A new Gallup poll shows some interesting insights into the approval of the Supreme Court after its major rulings on abortion, guns, and other issues. The overall approval of the Supreme Court at 43 percent actually increased three points. While within the margin of error, it was up from last year’s 40% popularity. The poll comes after the surprising comments of Justice Elena Kagan that the Court may be losing legitimacy by bucking public opinion on issues like abortion.
The slight increase is not due to a stable base of supporters but rather the shift among Democrats and Republicans. The most significant shift was among Republicans from 29 percent to 72 percent support. This offset a decline among Democrats from 23 percent to 13 percent.
The 43 percent rating puts the Supreme Court roughly where it landed in 2005, 2013, 2014, 2016, and last year.
Among independents, approvals remains around 40 percent (a slight decrease but consistent with prior years).
There is also a sharp difference on gender with disapproval by women at 61 percent as opposed to 49 percent among men.
The low level of support among Democrats is alarming given the push among Democrats to pack the Court with an immediate liberal majority and other reckless proposals. Now that the Court has a conservative majority, many Democrats have turned on the Court and its members.
Kagan’s comment seemed consistent with the criticism of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) that the Court was improperly departing from “widely held public opinion.” Warren used the complaint to justify her call for raw court packing to produce an instant liberal majority.
The poll, however, shows a deep division on the Court and its legitimacy after the recent rulings. The overall approval rate shows substantial support for the Court despite dramatic shifts based on political affiliation.
The 43 percent approval rating is still far better than the 18 percent for Congress in Gallop polling. That is half of the peak for Congress last Spring, which was only 36 percent. It is also higher than the approval rating for President Biden, which stands at 38 percent.
Fortunately, the Court is designed to resist such pressures and polling. Justices are expected not to reflect the demands of public polling but the demands of the Constitution in ruling on cases.
Court Is Strongest With Older, Republican Males
But Weak With Everyone Else
These key passages below are from the Gallup poll linked by Professor Turley. The professor would like us to think this poll reflects the court’s resilience despite unpopular rulings. But if one looks closely, support for this court is limited to older, male conservatives.
***
One of the most glaring differences is among women and men, with a 12-percentage-point difference in disapproval between the two genders, 61% vs. 49%.
There were also important differences across age groups, as younger Americans, those aged 18-29 (62%) and 30-49 (60%), were more likely to disapprove of the job the court is doing than Americans who are 50 and older (49%).
…………………………………………………………………
The poll says that 61% of all women disapprove of this court. And at least 60% of everyone under 50 disapproves of this court.
One could argue that these numbers are ‘not’ a ringing endorsement of this court’s legitimacy. The court has basically lost the vast majority of women and most everyone under 50. To frame this as ‘good news’ strains credibility.
The court has basically lost the vast majority of women and most everyone under 50.
Then why all the drama? The “vast majority of the women” will elect legislators to pass the laws they desire. You spend a lot time dithering on, about the desires of majority. But you ignore that exact same majority will get the laws they deserve through the legislative process
The professor would like us to think…
I’m sure he would, Paint Chips. That’s cherry-picking data and then drawing correlations without considering causation. Critical-thinking would have you asking, now why is that? Why would older Americans, those 50 and older have a greater favorability of SCOTUS than the younger generations? Why would conservatives, typically Republican, have a 61% gap in SCOTUS favorability over Democrats? Is it likely the younger generation has greater knowledge and/or wisdom of how SCOTUS was designed to function over the older generation?
According to the NEA, up to and including the 1960’s, students were required to have three separate courses in civics and government. But civics offerings were slashed as the curriculum narrowed over the ensuing decades, Hint: those people are over 50 years of age now. And as of 2017, Only 25 percent of U.S. students reach the “proficient” standard on the NAEP Civics Assessment. White, wealthy students are four to six times as likely as Black and Hispanic students from low-income households to exceed that level. Here’s why: Students in wealthier public school districts are far more likely to receive high-quality civics education than students in low-income and majority-minority schools.
https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/forgotten-purpose-civics-education-public-schools
Is it possible, and I’m just spit-balling here, that those old people might have a better understanding of how our government is supposed to function? Is it possible those old timers might just have a bit more experience in life and perhaps understand how liberal and conservative policies have impacted this country over the decades? Those are questions worth considering.
Paint Chips and his handlers, who are well fed, well to do, white elitists, have the luxury to make politics their religion. They are very detached from the concerns of Americans who do not have the luxury to eat regular meals like George Soros, Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.
