Vox Senior Editor Fantasizes Over the Death of Justice Alito

The rising threats against Supreme Court justices has been one of the most startling elements in our age of rage.  When Nicholas John Roske was arrested for the attempted murder of Brett Kavanaugh, many of the left were muted in their response and one group went ahead with a campaign to offer a bounty for any information of a conservative justice’s location in public– with an added payment if there is time for a mob to find them at the location. Yet, Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser seemed to cut to the chase by penning an obituary for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. With people trying to kill justices, there seemed no concern how such  a “prewritten obituary” might fuel the fatal obsession of someone like Roske in our society.

In a now-deleted tweet, Millhiser said that he had updated some of his “prewritten obituaries” and gave his anticipatory remarks on the death of Justice Samuel Alito.

 “Justice Samuel Alito, who died on XXXX, was not devoid of any positive traits. He was a skilled attorney and a highly effective advocate for conservative causes…Had he spent his career as a litigator, he would almost certainly be remembered as one of the Republican Party’s leading Supreme Court practitioners…The problem is that Justice Alito was, indeed, one of the Republican Party’s leading Supreme Court advocates — but he embraced this role while he was a sitting justice.”

The prewritten obituary clearly would delight those with a fatal fetish or unhinged fantasy of changing the Court through violent acts. Roske wrote on social media before his alleged attempted murder that “I could get at least one, which would change the votes for decades to come, and I am shooting for 3 all of the major decisions for the past 10 years have been along party lines so if there are more liberal than conservative judges, they will have the power.”

Most in the media were entirely silent after the postings by Millhiser. Yet, for some, there is an attitude with regard to liberal justices. Elie Mystal, who has written for The Nation and Above the Law, accused Sen. Josh Hawley of wanting to murder Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because he questioned her about her sentencing rulings as a federal judge.

None of that means that Millhiser wants harm to come to Justice Alito. He is a lawyer who has written books criticizing the conservatives on the Court including “Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted” and “The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court is Reshaping America.”

Rather, it reflects a sense of license to engage in the most reckless rhetoric with regard to the conservative justices. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justices “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Most recently, the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman questioned the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  

It is all protected speech but, when leading columnists start posting anticipatory obituaries, it is time from some self-reflection in the media. For Mark Twain, it was merely a problem that “the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.” For Samuel Alito, it seems that reports of his anticipatory death are greatly celebrated. That says a great deal of where we are and what we are becoming. If columnists and academics join this ragefest, we will become little more than rivaling mobs tearing apart our foundational institutions and values.

118 thoughts on “Vox Senior Editor Fantasizes Over the Death of Justice Alito”

  1. Did anyone notice that Kansas has voted to keep abortions legal. Now the people are voting.

  2. Pollster Determines Most Of Country Would Vote Like Kansas If Allowed A Referendum

    The Kansas vote implies that around 65 percent of voters nationwide would reject a similar initiative to roll back abortion rights, including in more than 40 of the 50 states (a few states on each side are very close to 50-50). This is a rough estimate, based on how demographic characteristics predicted the results of recent abortion referendums. But it is an evidence-based way of arriving at a fairly obvious conclusion: If abortion rights wins 59 percent support in Kansas, it’s doing even better than that nationwide.

    It’s a tally that’s in line with recent national surveys that showed greater support for legal abortion after the court’s decision. And the high turnout, especially among Democrats, confirms that abortion is not just some wedge issue of importance to political activists. The stakes of abortion policy have become high enough that it can drive a high midterm-like turnout on its own.

    None of this proves that the issue will help Democrats in the midterm elections. And there are limits to what can be gleaned from the Kansas data. But the lopsided margin makes one thing clear: The political winds are now at the backs of abortion rights supporters.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/04/upshot/kansas-abortion-vote-analysis.html

    1. “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

      1. “It’s the [Constitution], stupid!”

        – James Carville
        _____________

        Great and savage beasts carry no weight or force.

        1. “Great and savage beasts carry no weight or force.”
          ***********************
          “Until, that is, they’re at your throat.” Tyrants always forget the last part.

          1. Apparently, Alexander Hamilton stands corrected.

            Containing great beasts does take discipline and the resolve to impose it.

            Old Abe “forgot” something there at the end, eh?

            🙂

    2. But the lopsided margin makes one thing clear: The political winds are now at the backs of abortion rights supporters.

      Wind is apt. Always changing. The beauty of Dobbs, the people can work toward their goals through the political process.

    3. “ … makes one thing clear: The political winds are now at the backs of abortion rights supporters.“
      **************
      Typical dunderheaded, wishful take on a nuanced topic.

    4. If true then you will have no problem getting referenda, or laws protecting abortion throughout the states.

      Kansas was going to prove Alito correct no matter what the vote was.

      If people voted to remove the pro-abortion constitutional provision – that would prove democracy works.
      If they voted to keep is – that would prove democracy works.

  3. Professor Turley Writes:

    “University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman questioned the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization”.
    ……………………………………..

    What Professor Faigman Wrote

    “Just the obvious inconsistencies between the rationales of today’s decision in Dobbs and yesterday’s decision in Bruen striking down New York’s century-old restrictions on carrying concealed handguns outside the home raise serious questions of institutional legitimacy.”

    Edited From:

    https://www.uchastings.edu/2022/06/25/a-message-from-chancellor-and-dean-david-faigman-roe-v-wade/
    ……………………………………………

    New York’s gun law, known as the Sullivan Law, was passed in 1912, decades before any of the current justices were born. No previous court had found any problems with this law.

    The people of New York State were content with The Sullivan Law. There was no great wave of popular discontent demanding repeal of this law. It hadn’t been a ‘festering sore’ pitting police against gun owners.

    Yet this court felt newly empowered after Trump’s 3 appointments. So they just took it upon themselves to suddenly strike down a law that had stood for more than a century. And the act of striking down this law just happened to dovetail with the priorities of Donald Trump’s far-right base.

