1010 Comments
Jun 24, 2022Liked by Robert Reich

If Justice Thomas feels decisions based on the 14th Amendment should be invalidated, then what about Loving v. Virginia? Wouldn't that mean Clarence and Ginni are breaking the law?

Expand full comment

I totally agree. Why is he and Amy, who are not in the Constitution, on the Supreme Court (3/5 of a person and a non-person).

Expand full comment

Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and others have never cared about logic or intellectual honesty. They have always been there for their politically regressive agenda.

Expand full comment

And lie between their teeth to get on court.

Expand full comment

Yes saw a clip where that Senator Collins from Maine making the comment we got duped,, by three supreme court justices nomination hearings... we got duped? Ya think

Expand full comment

Republicans have a real problem using the word “lied.”

Expand full comment

Unless they are characterizing Democrats.

Expand full comment
founding

SHE got duped. I think the rest of us saw through the charade.

Expand full comment

She should resign.

Expand full comment

Why is this not perjury?? They are recorded on video giving their responses and lying about upholding established law.

Expand full comment

If I lied like they did, I would be guilty of perjury and in the grey bar hotel (3 hots and a cot).

Expand full comment

It seemed that there are those who know the law who have stated that it was unlikely that anything could be made of their obvious lies.

Expand full comment

Because some ARE above the law.

Expand full comment

Lifetime appointments, and there seems to be no effort to do anything to Thomas and his wife, Ginni. maybe there are investigations going behind the scenes, if corruption has not taken over completely?

Expand full comment

Perjure themselves, noit lie!

Expand full comment

Abolish the Court.

Expand full comment

Abolish reality. It always turns out so bad.

Expand full comment
founding

Ha, ha...

Expand full comment

Right: the joke’s on us.

Expand full comment

Yes indeed. Another substantive due process case, I believe, is Brown v. Board that threw out separate but equal (Plessy v. Ferguson) Perhaps Thomas is angling for Chief of a special Persons of Color Supreme Court - separate but equal to a White Male Supreme Court. Hell, what if he thinks that the Emancipation Proclamation was an improper overreach of power?

Expand full comment

It makes about that much sense. doesn't it? I think he is vengeful.

Expand full comment

I seem to sense, rightly or wrongly, that Mr. Thomas takes delight in causing such societal anger and turmoil. His soul seems dark and deeply troubled.

"This is not a conservative court, this is a captured court." -- Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of R.I. on MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell show a few days ago.

Abolish the court. It's anti-democratic and it's irrelevant to modern society. And, need I add, it's a waste of money? Also, we would be spared the Kabuki Theatre that is the nomination-confirmation process.

A good read: THE CASE AGAINST THE SUPREME COURT, by Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean/professor of UC Berkeley Law.

Expand full comment

Thomas is a retrograde moron. He wants to get back at Dems who roasted him in the way back. He deserved to be B-B-Q'ed.

Expand full comment

Carlos ......so true! We will be stuck with those radical republicans for the next 30 years. Abolish the court. Thomas is dark and troubled. Actually he is trouble.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Carlos

Expand full comment

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks he intended to serve on the highest court of the land to make the lives of liberals "miserable," according to a 1993 report from The New York Times.

"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."

Chief Justice Roberts should institute a judicial code of conduct for his court - the ONLY court in the US that doesn't have an established code of conduct.

https://tinyurl.com/3b45yznr

Expand full comment

I'm speechless - I didn't think anyone else would say this!

Expand full comment

I believe that the technical term is “Uncle Tom.”

Expand full comment

I prefer Oreo

Expand full comment

You too. A black man has the right to reason for himself and you call him and OREO?? Sick. But the left is racist. Rate to see it so blatantly illustrated.

Expand full comment

Because a black man cannot think for himself? You are a pure racist. Shame on you.

Expand full comment

Yes, he’s a black man, but he’s also a creep and a phony. Equal rights for all, equal pitfalls for criminal types regardless of “race.”

Expand full comment

So, he is a hero to conservatives. I think they’re right. He is a real man who pisses off Nanny State Soy Boys.

Expand full comment

Nanny state? You get SSA and medicare or will you turn that down? Hypocrite....Blutarske.

Expand full comment

a labelizer, are you? Consistent with Thomas’s legal thinking, maybe the topic of miscegenation should be reexamined.

Expand full comment

Blutarsky....are you green and live under a bridge? Yes, I knew it you are a troll. Why are you even here except to be an asshole?

Expand full comment

To learn better how leftists see the world so I can better deal with them in my own sphere of influence. But, sadly, so far it seems like a lost cause. Kinda like walking the streets of Sodom and Gomorrah days before God’s Angels came to save Lot’s family.

Expand full comment

Fuck Jesus

Expand full comment

I'll second that....not that I agree with the concept....but because this man is so far off base he needs a reminder concerning individual rights. Perhaps mr. thomas can adopt several of the children to be born because of this ruling and provide for them finanacially until they reach their majority.

Expand full comment
Jun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022

Yeah, but who would want any child to be brought up by that flippin' wing-nut Ginni Thomas and have to live in the same domicile as the perverted creep Clarence???

Expand full comment

I agree. But those two selfish creeps could be required to financially support x number of children based on income. Just like all the other holier than thou politicians who like and support this immoral SCOTUS decision.

Expand full comment

And the other justices in the majority. It would show their solidarity with the women with forced pregnancies.

Expand full comment

who will pay the medical bills for these babies born needing multi-million dollar surgeries ,only to live a life in excruciating pain until they die? who will take care of them ?

Expand full comment

How many children will be neglected, mistreated, or murdered after a lifetime of grief? State DCS departments will need a HUGE budget increase and plan on doubling their staffs.

Expand full comment

That’s what I have said…two creeps…

Expand full comment

Six creeps.

Expand full comment

I am not to big to admit that "Boofer" Brett Kavanaugh has pleasantly surprised me at least a couple of times. Mayhaps the constant state of drunkeness he lives in could have jumped his intellect and human decency?

Expand full comment

Far too rarely for me

Expand full comment

My initial thought exactly. Does he think his chickens will never come home to roost? (OK, I'm showing my age.

Expand full comment

I think he thinks he is above the law, which, unfortunately, he seems unfairly close to being.

Expand full comment

If impeached, Thomas would claim that it’s a “high-tech lynching,” thereby escaping justice.

Expand full comment

No you're not!

Expand full comment

Another point: They don’t have any children. If they wind up being against all birth control, I’m sure it’s irreverent to ask this, but what have they done to keep from having 20 or so children?

Expand full comment

Isn’t it obvious?

Expand full comment

Good for you, to remind of us of that discriminatory law.

Expand full comment

I was also thinking about Thomas and his positions on governing how people live and love, and his personal benefit from Loving. And isn't Ginnie culpable in the Jan. 6 coup attempt? How is he on the court?

Expand full comment

The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations:

Where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome.

Where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased.

Expand full comment

Pat ; Thank you.

Expand full comment
Jun 27, 2022·edited Jun 27, 2022

Maybe Clarence is looking for a way to dump Ginni, maybe for someone younger and hotter like, say, a law clerk. Does the name Anita Hill ring a bell?

Expand full comment

Rex.....Ha,ha that is funny. Ms. Ginnis is about as attractive as a hairless mole rat. Ginni is a great advertisement for male homosexuality. Would you rather have sex with Ginni or become gay?

Expand full comment

Pat.....I grew up in the South. When I was young sexual relations between whites and blacks was illegal. Does Thomas want to go back to those days?

Expand full comment

He's good at cherry-picking concepts Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) predates his own marriage by 20 so, I'm sure he feels THAT case is set in stone. Besides, of the 14th Amendment cases he's targeted, none of them affects him personally.

Then, there's another school of thought: perhaps he'd like Ginni gone from his life but he's too weak to fight her. This would be a wonderful excuse, wouldn't it!

Expand full comment

He knows it would not happen to him. He is above the law!

Expand full comment

They are breaking a few laws. . . .

Expand full comment

AMEN! WHY WERE THEY TRYING TO DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY! WHEN WILL THEY PAY FOR THIS? WHY ARE THEY ABOVE THE LAW?

Expand full comment

Perfect response. I was going to say that but you beat me to it. Evidently, the obvious escaped his “great” legal mind!

Expand full comment

Of course he's not going to do anything against his own personal interests. We all know that.

Expand full comment

It's the rare human being who will self-sacrifice their own personal interests for what is right or honorable. We usually call them saints or first responders.

Expand full comment
Jun 24, 2022Liked by Robert Reich

Thank you, Prof. Reich. I am 86 years old and in deep mourning for my country and it's younger people today. I remember when 'Land of the Free' actually meant something.

Expand full comment

Democracy in the United States is not dying in darkness - it's being brutally murdered in broad daylight. And the general public is more worried about the useless Kardashians.

Expand full comment

Worrying about celebrities is a mark of an under-educated population. If it isn’t the responsibility of the federal government to ensure a properly educated population, whose responsibility is it?

Expand full comment

Love your moniker

Expand full comment

It's been a combination of both: initially the former, & then when it became clear it could be done with impunity, the latter.

Expand full comment

True! Wish these weren’t facts.

