural one.

            As long as both sides use rhetoric casting the other as evil, there cannot be meaningful discussion. This is one of the toughest issues to discuss of modern times. We should not shy away from just talking about it, from all points of view. I think that all sides can bring valuable contributions to the discussion.

    1. Except that the companion case eliminated the capacity of legislatures to regulate anything. In effect, it’s abortion on demand all the way down.

  13. Jon has repeated Fox/Breitbart’s campaign slogan about “promises kept”. How difficult is it to sign “Executive Orders” drafted by someone else? How is this an accomplishment? Do the majority of Americans really want environmental and consumer protections rolled back? Do most Americans want children and infants placed in cages? Jon speaks of Trump “delivering” on appointing extremely conservative judges, as if the nominees weren’t handed to him by Breitbart. That’s who’s really running the White House, and as long as they line up the cheering throngs of racist rubes, Trump is happy to keep playing President. The problem is, he’s just a malignant narcissist with no agenda other than personal aggrandizement, being used by people with an agenda repugnant to most Americans, and which has serious consequences for cherished rights going forward.

    1. Your magic “black” lesbian Congresswoman Kamala Harris bragged to Trump that she is an ex-prosecutor who put people behind bars, IOW, she’s better than Trump in that way.

      Q to you and any Progressive: when Kamala Harris put people behind bars, were those criminals separated from their children? The answer is yes. Kamala separated parents and children.

      Progressives demand more rights for foreigners who commit crimes (enter illegally v. walk up to the port of entrance) than American citizens. Any foreigner who walks up to a port of entry (the legal method) and claims refugee status IS NOT SEPARTED FROM THEIR CHILDREN. Foreigners who commit a crime (usually with the help of a profit motive criminal human smuggler AKA Coyote), is a criminal who loses their right of possession of their child (or should).

      Interesting that you care nothing about the children who die attempting to illegally cross the border, and/or those who succumb to rape and child trafficking.

      The reason that progressives and GOP business owners hate the wall is because the wall would work.

      Pray tell, how exactly do poor Americans who live in ghettos benefit by the influx of illegal illiterates? Do such illegals cause already skyrocketing rent prices to increase or decrease?

      1. This is nonsense starting with the claim that Sen. Harris is a lesbian. Same kind of crap you used to spout about Hillary.

        1. Every Democrat just happens to be gay. Like Obama for instance. According to right-wing media he is really gay. No straight man can love tall, dark-skinned women.

          1. hollywood – ah, but is she a woman? Have you seen the two photos of her adjusting her junk?

            1. No, and I haven’t seen any of you adjusting your junk, assuming you have some that can be found.

              1. hollywood – my junk can be easily found by the right person, my wife. 😉

                  1. hollywood – we have been happily married for over 40 years, she has never needed a magnifying glass. My junk has been self-evident. 😉

          2. According to right-wing media he is really gay.

            In Peter Shill’s mind, some random dude in a combox is ‘right-wing media’.

      2. Joseph, you should watch the Hannah Gadsby special on NetFlix and get back to us.

      3. How is that incel life working for you? Note every woman who spurns you is not a lesbian.

  14. When a political party tells us from their soapbox for years about individual rights and liberty’s for it’s citizens and they are the first ones that will take that individual’s rights and liberty’s away, maybe we should sit down and think who is doing the talking and who is taking the rights.

    1. There are interested parties other than the woman in question. Not that knuckleheads like Ellen Goodman and Eleanor Smeal give any thought to them.

  15. Thank you Paul. You hear bits and pieces of things over time, but somehow you often don’t get the complete picture.

  16. Once upon a time, weren’t the senators appointed by the state legislatures to go to Washington and represent the state governments. And the congressmen were elected by the people in their districts to represent them. Then somebody got it fixed so the people also elected the senators. Each state got 2 Senators so that at that level things would be equal among the states. This is what I was led to believe. I’m an old dog, but I can still learn new tricks. Let me know if this is inaccurate.

    1. Independent Bob – there were twelve amendments sent to the states for approval, only ten survived. One had direct election of Senators the other had a new Representative for every 50,000 people in the population of the state.

      1. Three amendments were improperly and corruptly proposed and ratified during post-war military occupation subsequent to a war that no one wanted but was forced upon them by a zealot who executed despotic,unconstitutional, criminal acts in office.

        1. Haha. Please. Post. More. Just. Like. This.

          this is to “Lincoln was from Kenya, too” georgie


    Hard-hitting cops pursue cold-hearted women and cynical doctors.