    Yet we, as a nation, are supposed to think this court is ‘New and Improved!”. Like somehow this court possesses special wisdom previously unavailable. ‘Therefore they’re making up for lost time by correcting long-overlooked constitutional mistakes’.

    Professor Faigman refers to “The obvious inconsistencies between the rationales of today’s decision in Dobbs and yesterday’s decision striking down New York’s century-old restrictions on carrying concealed handguns”.
    Inconsistent indeed!

    This court struck down Roe with the rational that only state legislatures have the authority to determine abortion laws. Yet one day later the court strikes down New York’s gun law with the pretext said law failed to meet new standards as determined by this court.

    Only a fool could miss the glaring inconsistency of legal reasoning here. This court is simply a hit squad rushing to carry-out the priorities of America’s political far-right. This court doesn’t ‘seem’ concerned by questions of legitimacy. Therefore those questions are perfectly valid.

    1. Anthony Fauci will be throwing out the first pitch at a Mariners game here in Seattle Aug 9. Peter Shill will be in the bleechers holding up a big sign: “marry me tony!”. Maybe Darren can video record the big event for us

      😉

      https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/releases/2022/08/dr–anthony-fauci-to-receive-honorary-hutch-award-.html

      “Dr. Anthony Fauci to receive honorary Hutch Award”

      SEATTLE — Aug. 4, 2022 — Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center will give the 2022 honorary Hutch Award® to Dr. Anthony S. Fauci for his lifetime of service toward a healthier world. Dr. Fauci will receive the award during the Aug. 9 Mariners vs. Yankees game at Seattle’s T-Mobile Park.

    2. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”

      You yourself know that what you wrote is preposterously and ridiculously erroneous.

      Didn’t you get the memo?

      The New York Sump can’t secede from the union.

      Didn’t you get the memo?

      The U.S. Constitution holds dominion in the union.

      Didn’t you get the memo?

      The Supremacy Clause says fundamental and federal law take precedence over state law.
      _______________________________________________________________________

      2nd Amendment

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
      ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Didn’t you get the memo?

      Dictionary.com defines infringe as:

      infringe
      [ in-frinj ]

      verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.

      1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.

      2. to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don’t infringe on his privacy.

    3. 𝐇𝐎𝐆𝐖𝐀𝐒𝐇!

      On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, overturning a New York gun safety law. The Court ruled that New York’s law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.

      Notably, the overturned law didn’t exist in isolation; it was similar to laws in seven other states, the combined populations of which account for over a quarter of the people in the United States. The Bruen decision threatens those laws — in fact, Maryland suspended a similar law on July 8, just two weeks after the decision.

      Two days after SCOTUS’s ruling, President Biden signed bipartisan gun safety legislation, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, into law.

      https://www.lwv.org/blog/understanding-supreme-courts-gun-control-decision-nysrpa-v-bruen

      https://www.statista.com/chart/20047/gun-carry-laws-in-us-states/

      1. What a ——- —–, the Supreme Court recently overruled the Supreme Court.

        Oh, and O.J. Simpson was found not guilty.

        Oh, and guys with a knee on their neck don’t die from a knee on their neck in the WWE, but, somehow, Africans do.

        Oh, and private property is not private through unconstitutional rent control laws, “non-discrimination laws” and “unfair housing” laws, right?

        The judicial branch is an abjectly corrupt, criminal organization.

        None of the “decisions” or “laws” you reference are constitutional.

        The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say, ” You have the right to keep and bear arms when Conjob say so,” it states that that right shall not be infringed, and that means that right shall not be infringed.

        The Framers did not make a mistake.

        The idiot liberals once made alcohol illegal in a nation of alcoholics – they were compelled to make alcohol legal again – they did.

        You’re a fool who wants to be fooled.

        1. Do you even READ before you start Ranting George? I don’t think so.

          The comment was made in reference to the Poster’s Comment above.
          Re.: [Anonymous says: August 4, 2022 at 5:19 PM Professor Turley Writes: … What Professor Faigman Wrote ..]

          Don’t think you’re going unchecked George,
          Your high on the List.

          1. Your (sic) high on the List.

            George can take comfort you did not write: Your ignorant

            “when your spelling is perfect, it’s invisible. But when it’s flawed, it prompts strong negative associations”
            – Marilyn vos Savant

    4. Incorporation means States must respect the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      As compared to ??? Not sure. Because abortion is not in the Constitution.

      A law on the books for 100 years is ipso facto beyond judicial review?

      University Profesors have sacrificed all their credibility over the last decade or so. They have all been exposed as rabid leftists.

    5. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives specific legitimacy to the Ruling of the court regarding the New York law against gun rights. There is no reference in the Constitution regarding Abortion rights in any form. The Court should have never taken up the issue from the beginning. The current Court merely corrected the misplaced decision of the previous Court and gave the rights back to the States where they should have been all along.

    6. It seems this Court’s critics need a tissue. Legitimacy is conferred onto the Court by no less than the Constitution. Ultimately, that’s where the real criticism lays. These ppl hate the Constitution anytime it befouls their ability to impose the sharia-like mindset.

    7. The court struck Roe down because there is no right to an abortion.
      If there was the Court would have upheld it.

      The court struck down NYC’s gun laws because there is a constitutional right to bear arms.

      If you want the opposite outcome – amend the constitution to create an abortion right,
      And amend it to repeal or limit the 2nd amendment.

      There is no premise that the constitution is perfect – all of us have ideas how to govern better,
      Some of those run afoul of the constitution some do not.

      If your run afoul of the constitution – change the constitution.

      It is that simple.