Expand full comment

Hm, didn’t Kim use surrogates to have her children? Perhaps that will be declared illegal too.

Expand full comment

They should be pushing the surrogacy industry. But no. They want women in the home with ten kids.

Expand full comment

Meditate on Independence Day. “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends ( certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It suffices to say that happiness is a fundamental right, and the People cannot be suppressed forever. It is Governments that usually die from hubris. Perhaps ours is dying. The People will just make a new one. Bosh on you wiglesss phonies on the Kangaroo Kourt! Choke on the Original Declaration of Independence, you frauds!!

PS: Remember, as often quoted by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Theodore Parker wrote a sermon, his country on the rim of the erupting volcano of Civil War:

"Look at the facts of the world. You see a continual and progressive triumph of the [just]. I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. But from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice." Or as some other guy said, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." Do not despair.

Expand full comment

It’s not so much that our government is dying, it’s the system (citizens United) that makes the gov easier to corrupt. Madison wrote extensively on his fears of the rise of “faction” ie political parties.

His words ring true all these years later, now we have 2 political parties in this country and 1 has lost ifs god damn mind

Thanks for all the “protest voters” in 2016. Heres what you do moving forward (until the GOP is no longer Fascist) VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO! If there’s a D next to their name, color in their circle, please!

This isn’t a game anymore, we’re on the brink my, friends

Expand full comment

I agree..vote BLUE..no matter what or who!

Expand full comment

Always! There no other option, we need progressives in Congress & more women!!

Expand full comment

It only bends toward justice because of the diligent hard work many people put in to make this a better world (Dr. Reich is a great example). Without (enough of) them, it can easily go, & often has gone, & seems to be going now, on a much darker path.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Anytime, Janet

Expand full comment

I am your age, B. Laylander. I always have wondered what American fascism would look like. Now I know. It is here. We had better do something about it.

Expand full comment

B. Laylander. I am 84vand feel exactly as you do. I am just too old to be this angry.

Expand full comment

Well, I'm 89 and totally incensed at this unprovoked attack on the Constitution, especially on the grounds of religiously inspired morality. Since when has our Country and certainly NOT the Constitution ever been based on someone's idea of morality. Morality in my definition has nothing to do with sexual choices - those are in the purview of the participants. Morality, in my definition, is the fair treatment of other persons, animals, our planet, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to their own definition. In short morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It has nothing to do with government or courts. Unfortunately, given the basic greed and self-centeredness of Homo sapiens, it is necessary for persons in authority to write laws proscribing certain behaviors, like killing, raping, and other physical or mental harm to humans, theft or destruction of someone else's property. Without those laws we'd all be like Putin.

Expand full comment

That's what my mom says, and she used to be a staunch Republican, until Trump.

Expand full comment

Land of the free, home of the slaves.

Expand full comment

I'm 77 years old and think the same as you. I feel so sorry for my six teenage grandchildren, but happy that I'm not going to live long in this despicable world.

Expand full comment

The five Ayatollahs and the Hand Maiden have spoken.

Expand full comment

Good breakdown.

Expand full comment

Love this-brilliant. Thank you!

Expand full comment

Very good, accurate description!

Expand full comment

SCOTUS violated their oaths. 6 justices forced the doctrine of their faith on all women (separation of church & state-1stA) & they violated the 13thA by forcing women to unwillingly carry to full term & use their bodies in service to others' agendas is a form of slavery.

Expand full comment

And now I am forced to be controlled by the Catholic Church when i am an atheist. A pregnancy is not a person. Is a sperm ejaculated by masterbation a potential person; and is it murder?

Expand full comment

If life starts at conception, we should get to use the tax deductions you get for children and get the Earned Income for them, as well, from the moment they're conceived. They should get every other right that a person gets, too. Then we need to make all men register their DNA so they can pay for any children they make. If they rape a woman, they can be made into an eunuch. If the government is going to control women's bodies, then they should control men's, too.

My son-in-law says he thinks it's all about increasing the numbers of white people. Of course, they don't seem to realize babies of POC will also increase. We need to impeach every one of these a*sholes that are basing their decisions on a religious belief since the court that's supposed to uphold the constitution are breaking it instead.

Expand full comment

They don't really believe that human life begins at conception. If they really believed it, every sexually active "Christian" woman would insist on religious funerals and burials for their used sanitary products. Over 30% of fertilized eggs are miscarried in the first two weeks after conception and come out in the woman's menstrual period before she even knows she's pregnant. Over 50% of fertilized eggs miscarry before 6 months after conception, again, most before the woman even knows she is pregnant. I'm not saying they are all lying (though some certainly are); I think a lot of them think they believe that human life begins at conception, but they haven't thought it out and don't want to think it out because they find the logical corollary of funerals for tampons too gross (and inconvenient) to contemplate.

Expand full comment

That is gross but you're right. Also, I do know I'm an exception rather than a rule because I've only been pregnant twice and have 2 kids. Almost every woman I know that has ever been pregnant has miscarried at least once. Yet they are imprisoning women for having a miscarriage.

Expand full comment

That's the big danger, and it will get worse, I'm afraid.

Expand full comment

Sometimes I fear the conservative pseudo christians think Margaret Atwood's book is a guide, not a work of fiction.

Expand full comment

What’s missing from the birth-control conversation are doctors and nurses who have hands-on responsibility for live births. Also missing is the perspective of the Surgeon General of the USA — what are we paying him/her for except for guidance?

Expand full comment

Oooh, I like that DNA thing. Nice one.

Expand full comment

Your son-in-law could be right. I’m more and more convinced that overturning Roe v Wade is a White male supremacist’s wet dream. Here’s the background for that conclusion:

1. Until the mid-19th century, in most states, abortion before “quickening” was not illegal. In the middle of the 19th century, part of the push to make abortion from the point of conception illegal came from a group of White male doctors who were worried that the abortion rate for White married women was so high that any increase in the population would come from immigrants. At that time, Irish and Italian immigrants were not considered “White” (This is the precursor to the “Great Replacement Theory”).

2. Abolishing Roe v Wade will mean that women who cannot go to another state or country will not be able to get an abortion—in some cases even if their lives are in danger. Studies show that such women are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

3. The US rate of maternal deaths is higher than in other advanced countries—and especially high among Black, followed by Hispanic, women. If poor Black and Hispanic women cannot get abortions, the maternal death rate for Black and Hispanic women will rise even higher. Instead of BIPOC populations gradually outnumbering Whites, abolishing their right to abortion will kill off more BIPOC women of fertile age along with their fetuses, allowing Whites to continue to be the majority.

4. Poor White women, of course, will also die, but forcing them to carry fetuses to term will increase the White “domestic supply of babies” if they die or cannot raise the children and put them up for adoption.

5. For years, post-secondary enrollment and completion rates among males (especially males of colour, but also White males) have been declining while those of women have been increasing. Men accounted for 71 percent of the overall enrollment decline across the last five years—and 78 percent of pandemic-related drop-outs. As of spring 2021, women made up 59.5 percent of all U.S. college students; furthermore, more women are completing their degrees: 65 percent of women who matriculated at a U.S. four-year university in 2012 had graduated by 2018, compared with 59 percent of their male counterparts. Keeping women pregnant will decrease the number of women in post-secondary education and in the job market, thus lessening the competition for jobs and allowing men to re-establish patriarchal primacy. Of course, the right’s next goal, to make contraception illegal, will increase this effect.

Expand full comment

Your points are excellent. I think there will be many unintended and unhappy consequences for them though. For example, men are going to have to support unwanted babies. There are going to be fewer women in the full time workforce and the economy is going to suffer. Supply chain issues will worsen. Healthcare will deteriorate further. And red states will suffer more than blue states.

Expand full comment

Some men will support unwanted babies; other men will just abandon them and their mothers.

Expand full comment

Yes. The results will vary but overall they will exert more stress on more people.

Expand full comment

Capitalism depends on cheap labor to produce profits for the ruling class. As we see from declining fertility in the USA, citizens have figured out that the capitalist religion leads, logically, to fewer children — who can afford kids these days? Hence the increasing number of TV commercials showing 20-something with pet dogs rather than children. The so-called Supreme Court wants to reverse the trend toward fewer kids to satisfy their mega-donors.

Expand full comment

Particularly White kids. I’m more and more convinced that overturning Roe v Wade is a White male supremacist’s wet dream. Here’s the background for that conclusion:

1. Until the mid-19th century, in most states, abortion before “quickening” was not illegal. In the middle of the 19th century, part of the push to make abortion from the point of conception illegal came from a group of White male doctors who were worried that the abortion rate for White married women was so high that any increase in the population would come from immigrants. At that time, Irish and Italian immigrants were not considered “White” (This is the precursor to the “Great Replacement Theory”).

2. Abolishing Roe v Wade will mean that women who cannot go to another state or country will not be able to get an abortion—in some cases even if their lives are in danger. Studies show that such women are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

3. The US rate of maternal deaths is higher than in other advanced countries—and especially high among Black, followed by Hispanic, women. If poor Black and Hispanic women cannot get abortions, the maternal death rate for Black and Hispanic women will rise even higher. Instead of BIPOC populations gradually outnumbering Whites, abolishing their right to abortion will kill off more BIPOC women of fertile age along with their fetuses, allowing Whites to continue to be the majority.