Study: 3 in 4 West Virginians skipping meals or eating less due to inflation
https://www.wowktv.com/news/west-virginia/study-3-in-4-west-virginians-skipping-meals-or-eating-less-due-to-inflation/
CouponBirds conducted a survey of 3,500 Americans to find out how many have skipped meals entirely or cut down on their food portions due to unaffordable food prices. It was found that overall, 42% of Americans said they have eaten less food as a result of inflated, unaffordable food prices. This equates to 106,819,493 people across the country when compared with population statistics.
https://www.couponbirds.com/research-center/data/missed-meals-only-for-unaffordable-food-prices
“We are definitely seeing an increase in demand for food throughout our network of 700 community partners, including food pantries, shelters and soup kitchens.”
Trigger warning! This was reported by FoxNews.
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/food-banks-america-surging-demand-no-sign-slowing-down
I heard a morning radio host recently state that the kids who troll Reddit, sip green tea, live in the basements of their parents and starve their cat, are the types that Media Matters hires, which made me think of Paint Chips
😉
Except now they are closing down https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/28/coronavirus-food-banks-are-closing-and-losing-their-workforce.
My Church collects for the local food bank and now we’ve just started one at our Church as well. Demand is way up.
Olly, it’s MALES over 50, a fairly small group. Yet you would have us believe that they’re the o ly group that understands civics.
Here’s the actual paragraph regarding age:
There were also important differences across age groups, as younger Americans, those aged 18-29 (62%) and 30-49 (60%), were more likely to disapprove of the job the court is doing than Americans who are 50 and older (49%).
Is there a 12 point gap between men and women? Yup. Perhaps you can show me the data proving that is the same gap among the younger generation and the older generation.
Yet you would have us believe that they’re the o ly group that understands civics.
I have no idea who this us is. But if by us you mean you, I’m certain us has no ability to actually learn anything new.
“It’s the [Constitution], stupid.”
– James Carville
_____________
“Court is strongest…”
– Dastardly Aninny
_______________
It’s not the “court” you ——- —–, it’s the Constitution.
Judges and Justices must not be liked or disliked, they must be impeached and convicted when they fail to declare all acts contrary to the Constitution void.
The most recent decision of the SCOTUS simply recognized that abortion is not a constitutional right, and that the legality of abortion must be legislated.
FUNFACT: It isn’t and it must.
Roe v Wade was erroneous and did not comport with the Constitution.
C’mon, mannn!
The 43 percent approval rating….. is also higher than the approval rating for President Biden, which stands at 38 percent.
Kagen is a political hack and has no interest in anything that doesn’t fit her leftist narrative… Like so many of those pathetic leftists, who are nothing more than Neo Marxists.
Galluping Gertie
Maybe ruling according to actual law buffed up their image a little. Keep it up.
Jonathan: Gallop points out that its poll shows support for the Court is “statistically unchanged from last year’s 40% rating” and the Court has a “record-low rating”. The slight uptick in support for the Court is statistically insignificant. So you are touting the change? What is “alarming” is not the low Democratic rating but the fact that so few Republicans are “alarmed” by the Court’s move to the ideological right and is systematically taking away fundamental constitutional rights. You should be embarrassed by pointing out the obvious–the vast majority of Americans don’t approve of the direction of the conservative Court in recent years because it is out of step with contemporary standards and expectations. The conservation majority wants to take us back to the 17th century. That’s the “alarming” part that went right over your head. So let’s move on to a more important topic–one you should be interested in–attacks on “free speech”.
In Florida the “free speech” rights of teachers and students are under attack. Under Gov. DeSantis’ Parental Rights in Education Act (dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law) teachers can’t discuss sexual orientation or gender identity in grades K-3. DeSantis says the new law is necessary to prevent “indoctrination” of children. In one FL school district teachers are being told now they can’t even mention their same-sex partners. In Orange County Public Schools teachers can display a photo of their partners in the classroom but shouldn’t talk about them. So if you are a gay or lesbian teacher you can display your partner’s photo but if you say something like: “That’s my life partner Doris (or Jim)” that would be verboten as an attempt to indoctrinate the children by talking about your partner. A school district spokesperson said this “could be deemed classroom instruction or sexual orientation or gender identity”. I suppose that if you are straight and married with 3 kids you are free display a family photo and give the names of each of your children and maybe any other informative information. But if you are a gay or lesbian teacher with children something similar is prohibited under school district policy.