  4. Sir John Glubb appears to have been an astute man when it came to the topic of empires rising and falling. The NYT wrote a glowing obit on him:
    https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/18/obituaries/sir-john-glubb-is-dead-at-88-commanded-the-arab-legion.html

    Sir John Glubb also wrote an essay entitled The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival where he explained how empires have a life span of 250 years. The essay has been getting more attention these last few years. It follows somewhat along the lines of John Adams and Ben Franklin’s thoughts:

    Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
    – John Adams

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
    – Benjamin Franklin

    Here is Sir John Glubb which seems apropos for our disUnited States:

    XXXI Decadence of a system
    It is of interest to note that decadence is the disintegration of a system, not of its individual members. The habits of the members of the community have been corrupted by the enjoyment of too much money and too much power for too long a period.
    The result has been, in the framework of their national life, to make them selfish and idle. A community of selfish and idle people declines, internal quarrels develop in the division of its dwindling wealth, and pessimism follows, which some of them endeavour to drown in sensuality or frivolity. In their own surroundings, they are unable to redirect their thoughts and their energies into new channels.

    The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival
    – Sir John Glubb

    http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

    1. Decadence has killed more societies than external threats ever did. That’s the essential truth of the Christian Bible. And That is why it along with Gibbons’ “Decline and Fall …” ought to be required reading for every legislator and president. Sadly most of them only read their bank statements.

  5. The 3/5 compromise was to mitigate progress of slavers’ influence. Conserving Roe and adjusting viability to where baby meets granny in state (pun intended), if not in process (i.e. evolution), is a 6-weeks compromise to mitigate the progress of liberals’ influence.

    There is no mystery in sex and conception, the Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities.

    That said, a woman and man have four choices: sex or abstinence, contraception in depth, adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), and compassion (i.e. shared/personal responsibility), and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. American culture does not tolerate either slavery (i.e. conception without consent to sex) or diversity [dogma] (e.g. sexism, ageism).

    Roe’s regrets. Ruth’s remorse. Human rites in lieu of human and civil rights, performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. Keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the bodies of evidence aborted and sequestered in darkness, privacy.

  6. Jonathan: Pre-written obits are not new or novel. At any time the Washington Post has 100 on major figures. The AP has close to 1,000. I have prepared my own 30 page handwritten obit. I gave it to my wife and told her to read it word for word after I pass. Great expectations. Anyway, in my obit I have the phrase “he was a loving husband, father and grandfather. He loved his family more than anything else in the world…except maybe for a cold Bud or a large glass of Maker Mark’s Kentucky straight bourbon on ice.” The last sentence of my orbit reads: “He will be greatly missed”. I came across my obit not too long ago among my wife’s papers. That line was crossed out.

    But levity aside, what is the big deal with an anticipatory Alito obit by Ian Millhiser? Well, it may fuel, in your words, a “fatal fetish or unhinged fantasy of changing the Court through violent acts”. You can’t be serious? You apparently recognize how ridiculous such a charge is because you then back peddle: “None of this means that Millhiser wants harm to come to Justice Alito”. Of course not. But then in the next breath you claim the Millhiser obit “reflects a sense of license to engage in the most reckless rhetoric with regard to the conservative justices”. What you give back in one sentence you take back in the next. It’s all nonsense! You are the using “reckless rhetoric” by claiming one obit is fueling attacks on Alito’s decision in Dobbs and the rest of the 6 who signed on to that decision. Criticism of Dobbs came before Millhiser’s obit and will last a lot longer after Alito passes from natural causes.

    It is even more bizarre and objectionable for you to argue that Millhiser, or anyone else, will look on Alito’s eventually demise as something to be “greatly celebrated”. Personally, I hope Alito lives a long life so he can see the dire consequences for women as a result of the Dobbs decision–the increase in the maternal death rate, women who die because of ectopic pregnancies or botched back alley abortions, or the mental suffering by women desperately seeking abortions in other states–or 10 yr old girls being forced to become mothers. That is something I hope Alito is forced to see for the remaining days of his life and when he passes it will be, yes, part of his obit.

    1. so he can see the dire consequences for women as a result of the Dobbs decision–

      You missed all the excitment yesterday. Deep red state affirms abortions. But here you are blaming Alito for the will of the People. You lack basic understanding of Alito’s ruling.

    2. Well done, Dennis. I agree that the piece written by Millhiser wasn’t intended to be any kind of death threat. Rather, the point he was making is that Alito was litigating from the bench, which is something judges aren’t supposed to do. That criticism is valid. Women and physicians who provide gynecological care are already suffering because Republican legislatures are hell-bent on pandering to Evangelicals because this is a midterm election year and they are worried about losing further seats in Congress. They try to outdo themselves with not only banning abortions, but criminalizing women and doctors who perform them, banning travel out of state to obtain an abortion, forcing rape victims to sign an affidavit that she was raped, get the affidavit notarized, and using vague, confusing language about “substantial, permanent impairment” of a woman’s health before an abortion can be done to save a woman’s life. Everyone has seen what Todd Rokita has tried to do to Dr. Caitlin Bernard, who did notthing illegal or wrong, but was still publicly and falsely accused of a pattern of failing to file proper reports, of allowing a pedophilic rapist run loose on the streets, of not reporting this rape, even though the perpetrator was already in custody and she had filed the proper reports. Rokita won’t admit he was wrong and still won’t let it go–the message is clear: perform abortions, even legally, even for the most-vulnerable child rape victim, and you will be targeted and your license will be threatened. Dr. Bernard requires 24 hour security as a result of compassionately providing an abortion to a 10 year old rape victim. James Bopp, another Hoosier attorney for some right to lilfe group, has said she should have been forced to continue with the pregnancy. Mothers of young girls who could get pregnant due to rape are worried and anxious that they will have trouble finding a qualified doctor to terminate a pregnancy, as are all women and their doctors in Republican states.