4. Poor White women, of course, will also die, but forcing them to carry fetuses to term will increase the White “domestic supply of babies” if they die or cannot raise the children and put them up for adoption.

5. For years, post-secondary enrollment and completion rates among males (especially males of colour, but also White males) have been declining while those of women have been increasing. Men accounted for 71 percent of the overall enrollment decline across the last five years—and 78 percent of pandemic-related drop-outs. As of spring 2021, women made up 59.5 percent of all U.S. college students; furthermore, more women are completing their degrees: 65 percent of women who matriculated at a U.S. four-year university in 2012 had graduated by 2018, compared with 59 percent of their male counterparts. Keeping women pregnant will decrease the number of women in post-secondary education and in the job market, thus lessening the competition for jobs and allowing men to re-establish patriarchal primacy. Of course, the right’s next goal, to make contraception illegal, will increase this effect.

Expand full comment

Humanity is one thing; black-white distinctions are superficial and unimportant.

Expand full comment

No: the crux of the issue is that "personhood begins at conception," so sperm and ova are NOT persons. But hey--even a one-celled zygote is worth more as a person than a pregnant woman who may die because of a pregnancy!

Expand full comment

As an adult, I can't take an organ or the use of another's body, even to save my life. What gives a blob of tissue that right?

Expand full comment

This is the basic argument of David Boonin, a philosopher at CU-Boulder, who has written 2 books on abortion: if you need a kidney and I am a match for you, can you force me to give you my kidney in order to save your life? NO. Hence, no fetus has a right to the use of a woman's body in order to survive.

Expand full comment

Where are the words of the USA’s Surgeon General in this discussion?

Expand full comment

Women are mere vessels.

Expand full comment

Sad, but true. If men could birth children would there even be talk of abortion bans? I think there would actually be a conversation of regulations regarding child birth, possibly talks of enforcing abortion. This is a blatant attack on women.

Expand full comment

Control is the common denominator. Privacy is nonexistent. There is no self determination. A simple thing like family planning is seen as wrong, or threatening to some. If there is a genuine concern for all human life, where are the 'pro life' groups when people are protesting an execution or an illegal war? Or when a man is shot at a traffic stop? A dog gets more concern.

Expand full comment

Yes, you are right: patriarchy rules, unfortunately.

Expand full comment

Oligarchy too. I think this tour de force of oppression is timed to distract us from the power behind tRump and the Jan 6th Seditious attack. That is the obscene wealth that supports the 'representatives' who continually sell out their constituents ; that would be US. All this talk about having the rich pay wealth taxes or their fair share of taxes is making folks like Elon Musk nervous. Unions! Scary stuff for them. The arms manufacturers supply big bucks to the NRA , (a non profit!?) to pay our lawmakers and apparently 'Justices' to do little to get weapons of war off the streets and in our schools, churches , any 'soft target', as long as their profits are high. Then there is the threat to end voting rights! They are desperate!

Expand full comment

Republicans only see us as baby factories so they can have enough product to sell (babies).

Expand full comment

And cheap labor

Expand full comment

Remember that capitalists depend on cheap labor to produce profits. A tight labor market means that capitalists must treat their workers well — a concept as alien to sunlight to Dracula.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Yes except the Republicans are going after that next and make it illegal, as well.

Expand full comment

You must be a man, not to understand the limits of contraception.

Expand full comment

Yes, men ought to use the contraception and vasectomy’s are reversible as well.

Expand full comment

the wingers want to ban contraception too.

Expand full comment

Don’t forget domestic servants who must always smile.

Expand full comment

And they can be fired if they look their employers in the eye.

Expand full comment

I am a person. Women are people.

Expand full comment

Cathy, some see us as 'human resource' producers.

Expand full comment

This all made laugh so hard and I needed that so much cause I’ve been crying over all of this like a freaking tiny fertilized egg😭 if you’ve ever seen “look who’s talking” with John travolta, lil Mikey is talking even when he’s a sperm🤣🤣 def not persons, but Let’s just agree with these very wrong “persons” that “personhood” begins at conception. There are 2 persons involved at that point of conception and all life is important they say, but what actually gives this zygote of a “person” more value than the pregnant woman? Even if death isn’t a factor, pregnancy is a medical trauma, period. If her physical health isn’t a factor, her mental health can and will be, postpartum is inevitable wether the woman is even aware, yes, some aren’t aware they are struggling or they struggle in silence because who’s supposed to be openly sad after your “blessing” for no reason at all? Her financial situation may be a factor? If I’m trying to adopt a kid I have to prove I have a happy home, a man, mentally stable, financially stable......most women wanting an abortion aren’t the women that are chewing a plan B the next morning.....can seniority count? Pregnant woman person was here first!....let her put her damn oxygen mask on before assisting the “egg child person”😪.....hate it here.

Expand full comment

Personhood begins at conception...and ends at puberty.

Expand full comment

..Louder for the ‘mericans in the back

Expand full comment

Har-Har!

Expand full comment

No, to the GQP, personhood begins when you join the Republican Party.

Expand full comment

You’ve got a good point about sperm. Find some guys to give “donations” and mail it to the christian fascists to babysit! 😄😂

Expand full comment

Lol. Y’all wild.

Expand full comment

Why? Because if my daughter got pregnant she would leave it on some anti-choice person's doorstep after having named that couple as the parents on the birth certificate? LOL.

Expand full comment

Wild times for sure! 😄

Expand full comment

The times I hate but these comments are everything 🤣

Expand full comment

The people who did this include a man who left his pubic hair on a law professor's soft drink can ( https://www.history.com/news/anita-hill-confirmation-hearings-impact ), a rapist (Christine Blasey Ford says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, https://time.com/5417538/bett-kavanaugh-confirmed-senate-supreme-court/), Sam the Sham Alito (a Joseph Goebbels wannabee with half of Goebbels' intelligence) and other ruffians in brown shirts. Don't flatter them by asking them intelligent questions. They have no use for thinking. These are the class of persons who, if prison inmates, are put in solitary confinement for their own protection. The other inmates will gladly murder them - rapists are not high on the social scale in prison. And unlike the Republican Party, incarcerated felons have a moral code and are disgusted by perverts like this. You can look it up. ( https://www.quora.com/How-are-rapists-treated-in-prison?share=1 )

Expand full comment

Yes, I knew that. They dislike child molesters and rapists.

Expand full comment

I've said that ever since they started attacking even birth control. Every time a man ejaculates into a tissue he's a mass murderer. Technically they should just imprison all women since our bodies are literally made to prevent pregnancy as much as possible. The environment of our vagina is designed to kill the spermy buggers.

Expand full comment

Xtain fundamentalist men’s nightmares are populated by Unauthorized Nocturnal Emissions.

Expand full comment

You're reminding me of Woody Allen's movie about sex, don't recall the name but it is very funny. (Saw it prior to revelations regarding his perversions)

Expand full comment

Isn't that "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask"?

Expand full comment

Yes, that is it!

Expand full comment

Yes. It was a satire of the book of the same name which was full of sexual misinformation.

Expand full comment

Sleeper?

Expand full comment

I think so. I just looked it up & as I didn't see all the sperm, can't say for sure.

Expand full comment

I think that was the name of the Woody Allen movie.

Expand full comment

Alleged

Expand full comment

Sorry, I’m not quite sure he did anything and he’s one of my favorite directors.

Expand full comment

You don't have to be sorry. I did watch a documentary with the daughter who accuses him of sexually abusing her, and Ronan was in it also. I believed her. He did marry one of his adoptees, no? And she was only 19 and how old was he? Yes, he's a talented director & producer, and so was Harvey Weinstein.

Expand full comment

I think she was 21… it wasn’t one of his adopted daughters…one of the sons wrote a very convincing piece saying why it just wasn’t possible…Moses…the piece was quite slanted against Allen. The court found that Farrow had trained her daughter to say that stuff and Moses’s account is very clear that she was always doing stuff like that. He says she was abusive. He’s currently a family therapist

Expand full comment

Masturbation is not sperm and egg.

Expand full comment

And birth control that keep the egg from getting fertilized is not sperm and egg, either, but they are against it because it means there can't be a pregnancy as a result. Masturbation is basically the same thing. If you're ejaculating into a napkin, you are preventing your little spermies from fertilizing and egg and making a baby just like any other birth control.

Expand full comment

Only if it gets too close to an ovum.

Expand full comment

Thanks to the hysteria about sexual harassment, when I shake hands with a woman, I always wear gloves.

Expand full comment

Well if she is proffering her hand to shake, that's a clear invitation to at least shake hands! Sexual harassment might be if you grab her hand and place it where it should not be! just because there is 'hysteria' (something only women get?) does not mean there is no sexual harassment. I know. i dragged a former employer to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination long ago. When asked if I wanted my job back, I said I was not interested in working there with him, because he was unwilling to admit or understand his wrong behavior. At least I got him to think twice about how he treated women who worked there, Luckily, I had another job in the same trade a couple days later. There were other times I was unable to pay rent and relied on friends to get by. it happened a lot.