Now if there was ever an existential threat to free speech it’s what is going on in FL classrooms. That is truly “alarming” not the results of a Gallop poll. Your silence on these attacks on free expression speaks volumes about your real commitment to “free speech” –or lack thereof.
BLAH BLAH BLAH goes the Neo Marxist…
Ever wonder why Florida is gaining population while your pathetic blue states are imploding?
Just look in the mirror!!!
SCOTUS has NOT taken away and “fundamental rights,” that is merely a talking point by those who disagreed with the abortion opinion. Even then SCOTUS did not take it away, it merely said the decision to restrict abortion is a states rights issue and not one for the court.
Not a single constitutional right has been taken from the people.(except the right to keep and bear arms.)
To the totalitarian thugs who now lead the democratic party, polls do not matter; tyranny of the minority suits them find so long as they are the tyrants in charge. They express love for the masses in the same way as Mao and Stalin who loved millions of the unwashed mases to their expedited deaths. Warren and Sanders would happily install a SC subordinate to a President for life of their choice!
This doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. It is imperative that people do not buy into any of the bogus narrative coming from the activist left (I realize that may be redundant at this point). They are not a majority, just a very, very well-funded and very vocal minority. The fact of the matter is that when all but the most ardent globalists/leftists realize who is creating the messes, they are not pleased, to say the least. We really, really have to vote in November in equal measure to that displeasure. I have just about had it with shell-funded activist groups wreaking chaos on our communities and populations. These are not elected officials, just minuscule, though often connected, groups that are monumental pains in the a**.
James: you have it exactly backwards. People like you are the distinct minority –around 30%, so you don’t speak for “we”. I’m not sure what “messes” and “chaos” you are referring to, but if you watch the news, not Fox which is propaganda, you would know that most Americans are up in arms over the politicization of the SCOTUS, brought about by Republican office holders who got into the White House despite losing the popular vote. Three of these were appointed by someone whose “presidency” was illegitimate from the outset because he cheated to get into office. Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh lied about their opinions on abortion so they could get onto the Court and take away womens’ right to reproductive autonomy. Americans are fed up with Republicans pandering to the Evangelicals, who are a sure-bet to vote for them, because they are forcing the majority to live by the religious beliefs of the minority. It’s one thing for someone to personally oppose abortion and decide they would never get one for themselves, but it’s quite another to force another woman, who doesn’t agree that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a fully-developed person, to carry a pregnancy against her will because of YOUR religious beliefs. That’s why your whining about unelected officials doing things you don’t like rings of hypocrisy. Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch were nominated by someone whom the majority of us voted against. THAT’S the problem, and it’s not just the “bogus…activist left” saying so, either. MOST Americans oppose reversal of Roe.
No matter how many times you repeat it the popular vote is a meaningless statistic that neither lends to nor detracts from the legitimacy of the Presidency.
Trump is not, and never will be “legitimate”. Because he knew he couldn’t win, his campaign came up with a way to use insider polling information about where support for Hillary Clinton was soft enough that voters could be swayed into voting against her based on lies fed to them by social media manipulated by Russian hackers. it’s called cheating. It DID happen, and no matter how many times Tucker, Hannity and your hero scream “Russia Russia Russia”, it’s still true, confirmed by the Mueller Report, Dan Coats, head of US Intelligence Agencies, and an independent investigation by a Republican Senate Committee. Trump is a cheater, and most Americans voted against him both in 2916 and 2020. He should have been removed from office.
Also, no matter how many times you think it abortion is about religious beliefs, it has nothing to do about it. Why are you a science denier? Why do you hate unborn females? Why do you hate men?
illegitimate president? Majority of Americans up in arms? You might want to doublecheck your talking points as they are indisputable wrong.
This Supreme Court majority deserves credit for a bold attempt to shift responsibility from the Courts back to Congress (and/or State Legislatures) for policymaking. All 4 most recent Justices have stated this as a goal in their Confirmation Hearings.
There will be resistance. Congresspeople don’t like having to be responsible for hot-button policies. When liberals dominated the Court, Dems liked the way things worked. Now, they hate it, and conservatives are liking it. A certain institutional competence must be relearned in Congress. The electorate faces a challenge: elect centrist institutionalists who are comfortable making sausage, or elect tribalistic purists who refuse to govern negotiating with their opposition.
Which will the people choose?
This Supreme Court majority deserves credit for a bold attempt to shift responsibility from the Courts back to Congress (and/or State Legislatures) for policymaking.