      I also disgaree with Turley characterizing John Roske’s presence on a street nearby Kavanaugh’s home as “attempted murder”. Roske, who was armed, called the police on himself because he recognized that he needed help. Turley knows that to be prosecuted for the attempt of any crime substantial steps toward the commission of the offense must have been taken and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, abandonment is a complete defense. Roske wasn’t even on the right street, much less did he take any steps in furtherance of harming Kavanaugh. But, as previously noted, Turley’s assignments are to stir the pot, attack Democrats and “the Left”, and judging from the comments, it’s working.

      1. Natacha: Thanks for the heads up on the John Roske case. I haven’t followed it but it shows how Turley is grasping at straws in trying to label this as an “attempted murder”. Notice that Turley is increasingly defensive in dealing with any criticism of Alito over Dobbs. When the news broke about the Ohio pregnant 10 yr. old Turley took the Fox line and that of Murdock owned NY Post that the story was a false flag being pushed by the Dems to discredit Alito’s decision. Turley had to do a 180 after the story proved to be true. Turley’s rhetoric is becoming more strident and more desperate over any criticism of Alito. To the point where a mild mannered journalist who writes a premature obit on Alito is now part of a “ragefest” in which Alito’s death is “greatly celebrated”. Just shows Turley is resorting to more extreme and non sensical language in trying to defend Alito.

        You can be sure that had Dobbs gone the other way and Justice Sotomayor had written the majority opinion upholding Roe, Turley would be front and center criticizing and trying to poke holes in every sentence of the decision. In Dobbs Turley gives Alito a complete pass. No analysis of Alito’s flawed reliance on a 17th Century English jurist who was noted for his racist and misogynist views that Alito now wants to impose on women in the 21st Century! Notice that Turley has not addressed any of the criticism by legal or constitutional experts–or even many historians who have criticized Alito’s reasoning in Dobbs. That shows me Turley has no legitimate defense for Alito. Otherwise, we would have heard it by now.

        What is clear from Dobbs is that Alito is trying to legislate from the bench. He knew that many states were poised with “trigger” laws after Alito’s draft opinion was leaked. Missouri’s law went into effect the day after Dobbs was announced. Alito knew what he wanted–to abolish a 50 yr old decision upholding the right of women to make reproductive decisions in consultation with their doctors–not having those decisions imposed by GOP politicians. And I don’t think Alito was particularly shocked by the vote in Kansas. He knows that the great majority of Americans support Roe. Alito thinks his narrow conservative Catholic views can be imposed on the rest of America from the bench. That’s the frightening aspect of Alito’s presence on the Court.

      2. Whether you like or agree with Dobb’s – it is the OPPOSITE of litigating from the bench.

        Dobbs returned control of an issue to legislators. That can NEVER be litigating from the bench.

        Even it it was error, it i not litigating from the bench.

        Frankly I am hard pressed to think of any Alito ruling that is litigating from the bench – and I am not an Alito fan.

        Roe was litigating from the bench.

        We expect courts – expecially the supreme court to block laws, when those laws violate actual rights.
        Alito is absolutely correct there is no right to an abortion.

        There is arguably a right to control of your own body – that will get you something close to but not the same as a right to an abortion.
        But that was not raised in Dobbs.

        Litigating from the bench is when you find rights that do not exist, or change the meaning of laws from what the legislature intended.

        As an example – The clean air act never contemplated granting the authority to regulate CO2,
        If the executive wants to regulate CO2 congress must amend the Clean air Act.

        Of course there is the separate problem that with very few exceptions the regulation of pollutants is the domain of the states not the federal government. The federal government has no general police power.

        Regardless legislating from the bench is when the courts take power away from the legislature – not when they reduce the power of the executive in legislative domains.

        1. John B Say: I didn’t say Alito was “litigating from the bench”. I said he was “legislating” from the bench. There is a big difference. Let me explain. I don’t think Alito anticipated the vote in Kansas. It is a “red” state controlled by the GOP and has been for many years and he believed voters would overturn the state’s constitutional protection for abortion–and then allow the GOP legislature to impose an abortion ban like the one next door in Missouri. Didn’t happen like he thought because voters in Kansas treat the protections under their state constitution very seriously. The Kansas vote reflected the views of most Americans on abortion. For almost 50 years women and their partners had made reproductive decisions in reliance on Roe. In one stroke of the pen Alito took away that privacy right. Of course, Alito could not actually legislate state action on abortion. But he provided the vehicle for doing just that. He knew what would happen in most GOP controlled states. So he fashioned his decision around his own narrow Roman Catholic beliefs–not on the consensus views of most Americans. He ignored the views of Jews, Muslims and non-believers to impose the Church’s belief that life begins at conception. That’s the “legislating” part you apparently missed! I could go on and describe some of your other non-sensical statements but I’ll pause so you can catch your breath and allow you time to respond –if you can.

          1. So huge post becouse you can not identify and obvious type.

            When I said that alito was returning power to legislatures that should have been a clue.

            I do not care if Alito anticipated the Kansas vote.
            I doubt he cares, but unlike you I am not trying to read is mind.

            I expect that the vote in Kansas reasonably accurately reflects voters views.

            If you want Amend the constitution in the US or each of the 50 states to guarantee a right to abortion.
            Alito will follow the constitution.

            Dobbs is precisely the opposite of legislating from the bench.

            And as a result the people of Kansas got there say.

            That is how things are supposed to work on issues that do not involve actual rights.

          2. “For almost 50 years women and their partners had made reproductive decisions in reliance on Roe.”
            Correct – Roe was legislating from the bench.

            “In one stroke of the pen Alito took away that privacy right.”
            Nope, The connection to the right to privacy is pathetic.
            If you murder your children in your home is that protected by the right to privacy ?

            “Of course, Alito could not actually legislate state action on abortion.”
            Correct an uloke the Roe justices he did not try.\

            “But he provided the vehicle for doing just that.”
            No that is the default. People are free to legislate through their legislators, or ballot initiatives in some states.
            So long as they do not violate actual rights.