Expand full comment

Oh, that’s a good one.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

It definitely is not. I actually was surprised so many of the judges are Catholic. I think even the Pope is no longer against it.

Expand full comment

The Pope seems to vote to the left of our Supreme Court personnel.

Expand full comment

Well, we all knew that all 6, especially Barrett, HATE AND DESPISE WOMEN or they wouldn't have voted this way. They believe women are worth less than a 2-celled zygote. Get used to it.

Expand full comment
Jun 24, 2022Liked by Robert Reich

Get used to it? I don't think so. I will shout until I am hoarse and then shout some more! Voting Blue is so important right now. They violated their oaths, perjured themselves, dishonored the High Bench, and puked on us and the Constitution. No. I am a veteran and I refuse to "get used to it".

Expand full comment

Yes, but vote for the right Blue. We don't need more Manchin and Senema or corporate Democrats like Cuellar, an anti abortion Democrat.

Expand full comment

Very good point..be careful WHO you vote for!

Expand full comment

And by the way, the Democratic machine supported anti abortion Cuellar, and Nancy Pelosi endorsed him!

Expand full comment

It's all about the money that ties democrats to this need to 'compromise' Like with Obama and his support of the TTP, and bailing out the banks, and Clinton's ending Glass Steagall. And Biden keeping Powell on at the Fed.

Expand full comment

Exactly, Laurie. It's always all about the money 💰 🤑

Expand full comment

Well, not that I approve, but it’s true that money is unfortunately necessary to win elections.

Expand full comment

Short sighted, gutless and despicable.

Expand full comment

Quite so. Democratic corporate centralists will tell you it's called realism. They didn't think Cuellar's progressive opposition, Jessica Cisneros, could beat a Republican in the general election. Principals be damned, although in the primary runoff, Cisneros lost to Cuellar by less than 300 votes.

Expand full comment
Jun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022

The "Democratic machine" is a useless, worthless construct--fit only for collection donations from the "small d" rank and file (us) and utterly wasting that money on untargeted messaging and uncommunicative ads.

Oh, and supporting corporate Dems unconnected to the needs of their actual base.

Expand full comment

The Rethuglicanazi Party is the Legion of Doom, the Sith and the Death Eaters rolled into one. Against this dreadful force of pure Evil we need the Justice League. So what do we get? The Keystone Kops.

Expand full comment

GREAT!! I AM SHOUTING TOO, AND I AM GOING TO BE DOING ALL I CAN TO BE A MAJOR PAIN IN THE BUTT TO ALL THESE FUCKERS WHO HATE WOMEN SO MUCH. I should never have said "get used to it": the truth is that we are all used to the hatred men have for our power as women to kick them in the balls and deny them sex. Remember Lysistrata!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment

Write letters to voters with Vote Forward.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Abortion WAS a constitutionally protected right. Now it isn't. Don't act like yanking away a fundamental, constitutional right is not a big deal.

NOT polite.

Expand full comment

Yes, you are absolutely right. But these fuckers are going to keep on doing what they're doing so we have to fight it for every second of our lives.

Expand full comment

I’m with you. Ty for your service. I’ll always fight this Shit !!!

Expand full comment

Thank you for your service Brenda. We need you, and your fearlessness.

Expand full comment

They would manage our most intimate lives as though we are cows in stanchions. They want to control the means of production of 'human resources'. Looks a lot like slavery to me.

Expand full comment

When we “hatch” does the baby belong to the state? Will the state support them? What if I can’t afford them?

Expand full comment

53 years ago, I gave birth to a boy who, if he is still alive, is a 53 year old man. I was raped at age 16 and as a ward of the state and abortion was illegal, I could not go to New York like some people did to 'take care of it". I was told that I would be an 'unfit mother' and the child would be taken from me even if I did not sign the adoption form ( that I had already signed because I did not want the boy to go into the system that I was in.) I wanted him to be a loved and wanted child. I had absolutely no rights, just like a farm animal.

Expand full comment

I am so sorry. But good for you to want him to have a good life.

Expand full comment

Anything else would have been selfish, although understandable. The separation from a newborn from his mother is indescribable, stressful and painful. I will be 71 in a month. If I live to be 100, It will still be there. You never really 'get over it'.

Expand full comment

I’m so sorry for what you went through. I wonder: Is there any way to find out how he’s doing? If you want to, or just don’t want to go there. I agree that it’s kind of you to want him to be well. Of course, the way he was conceived was not his fault. He may not even know about it.

Expand full comment

Oh geez, Laurie. I’m so sorry. That’s criminal.

Expand full comment

Sadly, it may become more commonplace again.

Expand full comment

We have to stop it.

Expand full comment

You did the right thing, Laurie. I'm glad you had that option. This is one of things that anger me the most about the anti-abortionists. I have heard some of them, say "It's the woman's 'fault' for getting pregnant (even in cases of rape or incest) and she must be punished (by being forced) to carry the fetus to parturition. Of course at that point they give no further thought to her, the baby and especially not to the well-being of either. They are "pro life" they say, but that ends at birth, since they are anti-welfare, anti-medical care (except for themselves) So they 'punish' both the woman and her child.

Expand full comment

Fay Reid ; I blamed myself for years.

Expand full comment

OMG, that’s awful! No way was it your fault. Damn assholes.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

You would rub salt in a wound. The point is that I do not know if he is alive. He may have gone to Afghanistan, or may have died from any cause. We were separated completely and walled off from each other. Maybe that is G. W. Bush's 'new world order', where people don't even bond with their mothers. ts1213 ; Why don't you find a fly you can pull the wings off?

Expand full comment

Yes, I wanted to kill him. I'm an unfeeling baby / offspring hater. And you are worse. Are you a Russian bot?

Expand full comment

Too bad if you can't afford them in their opinion. I think you should drop it off at some Republican's porch and name them on the birth certificate.

Expand full comment

Wouldn't that be child abuse?

Expand full comment

I think she’s being ironic.

Expand full comment

I suppose you can just walk out of the hospital without taking the child. Tell the hospital you're a surrogate for whichever anti-choicer you decided on and tell them they'll come get the child. Leaving a baby in the elements would be a bad choice.

Expand full comment

Who would do that?

Expand full comment

Like force you to take untested vaccines and boosters? That kind of slavery? Sorry, but you have already accepted that, haven't you?

Expand full comment

I don't see an equivalency here to my situation of being pregnant. When I was 5 years old we were all happy the Dr. Jonas Salk developed a polio vaccine. Nobody was kicking and screamin, not even me.

Expand full comment

My body my choice? Freedom? Slavery? They only false equivalence is the fact that abortion involves ANOTHER LIFE. NOT YOUR “choice” unless that life is a slave.

Expand full comment

I think you are a Troll!

Expand full comment

Is that a bad thing? Are you a Trollaphobic Racist?

Expand full comment

Not taking the vaccinations involved a lot of other lives. For every unvaccinated person, they could have killed literally hundreds. But apparently that was okay because men didn't like it. And they never forced the vaccine or made it a law.

Expand full comment

You are insane. Full stop.

The irony is that you will die soon by being a lemming and taking an experimental vaccine and booster. Cancer. Stroke. Heart Attack. Whatever. Its coming. Just look at the stats.

Expand full comment

The vaccine was scientifically approved and for the common good. Abortion should actually be favored in terms of the common good, because of climate, and it is also scientifically safer than giving birth. Abortion involves “another life”—a woman’s own. A fetus is not recognized as alive in our society. A potential life, perhaps you could say.

Expand full comment

Also, I would point out that childbearing is not without risk. Even today, women can and do die in childbirth.

Expand full comment

You don’t have to engage with trolls, Juliet. Just ignore him.

Expand full comment

Then why is it still under EUA Emergency Use Authorization? Why is it that you cannot sue for injury like other medicines?

Expand full comment

How do you not have a subscription?

Expand full comment

Not untested and you should prosecuted forvmurder if you didn’t take the vaccine.

Expand full comment

But, But, But, My body my choice. Right?

You will die from something due to a very compromised immune system if you are 2x2 vax and boost. Bye bye b

Expand full comment

My dad is 80, fat, has asthma, double-boosted, and very much alive and without Covid thanks to that exact recipe.

Expand full comment

Good for him. The stats are not looking good right now. Look at the spike in deaths. Major up trend. Look at the high spike in Olympic Athlete deaths. Usually, 25+- per year. Last year 700+ They say its from Climate Change. Yeah right.

Expand full comment

Amen!

Expand full comment

Crazy is on the loose. Zero critical thought going on here. Why was Roe so important? If the right to kill a human existed prior to Roe it would not have been needed. ROE Is a legal Fiction that needed to be aborted out of the crib.

Expand full comment

A baby cannot live without life support - in this case, the mother - until 24 weeks. If an already born person cannot live without life support, they are considered legally dead. That baby is not a person until they no longer need the life support of their human incubator (I'll use that term since the repugs have determined that's all a woman is).

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

ts1213 ; what about the man who made a contribution to the pregnancy? You don't think the taxpayers pay for unwanted pregnancy? Not all babies are given up for adoption. Some are raised by young, poor mothers who invariably need assistance. the less assistance they get , the more problems that can ensue with the poorly raised and cared for child.

