The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - My Take

(Note.  In the second post of May 15, I wrote "My Take," following the leak of the preliminary draft in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  This is "My Take" following the final decision overturning Roe.)

As one might expect, the left went overboard in the reactions to the decision.  Quite a few on the mainstream stations referred to the decision as "fascist."  Mika Brzezinski, on MSNBC, also said the decision was "anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-contraception...and anti-freedom."  Conservatives are used to the name-calling.  We understand that demagoguery is the favored debating technique of the Left.  Although, that is at least a little nicer than "fuck you Supreme Court," as some celebrities spouted.    

So let's be clear.  The decision in Dobbs did not make abortion illegal.  It did say there was no federal constitutional right to an abortion.  It returned the issue to the states, where, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought the debate should be.  (See the 6/26/22 post regarding commentary in The New York Times.)  And no, 5 white men did not make the decision in Dobbs.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined in that decision, as did Justice Thomas.  But 7 white men did make the decision in Roe.  Back then it was okay for white men to decide these things.   

Here was this past Sunday's editorial in the Los Angeles Times:  "It's a dark time in America as this once-revered institution has taken the rare and awful path of depriving people of their rights."  Nope, not what the Court did.  What the Court did do was say that Roe was decided on, at best, very shaky constitutional grounds, that the Court should not have gotten involved with abortion in the first place,  returning the issue to the voters and their elected state representatives.  

Here was Representative Maxine Waters:  "The hell with the Supreme Court.  We will defy them."  Defy the Supreme Court of the United States?  I thought it was only Republicans who disrespected our democracy.  Lest you tell me she is a little wacky, let's not forget Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  Nor should we forget that an armed man who threatened to assassinate Kavanaugh was arrested near the Justice's home.  

Of course, when the Left does not get their way, it is time to change the rules of the game.  Pack the Court.  Term limits for the Justices.  Eliminate the filibuster in order to accomplish those goals.  President Biden called the decision in Dobbs an "outlier" in the developed world.  Nope.  Ireland and Germany ban most abortions after 12 weeks.  In Italy it's after 90 days.  In France, Austria and Spain, abortion is banned after 14 weeks.  In the Czech Republic it's 20 weeks, and in the UK it's 24 weeks.  And there are exceptions for various reasons.

But, contrary to the desire of some, it is not unrestricted access up to and including the due date.  Yet, there are states with no restrictions - Alaska, Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Vermont, New Jersey and Washington, D.C.  And possibly New Hampshire.  Just today I heard from someone who favors abortion through the due date.  So let me be clear, such late term abortions (absent a need to protect the life of the mother) are murder.  It is infanticide.  I do not understand how anyone can justify that.  

I remain opposed, as well, to an all-out ban of abortion.  My position in the Dobbs case remains unchanged from May 15.  The Mississippi statute in question banned abortions after 15 weeks.  That is what the Court should have addressed.  And notice how 15 weeks is a longer period than is allowed in quite a few European countries, where the people decided.

As Gerard Baker wrote in the 6/28/22 Wall Street Journal:  "Progressives should now know what conservatives have known for a long time: that the burden is on them to convince voters to support ethically sound solutions that can balance the competing interests of women, the unborn and the soul of society itself."  But, Democrats have for some time looked to the courts to accomplish their policy goals.  The democratic process?  Not so much.

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - A Brief Look At Commentary In The Los Angeles Times

(Note.  While the L.A. Times did not have their own editorial in yesterday's paper, it can be fairly stated that they allowed an Op-Ed by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, to act as the paper's editorial.)  

Dean Chemerinsky:  "Roe vs. Wade was overruled not because of anything about its reasoning or any method of judicial interpretation but because Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 and was able to appoint three justices to fulfill his promise to...end abortion rights."  This is not the first time that I have been disappointed by Dean Chemerinsky.  (See the post on Kyle Rittenhouse.)  A look at the prior post reveals there were, in fact, criticisms of the Roe Court's reasoning and judicial interpretation - even by those on the Left.