            “He knew what would happen in most GOP controlled states.”
            Those of you on the left constantly engage in mind reading.
            I doubt Alito CARED what states chose to do.
            What was impotant was this was NOT inside the domain of the courts.

            “So he fashioned his decision around his own narrow Roman Catholic beliefs”
            Nope he ruled based on the separation of powers and the delegation of the power to legislate to legislatures.

            “not on the consensus views of most Americans.”
            That is not the standard for court decisions.
            Actual rights are protected – even from the concensus of the majority.
            Fake rights are not.

            “He ignored the views of Jews, Muslims and non-believers to impose the Church’s belief that life begins at conception”
            Again not what he did.
            I would point out that the Dobbs decision is also consistent with other recent decisions that restrict the courts and the executives ability to legislate.

            “That’s the “legislating” part you apparently missed!”
            Your constantly ranting about the wishes of different groups – makes it clear you do not understand what legislating is, or where it occurs.

            I doubt Alito thought about Kansas at all.

            But he obviously knew that some states like NY and CA would have almost unrestricted abortions and others would not.
            And he was obviously OK with that.

            Dobbs does not make abortion illegal anywhere. The supreme court can not do that.

            “I could go on and describe some of your other non-sensical statements”

            Given that so far your remarks are completely off base. why would anyone expect you to describe anything accurately.

            I have no problem responding

            You have made up what Dobb’s says, does, and what Alito thinks.

            And you clearly have no idea what legislating from the bench even means.

            I think Dobbs was partly wrongly decided.
            There is no right to abortion.
            There is a right to control of your own body.

            The results are similar but not identical.

            But failing to find a right to control ones own body – when that was not being argued, is not legislating from the bench.

    3. Dobbs and the law before and after Dobbs permit medical intervention to save the life of the mother in an ectopic pregnancy. Scotusblog discusses the point in “Why the Dobbs decision won’t imperil pregnancy-related medical care” Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of National Review, also writes of ectopic pregnancies “In defense of Dobbs.” Sadly, too few know what was decided, for the usual reasons.

      1. Regardless of what you, the National Review and Scotus Blog believe, the broad, vague wording of these radical anti-abortion laws, including wording like abortion only being allowed to prevent substantial and permanent impairment of a major bodily function, coupled with radial right-wing anti-abortion activists AGs like Indiana’s Todd Rokita, have doctors running scared. I’ve seen too many interviews with doctors to believe otherwise. Most of them feel that the woman has to literally be dying, proven by multiple witnesses, and, if possible, confirmed by a lawyer or court order, before terminating a pregnancy that threatens a woman’s life.There are some states that have proposed requiring a doctor to attempt to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy, which is medically impossible. This falls along the same line as requiring doctors to lie to patients wanting an abortion by telling them that the fetus, without a developed brain, can “feel pain”, which is also medically impossible. It’s one thing to say that doctors performing abortions for ectopic pregnancies are safe from criminal liability, but quite another for such a theory to be put to practical use. No doctor wants to be the test case.

        If soneone llike Dr. Caitlin Bernard isn’t safe, then no one is. After the right-wing media were proven wrong when they lied about the 10 year old rape victim being unable to get an abortion in Ohio as being a made up story, Rokita went on Jesse Watters’ program and accused Dr. Bernard of a “pattern” of failing to file necessary paperwork and failing to report the rape, thus allowing a chiid rapist to run loose on the streets. The alleged perpetrator was already in custody, but more importantly, Dr. Bernard HAD reported the rape AND had always complied with the law on filing required paperwork. Rokita never produced any evidence to back up his attacks on Dr. Bernard, who is a respected faculty member at Indiana University School of Medicine, not some back-alley abortionist. Rokita promised to investigate her and pursue it to the end. The abortion she performed was completely legal. Now, she requires 24 hour a day security for her safety and that of her family. The point is that doctors are being intimidated into refusing to perform any abortions at all. After years of study and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition for a medical education, they could risk losing their license if some radical right-winger decides to go after them, so many won’t take the risk. Even if they win, there’s the costs of litigation and stress associated with being targeted. The bottom line of the equation is that women will die because doctors will be afraid to treat them, especially when there isn’t time to get a court order, or maybe even second or third opinions. And, BTW: the National Review is a right-wing publication in which I put no stock. Further, many states have NO exceptions to save the life of the mother. Dobbs is indefensible.

  7. OT: Griner just got nine years in a Russian prison for drug smuggling. No troublesome American anthems to bother her now. Wonder how long sentimental Joe will take to boo-hoo the sentence and send a carrier task force led by the Pirate of Petaluma, ol’ Blueface Nancy, to bring her home. “Griner alive or Putin dead”!!, ol’ Little Stick Joe will cry. Nobody thinks that will happen.

    1. Surely every other American citizen accused of a drug offense in foreign courts receives as much attention from the State Department and the legislative and executive branches as do high-profile defendants. So much for equal protection under the law: perhaps after this player is released from Russia after some deal is struck after much effort and expense on behalf of the U.S. Government the other, but less connected, American defendants can seek and expect the same treatment from the highest levels of the American Government. Never will happen.

      Generally this can be avoided by not bringing illegal drugs, especially if you are of no importance to politicians or government types.

      1. Did you say equal protection under the law?

        That’s exactly what Real President Donald J. Trump needed.

        Equal protection from the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, DNI, CSS, DOD, ONI, etc., including, but not limited to, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Bruce/Nellie Ohr, Andy McCabe, James Baker et al.

    2. As part of her punishment they should play our national anthem for her at bedtime. Remind her of what she spat on.

      In any event, I doubt that our retards in the Biden administration are helping matters by insisting that she is illegally detained.

      The Russians don’t agree.

      Does she like borsch?