Expand full comment

Don’t feed the trolls, Laurie.

Expand full comment

I'm feeding him what he will think is bile. Let him have it! Then, there is the chance that he might actually be influenced not to be such a butt.

Expand full comment

You’re more optimistic than I.

Expand full comment

Paula B. ; I know where I have been and am in a much better place with some luck and some pluck. Most people want to live in peace and avoid being shot. They will support stable leadership, not a bunch of narcissistic thugs and traitors. Even a very conservative person like judge Luttig who respects the rule of law and the Constitution is preferable to the crazy, greedhead fascists, in my view. Sanity may save our Republic and help us keep it.

Expand full comment

The man should be fully responsible. That is what marriage is all about.

Expand full comment

Men are not fully responsible and don’t have to go through all these really un-wonderful bodily changes and without paid leave either go through them with that much more responsibility or not make money and if they’ve been deserted or the relationship didn’t work end up dependent on the state or homeless or just really poor and marginalized and unfit as such to raise a kid in a healthy way for the kid.

Expand full comment

This is what YOU think marriage should be all about. News flash! Many unmarried people are having sex out of wedlock because they are not Catholic (even Catholics do it, but they can lie, you know, or they want to get to know (in the biblical sense) a person before they marry. How many men do you think are virgins before they actually marry?

Expand full comment

Relax. I am saying abortions should not be birth control. Period. Birth control is fine.

Expand full comment

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Expand full comment

Mr, Blutarski ; So you think a woman should be an eternal virgin even if she does not have any intention of having children? That is an imposition of religious beliefs/views on another which is against the Constitution. It is illegal and folks like you are outnumbered.

Expand full comment

You are projecting. I am not a prude. I believe, from experience, that woman and men are better off not using abortions as birth control. I believe adoption is a sound and caring way for unwanted pregnancies. Women have lost tremendously with the sexual Revolution. Men get free sex and no liability. Is that fair? No. Wedlock is best.

Expand full comment

You are not the one carrying a pregnancy to term, Mr. Blutarski, and have no idea what that entails. In this life, you never will, because you do not have a womb and you can't get pregnant, and experience the process of carrying that child for 9 months and then giving birth, only to give this infant away forever. You have no idea, nor do you care because you can't.

Expand full comment

Mr Blutarski ; You just don't get it ; Wedlock : the term locks a woman up. No, you are not a prude, but women are supposed to be? I think you are insincere and should look into women's studies if you really want to understand women's point of view. Nobody in her right mind would use abortion as a birth control method. There is rape, incest and antibiotics that interfere with the pill. If a woman is pregnant without wanting to be and in the very early trimester, the government has no business mandating that she carry the pregnancy to term.

Expand full comment

So, how hard are you all pushing for men’s rights to be impregnated at the same rate of women? “Should.” Please. They are not, and laws are woefully inadequate. Paying money is not the same as caring for a child, much less being pregnant.

Expand full comment

And this why men work and women care for children. This is the way it has been for millennia. Until the left destroyed the nuclear family.

Expand full comment

No one destroyed the nuclear family. Are you saying women shouldn’t work? That’s not even economically a good idea. And women always worked in reality. Just the upper class or some middle class women were able to just raise kids. I’m sorry, but I was raised to have greater aspirations than submitting to a merely biological position. You’re for male supremacy, and guess what, most of history, that’s what was up. Turns out we’re just as smart and capable! And kids don’t look that good when you have your own life goals!

Expand full comment

The nuclear family didn’t always exist and largely doesn’t exist in indigenous society. The whole community raises the kids.

Expand full comment

My body my invoice.

Expand full comment

All six share what can only. be called conservative religious beliefs, and this decision along with the recent decision to require taxpayers to fund education at religious schools would suggest that these justices have their sights also set on the doctrine of separation of church and state, which will result in t country ruled in a manner not unlike the Taliban.

Expand full comment

Yeah, and guess what??? The only religion they want to acknowledge and give power to is their fake hubristic garbage "christianity" that preaches that their god ONLY loves rich white people. What a pile of shit! And I use profanity deliberately because this decision calls for the most blunt language possible to convey the depth of depravity and misogyny it represents so proudly.

Expand full comment

Alito and Thomas are on record that they consider "natural law" before the text of the Constitution. It's evident that natural law equates to Catholic dogma in their decisions.

Roberts has pretty much sold his soul to corporate interests. When he was in the Reagan administration he worked on the "unitary executive theory" ascribed to Hamilton, is ironically, not found in the text of the Constitution.

It's a shame that Roe and Doe did not specifically cite to the 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Kavanaugh and Thomas reject a right to privacy.

The 4th Amendment gives people a limited privacy right, as does the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th, and is implied from the equal protection clause.

In a famous decision from 1604 Coke declared that “the house of every one is to him as his Castle and Fortress as well for defense against injury and violence, as for his repose” which over the years has become simplified to “a man's home is his castle” Although not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, common law rights should be.

If we don't have a right to privacy, who the hell needs a Constitution?

Expand full comment

Oh, not to forget, from the NYT: "Friday’s historic opinion, written by Justice Alito and joined by the Supreme Court's conservative bloc, overturns almost 50 years of precedent. Justice Alito's guiding principle is that a right to an abortion cannot be found in the Constitution."

Well, well, well, Justice Alito, sending a man to the moon cannot be found in the Constitution. Does that make the Apollo program unconstitutional?

It's pathetic. Our lives are determined by a group of partisan mediocrities.

As for Thomas....he has not yet risen to the level of mediocrity.

Expand full comment

I will shorten this to "Who the hell needs a constitution?" Plenty of advanced, civilized, rich, countries function without one.

A century ago, Kurt Godel demonstrated that mathematics is incomplete. If mathematics is incomplete, do you doubt for a moment that the English language is incomplete? Do you doubt that language can be used to prove opposite propositions?

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," interpreted today as "Corporations are people, therefore they have the right to pay any amount of money to influence the government to their advantage, even if that means distortion of the market against the interests of other people."

Second Amendment: "The right to bear arms [i.e., muskets]," interpreted today as "The right of any 18 year old disenfranchised chickenshit to buy and use a machine gun."

Expand full comment

Which goes to a basic question, shouldn't there be some minimum knowledge and ability test for any portion of elected or appointed office? Civil servants have to pass (with very high marks) an exam in order to even apply for a Civil Service job, But any whacko off the street can run for and get elected to office if he/she can get enough illiterates to vote for her/him (trump for good example) Should not everyone applying for elective office have to at least have read and understand the US Constitution (as a minimum) and shouldn't every candidate for judgeship (or any other appointive office for that matter) to at least know and understand the Constitution?

Expand full comment

Excellent point, Fay.

Expand full comment

The AR-15 is not technically a machine gun according to the law. Machine guns as used by 1930's gangsters, are still under strict laws, unlike the modern weapons of war on the streets today. it's nuts.

Expand full comment

Brilliant — thank you!

Expand full comment

Hmmm ; if it's a living Constitution and updated fairly, It might be useful. But changes at the Vatican are the only changes slower than changes to the Constitution.

Expand full comment

The right is to bear arms, and if many more of these anti -constitutional decisions happen, you will need weapons of war.

Expand full comment

BUT: Amendment II does not give an unconditional right to bear arms. What it says is "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." Just because the gun and appurtenances corporations in the US want to ignore the part I've capitalized, doesn't make it disappear.

Expand full comment

At the time the Constitution was written there was only a navy for defense. Militias were formed to defend people. Single shot muskets were used, not automatic weapons of modern warfare.

Expand full comment

True! Another 'inconvenient truth'.

Expand full comment

We do not have well regulated militias to protect and support a free state. We have national guard units at the state level, that are tied to the national military structure of the US. It is the constitutional function of the well regulated militias to secure a free state. Historically national governments have used their military to suppress freedom, not secure a free state. In the absence of a well regulated militia that will effectively defend citizens against a rogue national military, it is incumbent that the citizens constitute the armed resistance. Their right to bear arms is central to holding a rogue military at bay.

Expand full comment

Hopefully, people will listen to the facts the Jan 6 investigation is uncovering and come to their senses.

Expand full comment

20%. Of Republicans have been influenced by the Jan 6 committee so far. This is progress.

Expand full comment

For what? To fight the U.S. government? That is a fool's errand.

Expand full comment

So much for 'small government'.

Expand full comment

True. A "man's" home is "his" castle. If a person's home were her castle, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Expand full comment

That is why the ERA should be passed.

Expand full comment

Helpful and well written background, Daniel. The natural law consideration of Alito and Thomas, especially so. So much more should have and could have been done.

Expand full comment

Rich white men, not people.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Separation of church and state is the bedrock of our Constitution! Get over it! If you don't want an abortion don't have one

Expand full comment

I’ve been trying for years to prove that my ancestors came from the Caucasis (in order to receive privilege, of course).

Expand full comment
Jun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022

I would not qualify their beliefs as "conservative", rather they are fascist, and reactionary.

Expand full comment

I agree. This is Fascism

Expand full comment

Conservatism is on the road to fascism…forcing things to stay the same is always going to require irrational muscling.