It was more than an attempt. In my opinion, it was a decision that was 100 years in the making.
Although many will see West Va. v. EPA as the Court flexing its conservative muscles, it is better seen as an attempt by the Court to restore the original constitutional structure in which Congress makes the policy decisions that underlie the laws.
https://lawliberty.org/reclaiming-legislative-power-from-the-administrative-state/
A certain institutional competence must be relearned in Congress. The electorate faces a challenge: elect centrist institutionalists who are comfortable making sausage, or elect tribalistic purists who refuse to govern negotiating with their opposition.
Excellent point. What Congress needs to learn is the same thing the American people need to learn. James Garfield warned the country in a speech on July 4, 1876:
Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation, it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
Rights guaranteed by the Constitution, like liberty and privacy whcih are involved in deciding whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability, are not “policy making”. The Bill of Rights protects all Americans against the tyranny of state legislatures, which is exactly how Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell and Griswold made it to the SCOTUS–states outlawed: abortion, consensual sex between adults, same-sex marriage and contraception. The overarching theme of these landmark cases is that your Constitutional rights of liberty and privacy do not depend on your address. Claiming that the grounds Roe were wrongly decided back in 1973 is just an excuse for Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh to force all American women to live according to the beliefs of their Catholic faith. For the fifty years after Roe was decided, court after court upheld it as constitutional. Then, along comes a power-hungry narcissist who is predicted to lose the election, so he comes up with a way to cheat by rigging the Electoral College counts with the help of Russian hackers spreading lies about his opponent in enough key districts based on his campaign’s insider polling. There was already one vacancy on the Court because McConnell blocked the nomination of Merrick Garland, allegedly based on the proximity of the next election that was about a year away. So, Gorsuch took Garland’s seat. But when RBG died, the election was weeks away, and early voting had already been going on, so Barrett was shoved onto the Court anyway. Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual misconduct and there were dozens of others who wanted to testify against him, but Republicans blocked them so his nomination was also shoved through while Republicans had the power to do it. It’s all wrong and un-democratic.
The foregoing horror story explains HOW the SCOTUS got stacked with radical conservatives who are carrying out a political agenda and WHY there is historic distrust of the SCOTUS. The people making the decisions were not nominated by the choce of the majority of Americans. They don’t reflect our values, and are carrying out a radical right-wing agenda to pander to the Evangelicals who aren’t content merely with living according to their religious rules–they want to force everyone else to do so as well.. Turley’s assignment is to try to argue that the SCOTUS is legitimate and deserves respect. It does not. It has earned the scorn of the American people. Any suggestion for ways to mitigate the blows this Court is likely to inflict as it strips away one hard fought for right after another is denouced as “court packing”. The SCOTUS is ALREADY packed.
“privacy whcih are involved in deciding whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability”
This is your definition. Suppose another religion other than yours believes viability doesn’t exist until puberty and they want to terminate children privately? Killing human life is killing human life regardless of the viability line YOU draw to make yourself feel better about killing unique human life.
Also, who gives women the right to kill the fathers child? I take it you are against forcing fathers then to support a mother who has a child correct?
Everyone does not agree that a fertilized egg, a human in primitive embryonic form or a fetus before the age of viaiblity is a “human life” whose rights trump those of the pregnant person who does not want the pregnancy to continue. Several religious groups hold the view that life does not begin until quickening at the earliest, with quickening being the point at which fetal movement can be reliably perceived. That is consistent with the holding of Roe that most Americans agree with. Jews believe that if a pregnancy constitutes a threat to the pregnant person’s life, not only is abortion allowed, it is required. The Bible does not support the notion that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a fully formed or viable fetus. Your argument about a religious group killing children after first is just plain stupid.
“Everyone does not agree that a fertilized egg, a human in primitive embryonic form or a fetus before the age of viability is a “human life””
Then those people would be wrong. You are a science denier. if a human female egg gets fertilized by a human male sperm and forms a complete unique cell capable of replication, isn’t human then what is it? Keep telling yourself it’s not human to make yourself feel better.
A human skin cell is alive. It is human. So a “human life”.
You need a better definition.
Perfect. That one skin cell’s DNA can be used to determine the paternity of that blob of cells growing inside a woman. Works for me.
Never seen a skin cell replicate into a complete human being. Thanks for playing though.
That is consistent with the holding of Roe that most Americans agree with.
If it were about abortion, it is an extremely weak case. But it is not about abortion, it is about protecting human life.