  8. The question that arises in my brain: “When did this Woke mentality take root”? Who or Whom planted the seed? Could we have recognized sooner the rise of the functionally illiterate woke denizens and their lack of knowledge of our Constitution and the benefits that are ensconced?

    I proffer the Woke movement started in the 1960’s, not so called that back then, questioning the basic foundation of law and order. What we see today are the results of the 60’s movement. Who’s responsible for these infantile educated bunches of woke denizens other than their progenitors. We must ridicule, call out and continually point out the absurd notions of WOKE that the “grass is greener over the hill”.

    1. Actually it started in the 20s along side it’s cousin Nazism. It was spawned by that great mother beast, Collectivism which has existed ever since the weak decided to detest the strong.

  9. “RESISTED BY A FORCE TOO STRONG FOR ME TO OVERCOME”
    ______________________________________________________

    “The rising threats against Supreme Court justices has been one of the most startling elements in our age of rage.”

    “The prewritten obituary clearly would delight those with a fatal fetish or unhinged fantasy of changing the Court through violent acts.”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    “You can’t handle the truth!”

    – Colonel Jessup
    _____________

    So, Americans are finally indignant over the changing of the Court, or the entire nation, “through violent acts?”

    What, exactly, was it that “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did by indulging in his “unhinged fantasy?”

    Slavery, as every other condition deserving of modification or elimination, must have been abolished through licit and constitutional means.

    Why, all “Crazy Abe” did was illicitly and completely shred and rewrite the U.S. Constitution, attack the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States with patently false and invalid arguments, and commence the RECONSTRUCTION of America under the principles of communism by force (i.e. communist principles hold dominion, from a central bank, central planning and control of the means of production, through wealth redistribution and social engineering).

    To wit,

    “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
    ____________________________________

    “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”

    – Raymond J. Donovan, Labor Secretary, 1981
    _____________________________________

    Which office do Americans go to to get their country back?

      1. Should actual Americans also go to the D.C. District Court for justice? Are you out of your mind – Sussmann, Bannon, Navarro, etc.?

        Is it even possible to outvote the allied communists and illegal aliens (i.e. democrats)?

        They began at 4 million, whom Lincoln failed to compassionately repatriate per contemporary immigration law, and continue to roll in at a rate of 2 million per year – democrats one and all.

        Dependents and parasites get across the river or off the boat and go straight to the welfare and government assistance rolls, including but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, FED, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., then they go vote.

        Aside from “resisting” the full force and weight of the law, “Crazy Abe” took from Americans their immigration law.

        None of this aberrant population should have ever been allowed or exist.

        The American thesis is: Freedom and Self-Reliance.

        Charity is a noble virtue but none of the American welfare state may be taxed for or regulated, or should otherwise exist, per Article 1, Section 8, and the right to private property (if the public disposes of it, it’s not private).

        As long-overdue corrective action,

        Illegal Deportation

        is as ethical, moral and legal as

        Illegal Immigration.

    1. THE SINGULAR AMERICAN FAILURE IS THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
      ___________________________________________________

      – The Supreme Court recently acted retroactively, by 50 years, to overturn a corrupt and willfully erroneous decision by the Supreme Court.

      – Every verdict of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is foreordained to be pro-liberal and anti-conservative, aka pro communist and anti-American.

      What’s wrong with this picture?

      The judicial branch is corrupt; it acts as a political, not juridical, branch.

      Members of the judicial branch have no authority to act criminally with impunity.

      Its members must be impeached and convicted for the crimes of high office of abuse of power, usurpation of power, subversion of the Constitution, insurrection by law et al.

      The “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be implemented and supported.

      America must be returned to its intended and recorded fundamental law.

      That will never happen under the communist one man, one vote democrazy.

      The republic that Ben Franklin gave Americans was distinctly of the restricted-vote variety and of voters entitled by States.

      No matter the vote, the dominion of the literal Constitution and Bill of Rights must prevail and persist.

  10. Neale Bortz tweeted: “Britney Griner didn’t want to hear our National Anthem at basketball games. I don’t want to hear her begging the U.S. to save her now.”

    Hard not to agree with that. She hates the US. She should ask China to save her.

    1. “I don’t want to hear her begging the U.S. to save her now.”

      Such is our decrepit culture. Spit on those who provide you with values. Then demand that they provide you with more values.

  11. If this isn’t sickness, I don’t know what is. And it comes mainly from one side (the left, a no-brainer, though there are certainly idiots on the right as well). We have got big, big problems that have nothing to do with politics or law – I do not know how anyone that knows history or is above a certain age could not possibly see that our Democratic party is now a Marxist party, period. All of those dems disapproving of Biden do so because he has not granted them their socialist utopia, not because they believe in the Constitution. I honestly think we are witnessing the Hitler Youth 2.0 on the left, but that is just my opinion, and that could get very out of hand very quickly, generationally. Please vote with conscience in November. We are a big, big country, and a small minority is poised to make all of our lives h double hockey sticks, including the ones that very much ignorantly vote and support this nonsense. People under 35 do not understand what the reality of life is like without mom and dad, so we have to be the vanguards. Everything is on the line this November.