Expand full comment

On the road?? It’s all the way there, by definition.

Expand full comment

It's true that a 'living Constitution' would be updated to reflect the current reality.

Expand full comment

Yes, but when the Constitution was written, the framers couldn't conceive a Country of 13 States and ~4 million people, growing into a Country of 50 States and 350 million people. So, they made amendments difficult to pass to avoid frivolous additions. 2/3 of the legislature and 3/4 of the States are required to ratify. In today's hateful status, we couldn't even amend the electoral college, which a majority of us agree has outlived its usefulness.

Expand full comment

The electoral college allows minority rule and is useful to tyrants.

Expand full comment

Change is the only constant.

Expand full comment

Fascism is a socialist construct. Nationalist Socialism = NAZI. But you were too stoned that day in class.

Expand full comment

One definition of fascism is a too-great influence of the business community on government. By this definition, we have arrived: we don’t need flag-waving and the Hitler salute to achieve fascism. Amerika erwache!

Expand full comment

Amerika runs on money!

Expand full comment

Nazi’s were RIGHT WINGERS please go study history!

Expand full comment

Let you tell it!

Expand full comment

Or, at the very least, lawless.

Expand full comment

Yes, and specifically acting against the Constitution of the United States, by clearly violating the First Amendment Rights 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;'. They are also violating Article VI, " The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;...This, I believe should be an impeachable offense in two respects. One they are violating their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution, and second, they are passing legislation, which is prohibited to them under Article III.

Expand full comment
Jun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022

They are also denying settled law, which they said they would not do during their Congressional Confirmation hearings. They are liars, dishonorable, and should be disbarred.

Expand full comment

I agree, but most of us watching those proceedings knew they were lying as were, I suspect all the retrumplicans or rethuglicans, if you prefer. The whole process for appointing justices to Federal Courts at any level needs to be revised. Any judge, at any level should A) be thoroughly knowledgeable of the Constitution, including all amendments, and B) have thorough knowledge to research methods used for any law that may come before them. Today's attorneys have it easier, in that respect, because State and local laws are available (at a price) online.

Expand full comment

The Court was deliberately stacked in a Partisan manner by a twice impeached 'president' and a scheming, conniving lying 'Speaker'.

Expand full comment

They didn’t actually lie, they stated the fact. Bt they are deceitful, slimy, theocrats overstepping the bounds of State/Church separation.

Expand full comment

I think their presentation massaged the statements of their intent into the perjury category.They definitely suggested that they would leave Roe v Wade alone, unchanged as 'Settled law'. Nobody will convince me, or anyone else paying attention, otherwise!!!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment

It’s a sad moment when the machinery of government is revealed as a tissue of fabrications. We weep together.

Expand full comment

When I'm not gnashing my teeth!

Expand full comment

Stay tuned. Tomorrow, June 28, at 1 p.m. there is an 'emergency' ( according to pundits) Jam 5th committee hearing, because of new evidence that should not wait until after recess! Can you imagine? It's important enough to come back from their break!? I'm really curious, as I'm sure everyone is.

Expand full comment

K McGrady ; Jailed too!

Expand full comment

And makes the court that's supposed to decide constitutionality unconstitutional. All of it goes against the First Amendment. If taxpayer have to fund education at religious schools, the churches need to pay taxes. I don't want to fund a religion I don't believe in. Although it will probably last until a Church of Wicca or Church of Satan start a school and the christians have to pay to educate those children.

Expand full comment
Jun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022

Bring on Wiccan schools and Church of Satan schools!!! Here's one for freedom of religion, of free choice, free speech, and free will!!!

Expand full comment

We supposedly already have all those freedoms in our public schools!

Expand full comment
Jun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022

Maybe, but can students pray to Satan? Or can kids bend a knee when the pledge of allegiance is being said? Can students kneel on prayer mats oriented towards Mecca and say prayers to Allah? Can students pray to the four directions and to Spirit? I venture some of these practices, all religious, are not allowed in many schools... Also, will any schools that are not "Christian" be elligible for public funding, the way "Christian"schools can now get funding?

Expand full comment

Good question! If it's illegal to teach unlawful things, it would ideally be a result that it was decided by a majority or a respected authority, that what was being taught was actually harmful, like making human sacrifices ( definitely against the law), or other not so good things. I don't think that praying to the four directions is against the law. There are many religious faiths practiced in America, as far as I know. I could not say whether voodoo is allowed, because there are no practitioners/ believers around here, that I know of. There may be places where students can bend a knee during the pledge of allegiance. I think sporting events are not the same as schools. Free Speech is allowed just about everywhere public, as long as it is not advocating threats or violence, or disrupting an event.

Expand full comment

...except where Proud Boyz, other white supremacist groups, or tRumpies are concerned...They spew hate speech all over the place and are not curtailed. Members of the Curch of Satan, as far as I know, do not practice human sacrifice.

Expand full comment

Yes, I’m still searching the New Testament for quotes from Jesus regarding birth control and abortion. No dice. It seems that the ecclesiastical fixation on sex and birth control have been made up by theologians and not by Jesus, the Christian guru whose word is law.

Expand full comment

Right to Life has no biblical or historical precedent. It was created by a group of evangelical leaders and influential Republicans. It was designed to gain power for conservative forces. And it has been exceedingly successful!

Expand full comment

So, if "Christian" schools must be funded by tax payer dollars, how about "Catholic", "Hebrew", "Sikh", "Muslim", etc. schools? In fairness if it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander, so, how about I start a school for atheist children? I'm an avowed atheist, and a credentialed teacher, so they can't argue on that point.

Expand full comment

Sadly atheists by definition do not have a religion. But them I would ask if it would apply to Buddhism? Daoism? Confusionism?

Expand full comment

Flying spaghetti monsters?

Expand full comment

Might get messy, but so is Democracy!

Expand full comment

I am going to say this to the right wing fascists; we WILL have revenge. So we give you authoritarian theocrats the heads up. If you think we women will submit to a 1950s style subordination. You are even more deluded than I could have imagined. If you think there is a single family out there without a gay family member or close friend, you are dumber than imaginable. You are so deluded, you forgot we are a much bigger majority than you. We will go around this SCOTUS activist judge atrocity, we will refuse to comply, we can shut down businesses. But we will make major changes as soon as we seat our progressives. Your guns ARE on the list. We will follow your guidelines.

My awesome governor, Gov Pritzker, IL and our Chicago mayor will not allow a single change. We will be a safe haven state and city. In the end, you will lose everything you tried to impose for the past 40 years.

Expand full comment

And we women will take a leaf from Lysistrata and DENY ALL YOU FUCKERS SEX. We will fire you from your jobs, cut you off on the highways, stick our middle fingers at you and slap your stupid fat complacent faces up side the head. But the best part is, YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANY ANYMORE, ASSHOLES.

Expand full comment

A fitting response to being forced to bear children.

Expand full comment

Ellen; you may possibly be on the verge of losing your sense of humor.

Expand full comment

Many blessings on Illinois, California, Colorado, and all the other states that will protect reproductive rights!

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

ts1213 ; You are misinformed or deliberately twisting facts. I think Catholics are neurotic and at least passive aggressive, if not, like you ; hateful. I was raised Catholic and glad I got away from that toxic sexist racist belief system. Child sexual abuse says it all.

Expand full comment

Catholic doctrine is insane. You have to swear not to use contraception when you get married. Come on! That is absolutely imprisoning for a woman.

Expand full comment

Yes, Roman Catholic doctrine is poetry made up by medieval men with nothing better to do. Still, it commands some respect thanks to its breadth and depth. I was raised as a Lutheran. Lutheran theology is less specific than the catholic and therefore more open ended and inviting to individual interpretation. Most of us here seem to be free-thinkers; to those seeking a Christian-oriented poetry of life, I recommend the theology of Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who participated in the plot against the life of Hitler.

Expand full comment

well I guess Sts. Augustine and Aquinas or at least the latter actually allowed early-term abortion because they didn’t have the scientific capacity to determine “quickening”…did quickening involve the breath? The whole definition of birth thing is so frustrating. I think if a baby is “born,” that constitutes “birth,” as declared on a “birth certificate,” a very legal document, but hey…of course most people who are anti-abortion really don’t care about that part bc they just think a woman should stay home and raise kids…

Expand full comment

Martin Luther left the church because the Pope was selling 'indulgences' to the wealthy so their sins could be 'absolved'. The Vatican was expensive to build. There was a lot of sinning going on, and this absolution was profitable to get it done. My husband was raised in the Lutheran faith which is similar to Catholicism, but more 'down to earth'. Lutherans generally do not get as 'dressed up' as Catholics. We do not go to church anymore now that our children are past the age of reason. My daughter married a Baptist. My son avoids 'man made ' organized faith. I had read Paul Tillich, and would look into Dietrich Bonhoeffer, just because I am curious. I respect faith. i would not be here without it.