“A FORCE TOO STRONG FOR ME TO OVERCOME”
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recently adjudicated retroactively, by 50 years, to correct gross and egregious acts contrary to the Constitution, and abject failures of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court must now adjudicate retroactively, by 150 years, to enforce extant contemporary law and fundamental law, and to fully abrogate all acts which violated, voided and nullified the Constitution, including their corollaries, consequences and reconstructions, commencing the incremental implementation of the principles of communism, which constitute the state of America today.
Justices swore an oath to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, as immutably distinct from Marx’s principles in the Communist Manifesto.
Taney tried but the forces of communism were overwhelming:
________________________________________________
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”
“I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”
“I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”
– Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861
____________________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
It would appear that Justice Kagan and Senator Warren are operating under the misconception that we are an Athenian Democracy and not a Federal Republic. I guessed they missed all the discussion in the constitutional convention about creating a republic so as to safeguard the “natural rights” of citizens against the inevitable expansion of the state as it grows in power. Hence the 3 separate and equal centers of government. Also they must have missed the part about the tyranny of the majority. Even our fellow republicans in the Roman Republic recognized that fact. Thats why they had eventually the requirement of a plebian consul and a patrician consul. Also the Senate could elect consuls and select governors and magistrates but the tribal assemblies actually passed the laws. The consuls could veto the senate acts as well as the plebian Tribunes (not the military tribunes). Even then the Patricians could amass too much power leading to the plebian successions on 2 occasions which forced the patricians to cede more power..
As far as a theocracy, Justice Holmes above is simply blowing smoke. A large part of the pro life movement includes atheists and agnostics but they all have a deep respect for life. The Supreme Court did not unleash polluters but simply told congress to do it’s job as representatives of the people and enact the law instead of sitting on automatic and letting unelected administrators decide both crime and punishment. That sounds more democratic to me. The administrative state begins to seem more and more like a Star Chamber than a servant of the people and needs to be corralled and controlled.
Where did the Supreme Court rip up the Consitution? I often re read it and I saw nothing that was ripped up. The right to an abortion was a court decision and was never codified in the US Consitution by an amendment or even in the Congress. If you want it to be unassailable then pass the constitutional amendment. They did pass the question of abortion back to the states which they are doing so by legislation or plebiscite . As far as I am aware of no European Democracy granted abortion rights by judicial fiat but was passed by law or plebiscite.
As far as the rest of Justice Holmes rant, it seems to have degenerated into delusion or hallucination or who knows what else.
Justice Holmes needs to reread his history about religion in the various nations and empires of the world.
The Roman Republic and Empire had freedom of religion unless you tried to fight the state or there were particular Emperors who tried to blame their failures on Christian’s or other religious group. Even The Emperor who followed Constantine the great tried to reimpose sanctions on Christian’s. Genghis Khan and Cyrus the Great allowed Freedom of religion in their empires. Britain, on the other hand, was very spotty on their tolerance for other religions, hence it is now in our Constitution.
At least take up reading history. I know it’s not fashionable these days but I could recommend several thousand of books for you.
OT
Nanny P has a pair surgically attached and lands in Taiwan.
She Ginpink backs down.
Uh, oh!
Nanny P deserves credit.
Paper Tiger She Ginpink is, presumably, fuming.
…to be continued.
And China’s devasating action in response is to let senile Pelosi fly back to the US. Who says the Chinese are inscrutable?
🙂
Oops! My wife says I’m too old to use a smiley face.
My bad.
Those ChiComs just Hate us Americans letting that evil Witch Fly back!!!! LOL;)
The poll comes after the surprising comments of Justice Elena Kagan that the Court may be losing legitimacy by bucking public opinion on issues like abortion.
Same play from the play book. Arguing from a conclusion. Not a big fan of polls about perceptions. Maybe 5% of the population could name 5 Justices. This one proves the left wrong. But we know that. The left repeats the same lies, and exposes the same stupidity. The majority of Americans demand abortion on demand no restrictions. But when you explain SCOTUS just put the power to regulate abortions back in the power of State legislatures. Since the left knows what the Majority wants, and the Majority elects the legislature, the Majority will enact the laws they demand.
Television and print media say Hold my beer!
Americans’ confidence in two facets of the news media — newspapers and television news — has fallen to all-time low points. Just 16% of U.S. adults now say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in newspapers and 11% in television news. Both readings are down five percentage points since last year.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/394817/media-confidence-ratings-record-lows.aspx
Keeping it clean and to the point: I’m surprised that any polling organization considers it a meaningful enterprise to poll opinions about the SCOTUS.