    1. “Everything is on the line this November”–is that the tag line alt-right news is using to hook the gullibles? We wouldn’t be in the mess we are in right now if Republicans had complied with their oath to protect the Constitution and had mpeached Trump the first time around. If the pandemic had been competently handled, it would not have been necessary for businesses to close down for 2 years, schools and factories to close, refineries to shut down due to lower demand, and the trade war with China wouldn’t have happened, so we would have the supply chain issues we have now. You speak of voting “with conscience” because of an alleged concern about a “small minority” making our lives bad? As usual, you have it exactly backwards: the “minority” who are trying to force the rest of us to live according to their rules are the Trump base–no more than 30%, but they are fiercely loyal to the point of being fanatics. They are the ones who won’t let the Big Lie go, despite all proof to the contrary, no amount of proof will shake their belief in a “stolen election”. They are the ones who vote for election deniers, who are trying to install secretaries of state who would invalidate ballots because the losing candidate, if a Republican, claimed fraud, even with no proof. They are OK with fake slates of electors falsely “certifying” that the losing candidate won when it isn’t true. We have a radical right-wing majority on our SCOTUS, 4 of whom were appointed by a president who LOST the popular vote, and who have done something unheard of in our history–taken away a right found to exist under the Constitution by a previous SCOTUS–a right upheld for 50 years. Next, they’re coming after the right to contraception, same-sex marriage, and sex between consenting adults. Yes, most Americans see that “everything is on the line this November.” Kansas is a bellwether. Americans are fed up with politicians in black robes pretending to be judges and issuing rulings based on their Catholic religion which bind those who do not agree. Americans are disgusted with women not being trusted to decide what’s best for themselves and their families with an unwated pregnancy during the primitive state of fetal development. Americans will not stand still for our hard-fought-for freedoms being stripped by Federalist Society Trump judges. Yes, “everything is on the line in November” Vote Republicans out before they take away our rights to contraception, consensual sex between adults and marriage equaltiy. It’s your patriotc duty..

    2. It is more like the cultural revolution than the Hitler Youth.

      But your point is taken

  12. The tweet by the Vox senior editor may have been constitutionally protected speech, but that doesn’t make it less repugnant. If someone doesn’t find it repugnant, perhaps that person should take stock of their own values.

  13. George Orwell wrote a few great lines in ‘Shooting an Elephant’,

    ” Political language-and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists-is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

    “In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible.”

  14. I am saddened that there are such people in the “media” who feel compelled to display their ignorance and hatefulness for all the world to see. It is interesting that if a person discusses the death of the President they can be arrested. In April, a man was arrested for threatening the Speaker of the House.

    Such behavior is despicable and unacceptable. John Prine said it best in his song Spanish Pipedream, “Blow up the TV, throw away the paper……”
    Legacy news agencies are loosing readers and viewers for good reason, the are untrustworthy.

    https://youtu.be/BofvfVPFbiM

      1. As I wrote on this blog when Alito’s draft opinion was leaked, the assassination of conservative justices is what progressives want while Biden is President and Democrats have the votes in the Senate to approve judicial appointments, because they know they can’t pack the court due to the filibuster rules. Roske said this clearly.

  15. The U.S. Constitution was designed to counter and prevent “theocratic government” and tactics used by the 18th Century Redcoats. Too many of today’s conservatives support theocratic government and the very same tactics used by the 18th Century Redcoats. We fought a Revolutionary War to obtain these freedoms.

    Being a real American means supporting “constitutional due process” wherever that leads. Women have the right to vote from this American system (nearly half of all eligible voters). Interracial marriage is legal today from this conservative constitutional due process that Clarence Thomas supports. Equal marriage for LGBT Americans is a result of this conservative constitutional due process. Gun rights are also the result of this conservative constitutional due process.

    Today’s conservatives seem to believe you start backwards, starting with the “end goal” then contorting constitutional due process to meet those ends. That’s why too many of today’s conservatives don’t believe in religious freedom or freedom from religion (1st Amendment legal mandate) and support the 18th Century Redcoat tactics that violate our 4th Amendment.

    It’s why too many conservatives declare themselves winners of elections then contort the constitutional due process to justify insurrection and coup attempts – even when more the constitutional due process of 60 federal judges (including Trump appointed judges) rule that Biden was the legitimate winner! When Bush was president is was deemed highly disloyal and unpatriotic to not give our Commander-In-Chief his due respect, even if you didn’t vote for him. What changed?

    1. . Too many of today’s conservatives support theocratic government and the very same tactics used by the 18th Century Redcoats.

      Examples would support the statement. Alas none exist.

      1. re: iowan2

        Let’s start with the $1.5 trillion in wasted taxpayer dollars that produced MORE illegal use over 50 years (failed War on Drugs). Another so-called “conservative” U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 embraced an 18th Century Redcoat tactic called “Stop & Frisk”. The high court – without the legally required constitutional amendment – changed the fundamental meaning of the 4th Amendment.

        At the time, in 1968, the dissenting opinion written by Justice Douglas strongly warned that this was a long step down the “totalitarian” path (actual term used in the dissent). Without any crime occurring, any American could be searched on any street for any reason.

        Fast forward to 2021, Bush Administration – without constitutional amendment – exploited the War on Drugs unconstitutional practices to create the “Bush Preemption Doctrine”. Again no probable cause of any past crime required – as the 4th Amendment requires. Almost a carbon copy of 18th Century Redcoat practices for which the 4th Amendment was created.

        Attorney General John Ashcroft restored “Cointelpro” style tactics outlawed by the 1970’s Church Committee led by Senator Frank Church in Congress. That’s where the federal agencies don’t arrest you, they try to destroy you covertly bypassing “judicial review” by judges.

        In real practice, it was primarily directed at Americans of color. White people could still play paintball and photograph dams, etc. only Americans of color had a legitimate fear of being blacklisted.

        The sweet irony to all of these 18th Century Redcoat practices adopted by Conservatives, now the guns are pointed at the January 6 sympathizers and proposed gun registries! All those illegal practices are now pointed at many conservatives.

        1. Still missing the theocratic, and ‘stop and frisk’ was a little more nuanced…however, is not in use (but should come back because it worked), but a good example of the PEOPLE self governing. Some of the other stuff is the federal govt ignoring our government structure of limited federal powers. Strip away those police powers, but please do not ignore the massive social safety nets that lack any federal jurisdiction. SS and Medicare are supported by income tax, and in no way are those $’s guarenteed to be spent on those programs, Food, housing educaton, etal are all outside the power of the federal govt.