Expand full comment

" Be fruitful and multiply!" is the command. I guess the church wants more members to contribute to their coffers and their power. There is power in numbers.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Rees Coa ; As a former Catholic, I can say that it is a toxic control system. Anyone who denies a basic drive like sexuality is going to be neurotic. Why else would widespread child abuse happen? One of the first things drilled into our memories is the lesson in a question ; "who made me?", answer ; "God made me", is the appropriate answer. Why are we created to have a sex drive if that is such a terrible sin? A sacrilege! a moral horror that we must deny and feel shame for even feeling? Anyway there are a few neurotic Catholics that I have known and even loved. It is far from God's 'perfect love', I would say, for sure, to learn to hate, even fear what is part of a healthy body!

Expand full comment
deletedJun 25, 2022·edited Jun 25, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

The pope said that? Are you sure there wasn’t some understandable context? 🤯

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Do you have a link for this?

Expand full comment

Only until he's voted out. That's the problem, don't you see? Any blue state can turn red in the next election. You're screwed if that happens. McConnell, Pence and a few others are already talking about a national ban.

Expand full comment

Those two shits are worried, like trump and Putin, about the tiny little size of their dickie-wickies, so they have to try to control women instead of controlling themselves. It's disgusting and unconscionable.

Expand full comment

Ellen, you’re on a roll today! 😄

Expand full comment

No kidding! I am STOKED with fury at the fucking asshole dickheads who suffer from recto-cranial inversion (think about it).

Expand full comment

Really? We couldn’t tell. 😀😀

Expand full comment

Scream on, I’m all for it. In their faces!

Expand full comment

When they are out, it will be a long time until they can climb back. We MUST see Trump severely punished, voters need to turn out in droves. They ‘re not getting back in unless we sit by and watch the country succumb to Fascism. This action affects almost everyone, it’s not going to fall off the radar!

Expand full comment

We need to have free and fair elections. That would be the end of the oligarchs in America! No body would vote Republican as they are now!

Expand full comment

Cheating is THE only way republicans “win”. They rarely win the popular vote. That tells you everything.

Expand full comment

Yes, when there were fair elections they won fewer elections. The was a time when they did not win as much.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Dems are quite mainstream. But that’s what you want to call “leftist”. Being for the people and not supported a liar, seditionist bunch of child murdering heartless bastards, IS over the cliff right wing. Study some history!

Expand full comment

He’s a troll, Seeking.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

ts1213 ; Are you a 'Big Lie' proponent? 2020 was examined and challenged ands found to be an election that was legitimate. 62 judges, some of them Republican appointees agreed.

Expand full comment

Apparently the sore loser is a troll. It can go elsewhere, not wanted here, nor will we put up with deadly-seditionist-supporting traitors!

Expand full comment

Sounds like you are the NAZI.

Expand full comment

Mr. Blutarski ; Why don't you go to a right wing forum; I will not respond to you any more because you are insensitive and disrespectful of people's feelings and intolerant of other people's points of view. Most importantly, you just don't care about women's and girl's rights.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

A nazi is someone who threatens violence or harm for disagreeing with “the party line” He said I should be charged with murder if I did not take the vax. Now, does that sound like a Nazi to you? It does to me. It also sounds like the Democrat Party nowadays.

Expand full comment

According to your definition, people who disagreed with Stalin were Nazis, like the millions who starved in Ukraine in the 1930s. Your sloppy thinking doesn’t belong in this forum. Go back to your Nibelungen cave.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Rees ( great name btw). First, On this page is where I was told once that I should be charged with murder for not taking the vax and then “retroactively aborted” because I don't agree with RvW. Seems like you are rational. From the above. Conservatives are, pro American (all legal citizens) we are pro legal immigrant. We strongly support Israel against terrorism and have made have ZERO racism yet we are routinely called Nazi and White Supremacists? Why? Not sure. But if your a Black and a conservative, Dems say you are “uncle Tom” or OREO. THEY REMOVE YOUR BLACKNESS FROM YOU! If you are a conservative gay you are no longer gay. See how this works? Yet Dems ise race, rwligion, gender, sexual orientation, income level, education level, political affiliation to peg you as an “enemy” of “the cause”. So, as a rich, educated, sis gendered Christian white male I am automatically called a NAZI.

Expand full comment
deletedJun 29, 2022·edited Jun 29, 2022
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

May this be so!!!!!

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

There are millions of LGBTQ and women who will NEVER go back to this atrocious subjugation. And this will get attention in a much bigger way than the price of fuel.

Expand full comment

We will not submit!

Expand full comment

Despite the illegitimacy of their blaming Biden and the Dems for inflation…

Expand full comment

We know that it is the obscenely wealthy who buy our government and, obviously,, the 'Supreme Court'! Thank you, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich and other real leaders for calling the oligarchs class out! Your days are numbered! Filthy rich!

Expand full comment

Trump Privately Called a Roe v. Wade Reversal ‘Bad’ for His Party

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/24/us/midterm-primary-elections#trump-roe-wade-republicans

Expand full comment

What the hell did he think these idiots would do? He appointed them just so they would do shit like that (and keep him in the White House, of course).

Expand full comment

Primarily the latter. If Trump hasn’t forced a woman h impregnated to have an abortion, I’d be surprised.

Expand full comment

Was thinking the same thing!

Expand full comment

I think tRump really wanted all hell to break loose so martial law could be invoked/justified while he was still in power!

Expand full comment

Remember Marjorie Taylor Green testifying in the hearing and the memo she misspelled ; 'Marshall law'.?

Expand full comment

Yes, that seems likely.

Expand full comment

He had no idea…just a figure head for those using him to drive extremist policies.

Expand full comment

He needed the votes and dirty money, But they wanted to start a 5 alarm fire so they could justify extreme measures to get the people under control! They might have succeeded, but for some luck and a few good people who would not go as far as tRump wanted them to go. But it is not over yet. The threat is still with us. We have a stacked court and an infestation (no apologies) in our government ; the Congress, Senate and the Court ; and who knows where else? CIA? Edward Snowden said in his book ; 'Permanent Record', that corporate interests had taken over the C.I.A. ; 40% of corporations are foreign actors.

Expand full comment

I hope he’s right. We need to win because this is an even

More important moment for the planet’s future and democracy’s.

Expand full comment

😢

Expand full comment

Survival IS important. Like getting to work. And buying food. Nobody can live out in the street, even in winter and certainly with children.

Expand full comment

More babies! Who will pay for them? We will.

Expand full comment

Expand the Supreme Court! Please!

Expand full comment

Yes…yes…yes..expand the Supreme Court!

Expand full comment

We need way more senators but yeah

Expand full comment

When a tiny state such as Wyoming has as much say in the Senate as a big state like California, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Two Senators from each state worked when this country was young and the states were small and of more-or-less equal population.

Expand full comment

Or at least two?

Expand full comment

And perhaps have term limits. What does Professor Reich say about that?

Expand full comment

This actually makes sense. The U.S. has 13 circuit courts, and each member of SCOTUS oversees one or more of these. 13 Justices would mean that each justice has his/her/whatever circuit court.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Yeah, the tired old slippery-slope argument. Slippery slopes can tilt both ways, you know.

Expand full comment

I don’t think so, duh 🙄

Expand full comment

And the timing is interesting. This comes the day after explosive and incriminating evidence by the Jan 6th Committee. Of course everyone is upset about this ruling and attention moves away from the coup the committee is revealing. While there is much to be disturbed about, it is also interesting that the Court first allowed open carry of guns, presumably even automatic weapons used solely to intimidate and kill people, even children. Immediately after that they claim to "protect life" of a fetus, even at the expense of the mother's life. Maybe they just want a country of non viable humans who can't speak, move or think.

Expand full comment

Regarding the "supreme" court justices, there also needs to be a complete investigation into Leonard Leo and his stacking of the extremists who now populate the majority of the "supreme" court. Dark money, shell companies and all. BTW Alito, the word "Lobbyist" is nowhere to be found in our Constitution so this, based on your thinking, is ILLEGAL. Who actually is funding this path to the dark ages? As I recall our founder's wanted freedom FROM religion.

Expand full comment

Precisely right...the timing. Oaths of office? Hmmm can we look at some kind of ethics filings? How the heck does that happen with the SCOTUS? Robert likely knows!

Expand full comment

Good point! They are experts at distractions at crucial times.

Expand full comment

🤫 Ss-sshhh! You don’t want to let the oppo know what you are thinking!

Expand full comment

I have always felt, since the Roe v Wade "leak", that we have reason to impeach the three judges appointed by Trump. They outright lied during their confirmation hearings.

As for Justice Thomas, his wife, Jenni, should be held responsible for her part in the insurrection.

Expand full comment

Tough to do. However, where they have a record, can be disqualified on a cases by case basis. 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

IMHO the Supreme Court bar is complicit by failing to bring motions. Why they didn't request an emergency motion is beyond me.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Daniel. I didn't know there was a Supreme Court bar. Are they appointed? Are they vetted? By whom?

Expand full comment

Daniel,

Is there a procedure for permanent removal from the court, upon showing cause?

Expand full comment

Impeachment.

However if a justice were in jail after convicted of a crime, tough to hear oral argument.

Expand full comment

😆

Expand full comment

Very good.

Shabbot Shalom.

Expand full comment

That they didn’t bring motions, I was unaware. OMG.

Expand full comment

It would be quite interesting to know the process of SCOTUS removal, censor action, or whatever the existing guardrails are currently. This highly unusual action, May demand another highly unusual action.