    Would we really want to see cops bust mothers in front of their children? “Your mommy’s going to jail because she killed your little brother”. Or, “Your kids are going to foster homes while you do twenty years”. Or, “I don’t care if your job paid minimum wage. That’s no excuse for murder!”

    Let’s be honest here. A show with this title and dialogue would be so absolutely detested that the writers have to seek witness protection.

    1. so we are supposed to continue to allow the killing of the unborn, because someone might make a tv program about it and it wouldn’t be popular? really?

      1. How about the killing of the unconceived? Think of all the millions and billions (divided by two) killed off after every ejaculation?

        1. By the way, I would be willing to bet that before long, medical science will be able to create a complete embryo from either an unfertilized egg or a sperm. There are some animals which accomplish this trick. How hard can it be for humans?

  18. Said it before and here once again. Do NOT use the other sides redefinitions it’s like saying “You win I lose.” The hard corps right is just as far to the right in their beliefs to the exclusion of all else including the Constitution as the hard corps left is in their direction. They are not really left and right at all but just off the Constitutional Charts.

    In a Constitutional Republic the center IS the Constitution. As long as one finger or toe is in that center there is some hope at the very least as the common factor is a Constitutionalist always puts our Republic form of government first and lists in some sort of priority all their other concerns.

    The so called left meaning socialist internationalists, and the so called right meaning the socialist nationalists and a mixture of the two called progressives are at this point in time completely divorced from our representative Constitutional Republic. Cutesey fartsy names like Hill Republican or Moderate Republicans (aka RINOs) and their counterpart the DINOs attempt to recast themselves as something they are not.

    Some of the GOP, in order to hold office and damn few of the DNC for the same reason but that trend is growing (e.g. Colin Lamb) are Constitutionalists.

    So the time has come to cast aside phony labels and damn the media. For the most part they have lost all credibility.

    The newest entry to politics and far more honest than the DNC is the American Socialist Party. They have no connection with the Constitution and openly state that position. There is a small but but very nervous group of Independent Democrats aka Independent Constitutional Democrats. So far they have not proven their political worth in other than a few votes on nominations etc. Can’t blame them . Who wants to be first to tell Stalin Communism sucks? The left though has shattered not coalesced.

    There is also a growing trend mostly of independents and part of the GOP The Constitutional Republic Party. and the idea of forming and supporting the Constitutional Centrist Coalition. Two different things two different approaches. Same end result Is it Constitutional. If Not why not and what if anything needs changing legally through the amendment system or through a SCOTUS ruling. So far this is the only attempt to make the party system work instead of letting it become a mirror image of the other extremists

    At present both are needed. GOP without the moderate independent self governing citizens would have lost big time. The DNC for the same reason reversed did lose big time but the ideas is KISS proof. Constitution first Republic second All other issues ini priority order depending on which CR faction or CCC faction is concerned. One to provide a party base and one to provide a pool of supporting voters who may or may not agree on certain concerns at certain times But all Constitutional at the core.

    Consider the current setup.

    If any member of the left or right asks any nominee for SCOTUS anything to do with religion they have committed a felony under Constitutional law.

    If any member fo the Senate or the Congress or any government official or member of the judiciary or military does not honor it’s Oath of Office which is plainly stated as a requirement of office they have a commited a Constitutional felony.

    Not a slap on the wrist nose in the corner for five minutes misdemeanor not even a high misdemeanor but a felony.

    Automatic removal from office and ejection from the government as a result.

    All clearly stated in the opening portion of the Constitution.

    The follow on is an examination of citizenship including the franchise.

    And then a consideration of legal changes. such as a census based on citizen status not on the accidental passimg through vistor from another country status.

    1. “The newest entry to politics and far more honest than the DNC is the American Socialist Party. They have no connection with the Constitution and openly state that position.”

      Even though in doing so they are rejecting citizenship a point they have certainly not considered nor discussed. The same applies to the immigrants who fail to assimilate to an acceptable degree in our culture.

      Problem is much the same. If you reject citizenship by violating the first sentence of oath of office or citizenship why should you have any standing at all in our political system? The answer is they should not have any standing. and their mere presence should be questioned.

      But that is not something that can be fixed with an executive order or something called a congressional ‘deem’ it takes a full amendment. As does changing electoral college or the equally noxious 60 as a majority. That one is a result of the Party system having next to no constitutional controls and is equalled only by giving any one branch the authority of all three or money as free speech including foreign money or money that has no geopolitical validity in an election. .

Comments are closed.