        2. “U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 embraced an 18th Century Redcoat tactic called “Stop & Frisk”.

          It worked. It saved black lives. Why are you against it?

        3. Both parties fell all over each other looking to be tough on crime and to claim to win the drug war.

          Only an idiot would have learned nothing from the lesson of prohibition.

          There is lots of blame to go arround – but mostly this has little to do with the courts and particularly SCOTUS.

        4. Stop and frisk is legal – IF and Only if the officers observe something sufficient to meet the requirement for reasonable suspicion.
          Random stops should be unconstitutional.

          But I would note that the courts allowed random traffic stops long ago – also wrong.

          I would also be careful blaming conservative justices – often the liberals on the court are as complicit in restraining individual rights.

        5. I agree with many or all of your comment. Though there is a bit of spin.

          But for the fact that I had a top secret security clearance – I would have been “blacklisted” during this period for testing wireless mesh software for a project that was DOD related, in a public park near my home late at night.

          I needed long distances, with no sunlight so that I could read the screens of laptops while conducting tests.

          The local police came within inches of arresting me – though they did not know what they were going to arrest me for.
          The State Bureau of investigation called and I had to get permission from my client – even to tall them what I was doing as this was a secure project.

    2. My freshman communications teacher, if she were alive, would take issue with a person using generalities.

      What is a conservative? My parents grew up in the depression and they could stretch a dollar, advocated hard work, honesty, obeying the law, living within one’s means and above all, to be truthful. They voted Democrat and they voted Republican. Whoever, they thought could do the best job. My father also taught us to treat the office of the Presidency with respect, even if we did not vote for that person.

      What is a liberal?

      I would argue that the majority of Americans fall somewhere in-between liberal and conservative. I would also argue that most reject both the hard left and the hard right agendas. Many people I know, hold their nose (so to speak) when they vote, recognizing that many of the candidates who make it to the ballot are not good choices. In my Democratic state, much outside funding has been donated in recent years to remove the fiscally responsible Democrats in favor of the hard left candidates. Yes, the same holds true in states with middle of the ground Republicans. I do not see this turning out well for this nation.

      The United States was founded in such a way as to break off the shackles of any form of top-down government including a theocracy or corruption that bypasses the will of the people in a representative government. This process can be painstakingly slow, which I think was intentional. Yes, there are times that the courts can intervene until the lawmakers can make up their minds. Some states saw what was coming years ago and worked to write legislation to get ahead of controversial court decisions and open with business as usual.

      1. Those generalities are more or less all that exists in the brains of generations raised by social media and computers. Too many of us take far too much for granted and presume that those around us acting crazily had the benefit of an actual upbringing, and we project our values onto them, where in actual fact, the space reserved for that is a literal void. This is a fallacy in the 21st century of the largest kind. My wife, who is a middle school teacher, this year has kids that are at the age of 14, and this a *first* in her 20+ year career, at *kindergarten level* in basic proficiency (because they have been passed in spite of recorded concerns for 7 years). Reading, writing, math. I wish this were an exaggeration, i really do. And she does not teach at a ‘poor’ school – she teaches at the quantified best public middle school in our city in an affluent neighborhood (though we do not live there). This is rampant everywhere in the United States. Stop projecting. There is no comparison to be made, between our/your generations and the generations of today. Zero. Apples are not oranges. I hope this posts, because it is very, very much a real thing that is happening right now. Understanding this makes everything else that is happening crystal clear.

      2. To this day, I remain puzzled and disheartened by how and why the amount of funding, inside or outside, for political candidates has any sway or impact on who people choose to elect.

    3. And yet we have Eastman;s actual memo’s.

      And they are based on constitutional scholarship by none other than the pre-eminent left constitutonal scholar Lawrence Tribe.

      The rule of law – requires following the ACTUAL law and constitution.

      A coup has meaning. The efforts by those INSIDE government to use a HOAX to get Trump removed as president – that is a coup.

      A bunch of unarmed protestors, breaking some windows is NOT a coup. It is NOT an insurrection.

      Seeking to overturn an election that most of the country recognizes as lawless, and slightly less as likely fraudulent, is NOT unconstitutional.

      Frankly 60 courts refusing to take their heads out of the sand and actually look at the evidence – that is troubling.

      Just about the only court I have seen consistently get it right was the Wisconsin supreme court – that has repeatedly ruled that the election was conducted in various lawless ways, that should not have happened, that ballots cast lawlessly should not have been counted,
      But that once they were the courts have no remedy.

      But that REQUIRES legislatures and Congress to act.

      While there are aspects of Eastman’s memo that I think are wrong – the error is NOT significant, as Eastman expects that When the VP unilaterally rejects ballots from states where the outcome is highly questionable, That will be challenged, and Eastman then kicks the matter to congress.

      regardless, Eastman is CORRECT that when there are election issues that the courts can not – as in WI, or Will not, as in everywhere else, Fix,
      The remedy us up to congress.

      Eastman is correct that states with dubious results should not have their electors counted.
      The consequence of that would be to send the election to congress voting by state.

      That is poor choice, we do not want elections decided that way – and despite the putative republican advantage, I doubt Trump would have prevailed.
      But we also do not want elections decided by Fraud.

      It is incredibly important to send a message that lawlessness and fraud in elections is not to be tolerated.

      We have catagorically failed to do that.

      It is near certain the consequence down the road will be worse.

      There is absolutely no political tactic or strategy ever employed successfully by the left that has not ultimately resulted in an equally effect response by the right.

      Politics is not war. Winning individual battles does not get you closer to some victory, because there is no victory.
      Elections will continue forever and each side will learn the successful stratgies of the other.

      What we do not want is broad acceptance of strategies of lawlessness and fraud.

      And unless we curb those we will get ever more of both, or you will get an actual insurrection when enough of the people are fed up.

Leave a Reply