Expand full comment

It's Ginni--short for no vagina.

Expand full comment

Why do I feel that the Thomas couple will not suffer any consequences? Disappointing to say the least.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

The World Health Orgsnization? What planet do you live on.

Expand full comment
Jun 24, 2022·edited Jun 24, 2022

I feel completely violated. And I don't know how to recover.

Expand full comment

Same. It really is violence, for the state to reach into our internal organs and mandate anything, especially something with such longstanding consequences for our lives—and It is absolutely an assault on our democracy not just because a majority of people support abortion rights, but because now, women are officially less than men in the eyes of the nation. We are not equal. Until men can get pregnant exactly like women, this right must remain ours purely on the grounds of the democratic right to equality under law. I, like you, am shuddering from this real, real wound.

Expand full comment
Jun 24, 2022·edited Jun 24, 2022

The Supreme Court was happy to send that woman to her grave who was on death row because she killed a pregnant woman and took her baby out, the baby being still alive. This woman had, however, been subject to abject and unbelievably extreme abuse her entire life, to the point that she became deeply intellectually challenged; she had also been sterilized by her husband due to so many sexual assaults impregnating her. They didn’t care about any of her reasons, but they brazenly throw this in our faces without any legitimate excuse for our mercy.

Expand full comment

I’m feeling the same, Cynthia. We must fight at the ballot box. That’s the only way to move forward.

Expand full comment

SCREAM, AND DENY SEX TO ANY MAN IN YOUR LIFE LIKE LYSISTRATA DID. Shove them in public, stick your middle finger at all male drivers, fire any male worker you can, and refuse to do anything any male dares to expect you to do. STOP BEING PASSIVE. SHOUT SCREAM KICK THEM IN THEIR LITTLE TINY BALLS.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your honest anger. I am AT LEAST that angry.

Expand full comment

GOOD!! THEN SHOUT IT, SCREAM IT, AND KICK SOME ASS. WE WOMEN HAVE LEARNED ALL TOO WELL TO BE PASSIVE, TO SUBMIT, TO DEFER TO MEN IN OUR LIVES, AND I AM SICK OF IT!!! I went out and earned a Ph.D. in philosophy and taught young women how to think critically so they could argue back when men tried to control them, and I'm happy to say that many of them have taken fine control of their lives and their bodies, as well as their thinking. THE FUTURE IS FEMALE!!

Expand full comment

Would make me a sandwich please. 😂

Expand full comment

I can't figure out why you are on this channel. I really don't think you belong. Please take leave of us and save yourself $5. We would all appreciate it.

Expand full comment

I can't help but wonder what you are doing on this channel. I think you don't belong here. Save your $5 and take leave of us. It would be much appreciated.

Expand full comment

Maybe it’s ultimately good for us to have his audience?

Expand full comment

I learn by actual interaction. Living in a bubble is not good for any of us. You should try it.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Is that a bad thing? I wouldn't know. The people I hang with are clean and smell of roses!

Expand full comment

I admire you, Ellen. You are in the same type of field I am in. I want to teach women to be assertive and say "no" to a lot of things that they feel trapped in. I would love to teach these boundaries to lots of people so they can find their freedom because not being able to use my anger to find my assertion has robbed me of a lot up till now.

Expand full comment

IANAL, but I don't understand why Roe (and Lawrence) weren't grounded in the right to privacy and bodily autonomy. The framers believed in that right; the Fourth Amendment makes no sense without it. And the idea that "it's not a right if it's not in the Constitution" is rejected by the Constitution itself, in the Ninth Amendment.

But that's all legal jiggery-pokery. As a result of the laws allowed by this decision, women will die. Women will die from ectopic pregnancies, from preeclampsia, from all sorts of things I don't know anything about because I'm not a doctor. And neither is a prosecutor, or a judge, or a legislator (with a few exceptions). So I should not make this decision for a woman, and neither should they. Only her.

Expand full comment

Read about Savita Halappanavar in Ireland. Because of her highly publicized and tragic death, Ireland now allows abortion

Expand full comment

The whole point of Thomas's opinion is that any decision based on the unenumerated right to privacy, drawn on the basis of substantive due process, is now suspect and should be "revisited." There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution.

Expand full comment

There's also no explicit right for women to vote in the original Constitution, nor is there any explicit right for anyone to marry anyone else. There's no explicit right to buy and operate a vehicle, either. Nor is there a right to drink coffee, or swim naked, or use profane language. Thomas is an asshole.

Expand full comment

Let me quote the post you were responding to:

"the idea that "it's not a right if it's not in the Constitution" is rejected by the Constitution itself, in the Ninth Amendment."

Expand full comment

Tell that to Clarence Thomas, who seems to think that unenumerated rights don't exist.

Expand full comment

I apologize, I thought you were taking that same position. I see it often.

Expand full comment

She was making a different kind of point.

Expand full comment

Which, since that holds true, he should "revisit" Loving v. Virginia since it has the same basis

Expand full comment

But there is. See James comment above. Amendment IX clearly and unequivocally states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people."

Expand full comment

Yes. The broad repercussions of that are frightening.

Expand full comment

Good for you, James, that adds ammunition for impeachment.

Expand full comment

4 or 5 of the SCOTUS LIED in their confirmation hearings, asserting that they would uphold the laws of our country, specifically Roe v. Wade. So the hearings are now worthless, and the Judicial branch of our government has now become a tool of the Rethuglican Party, rather than a balance. Alito's writing on R v W says this is a moral issue...but the court is NOT empowered to make "moral" rulings; only rulings about our laws. Our Democracy is over unless more judges are added to SCOTUS.

Expand full comment

And BTW, why is the Supreme Court more powerful than the other branches? They’re supposed to be coequal.

Expand full comment

The judges just stated the law. They didn't say they would uphold it. They are swamp creatures baring their ugly heads like vipers that poison those that approach. In other words, they are slimy, slippery snakes.

Expand full comment

If Thomas goes after same sex marriage, it should be tied to also prohibiting inter-racial marriage, and see how he likes them apples.

Expand full comment

Maybe that's his subconscious target ... 🤣

Expand full comment

Passing laws against inter racial marriage seems a cheap trick to get out of hthomas' marriage with Ginny. But he isn't new to cheap tricks and she is quite awful.

Expand full comment

no one will bring that case, though—no one on our side anyway

Expand full comment

I’m glad my law license is inactive. These are embarrassing moments by this court. And, their collective errors in history are mind boggling. A law professor from UC Irvine (I think) stated on MSNBC that Ben Franklin EVEN printed directions for a safe means of abortion intended for “before quickening”. Left that out. It’s all so atrocious. We have entered a really bizarre Twilight Zone.

As a county commissioner I presided over a meeting when the Right To Life came before us. They objected to us funding Planned Parenthood to educate and treat chlamydia. When I asked if they realized untreated chlamydia results in sterility, no future children (had to spell it out for them), they were shocked. They went away.

So, now, here we are. Let’s use Mark Shield’s aphorism and go get us some converts...register them and get them to the polls. Only that can save the rule of law and Democracy.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

You are correct, Rees, that getting people to the polls is fraught with peril. All of this has got to be very masterfully strategized. I am thankful for our Democratic Party and hopeful that every single vote will be sought out. Look, we have to take the plunge. It was already bad before this, now it’s horrendous. We have to hold the Senate, and move Heaven and Earth for the House. I sat on the phone, online and did whatever I had to for JB. It’s hard, almost factory work, LOLOL. Along the way you meet inspiring people who are 85 and out putting up signs in the cold, or they are in Georgia sitting in the dark without electric and still want your help getting them to the right polling place. If I can learn a bit of SLACK anyone can!

We can do this. There are more of us than them!

Expand full comment

Repubs know that they will lose unless they cheat, so they're using all the cheats in their power to stop anyone else from having any power. This decision has turned me over to the side of FUCK THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS OVER.

Expand full comment

Hacks. The smugness of this court reviles me. And I’m sure Thomas will make good on going after any socially forward decisions that have been made by the court. A few years back, I had to help a young woman obtain an abortion. It was not easy and 1. Had to go to another state for multiple appointments 2. Force ones way into the. Clinic past a woman screaming pro-life(?) slogans, 3. Bullet proof glass protecting staff 4. A thoroughly depressing and factory environment- aside from the pain and grief experienced by this young woman. I remember those unwed mother homes, knew several woman way back who had to be in them. Unwanted children abound on this earth; having the need of an abortion is truly tragic but at the least should be made available, free and safe. The bigger issue, the rights of women and the rights of women over their own bodies- I am livid-

Expand full comment

A shameful day when the United States Supreme Court reduces our freedoms and overturns a law that protect a woman’s right to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Despite the majority of Americans supporting Roe the courts evangelical conservative majority have put the US below staunchly Catholic countries like Italy and Spain in terms of abortion access. The court has relinquished its standing as an impartial arbiter by embracing religious views in their decisions rather than deciding based on existing law and prior precedent. And it is clear that the court will take aim at other freedoms very soon. It is imperative that Democrats maintain and increase our majority and strive to rebalance the court or we will soon live in a theocracy.

Expand full comment