The ‘opinion’ is situational at best, and polling a group of a few thousand people in a population of several hundred million…..pretty meaningless in the end.
Liberty2nd, your humor would be better left on the bathroom walls where you found it.
“Justices are expected not to reflect the demands of public polling but the demands of the Constitution in ruling on cases.”
That’s the way it should be, and let’s keep it that way.
Since Congress is so low, maybe all the incumbents should be thrown out and replaced.
A person can dream
What the Supreme Court ruled on abortion has NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with when the cells and tissues growing in the woman’s body become a separate human being (i.e. a “person”) with rights of its own. Many people people believe it occurs at or near conception. Some people apparently it is not a human being even after it is born. How else can you explain why a woman with take her newborn baby and throw it in a dumpster as though it was a sack of garbage. At least in her mind, she must believe it is not a human being. The fact is NOBODY KNOWS – I don’t know, you don’t know, and Lord knows the Supreme Court doesn’t know.
But somebody somewhere has to decide. That’s precisely why we have Legislatures. Legislatures are the line-drawers in our society. The look at right vs wrong, fair vs unfair, acceptable behavior vs unacceptable behavior and draw a line somewhere. That’s exactly what’s happening right now. Some are drawing near conception, others are drawing it at the end of the 1st trimester, while still others are drawing the line at or near labor.
if you live in a state where you don’t like where they’re drawing the line, I suggest you campaign for legislators who will draw the line more closely to where you want it drawn. If you don’t like where other states are drawing the line, you should MYOB!
What the Supreme Court ruled on abortion has NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with when the cells and tissues growing in the woman’s body become a separate human being (i.e. a “person”) with rights of its own.
It had nothing to do with your first two paragraphs and everything to do with your third.
Republicans see it as legitimate because they love theocracy and see women are at best second class dozens. Ripping up the CONSTITUTION, taking rights away from minority voters, unleashing polluters and gun violence and installing “ Catholic” views on abortion and deciding that religion is an excuse for discrimination and stalking women and who knows what else. SCOTUS has lost its legitimacy as a neutral arbiter of the law.
Justice Holmes believes that gun violence in Chicago will come to a miraculous halt when it becomes harder to own a gun. However, Justice Holmes has never voiced his concern with fentanyl that kills thousands of black people entering the nation through a wide open border administered by the Biden administration. In Justice Holmes’ world requiring a minority voter to present an ID to vote is taking that voters rights away. You have to hand it to Justice Holmes. He got all the talking points in. The Justice Holmes result is displayed in the deaths in the streets of Cities controlled by Democrats. Thank you for your contribution Justice Holmes.
You forgot to mention they hate puppies.
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-propose-800-billion-if-you-dont-vote-for-this-you-hate-puppies-spending-bill?mc_cid=3268c5cc46
I am an Independent.
None of the women I know feel like they are second class “dozens.” Or citizens.
I am a minority. I am for voter ID. If I have to show ID to buy alcohol, open a bank account, drive, etc. I should have to present ID when voting.
Gun violence? Seems to me it is not the law abiding citizens that are the problem of gun violence, but criminals who generally do not obey the law in the first place, hence criminals. As of late, seems the uptick in gun violence seems to be soft on crime DAs, mayors and the defund the police movement.
Not lost on me those seem to be mostly Dem controlled cities with some of the countries toughest gun control laws.
Except gallop is saying that people see the legitimacy of the courts as greater not less.
Your remarks are both wrong and irrelevant.
It is not the courts job to circumvent the constitution and legislative process to get the policies you want.
There is no constitutional right to an abortion. Not even the broadest interpretation fo the 9th or 14th amendments leads there.
And I am personally inclined to a very wide application of Both the 9th and 14th amendment.
There is a right to control of your own body – which will get you SOME but not all of what you want.
So Challenge state laws on THAT grounds.
With respect to other decisions.
Frankly SCOTUS does not go far enough.
Legislation is the constitutional responsibility of congress – it can not delegate it.
No branch of government can delegate its power to another.
If you think CO2 should be restricted – pass legislation doing so.
The duty of the executive is to enforce the law that exists – not bend or fabricate new law that it prefers.
If we do not like the law or the constitution – we can change them.
The finance media today says the stock markets are headed down because Pelotsea is going to Taiwan. Yet they ignore the fact that Trump farted and three rats ran out of Mar A Lago and one looked like Powell.