Dean Chemerinsky complained that in Dobbs the Court wanted to leave the decision making on abortion to the political process, yet had no hesitation in declaring a New York State law passed in 1911 as being unconstitutional, and not deferring to the political process in that case.  (New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, in which the Court held that the Second Amendment provided for a right to keep and bear arms.)  Is the Dean kidding?  There is an express constitutional provision - the Second Amendment - discussing guns.  Where is the express constitutional provision discussing abortion?  I expect better, especially from the Dean of one of the most prestigious law schools in the country. 

A look at the letters to the editor.  "A fetus now has greater rights than any woman or girl of reproductive age."  I wonder if the writer acknowledges any point in the pregnancy when the fetus/baby gains any rights.  And this letter:  "The U.S. is now officially a third-world country with a draconian Supreme Court."  I have actually felt that I live in a third-world country just by watching the news and driving around the city, and seeing people living on the streets everywhere.  And I do mean everywhere.  

And this letter:  "With most abortions now achieved through medication rather than a procedure, I bid you good luck trying to stop them.  You're going to need it."  That fact is supported by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. 

In an article inside the paper, the Times asserts that Republicans will push federal legislation to ban abortions nationwide.  And, they state that bills have been introduced in both the House and the Senate to do just that.  Although, they point out that the Senate bill has only 19 supporters, and the House bill has only 164 - both far short of the number for passage.  Meanwhile, some Democrats want the Congress to pass a federal law, while the Democrats still have the majority, permitting abortion  throughout the country.  I believe they are both wrong.

The general police power resides with the states.  That is why state governors, and not the President, decided when and if to have lockdowns due to Covid.  Under what provision in the Constitution or federal law, does Congress have the power to make a federal law on abortion?  And how disappointing would it be to see Republicans arguing for that power, when a conservative Court just said the opposite.  And I understand that many Democrats do not believe that the federal government should have any limitations on its powers.  Apparently Senator Schumer was unable to get all 50 Democratic Senators to support his bill, which Senator John Cornyn asserts would allow for abortion up to the due date, at least in certain instances.  And Senator Manchin said the proposal does not codify Roe, but seeks to expand it.    

In another article inside the paper, they quote President Biden fighting back against a threat by some red states to make it illegal for women to leave that state and go to another state in order to get an abortion.  If any state makes it illegal to travel from their no abortion state to a pro abortion state, that is outrageous.  I have long believed that there is an understood right to travel between the states, which can be supported by at least a couple of constitutional provisions.  Besides, we live in the USA, not the USSR.  We believe in liberty - not using the threat of law to keep people locked in place.  I cannot imagine a more anti-conservative position than trying to ban freedom of travel. 

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe - A Brief Look At Commentary In The New York Times

(Note.  I recently wrote three posts on the expected decision in Dobbs - two on May 15 and one on May 22.  The second on on May 15 gave "My Take" on what appeared would be the decision to overturn Roe, which the Court has now done in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  Abortion has been an emotional issue for those on both sides of the argument.  Before getting to "My Take" yet again, I want to address some of the reactions we've seen to the decision.)

Let's start with yesterday's editorial in the New York Times.  In the second sentence, the Times tells us that the decision "eliminated an established constitutional right involving the most fundamental of human concerns: the dignity and autonomy to decide what happens to your body."  I am curious if the Times had the same concerns about the right to control what happens to your body with regards to the Covid vaccines.  I opposed people losing their jobs, especially first responders, when government dictated to get the vaccine or be fired.  (Full disclosure.  I got two Pfizer vaccines, a Pfizer booster, and recently a Moderna booster.)

The Times criticizes the majority's reasoning in Dobbs, which claimed abortion is not "deeply rooted" in our country's history and tradition.  But then the paper complains that the Constitution "was written by a small band of wealthy white men," with many owning slaves and most considering women to be second-class citizens.  Just obnoxious.  When Roe was decided - by seven white men - did the Times complain about the Constitution then?  Were they fretting over seven white men making that decision?The Left's focus on identity politics is non-stop.  Never mind that this document, this Constitution, written by wealthy white men, is the greatest governing document ever written.  But if the Times wishes to move their operations to a country governed by, say, Sharia Law, all the best. 

As readers know, I also like to look at the letters to the editor.  One letter writer called Roe a "super precedent" (I do not know what that means legally), and called the decision "unconscionable," and issued by an "illegitimate court."  I am sad to say that this letter was written by a retired New York City judge.

Here is another letter:  "Years ago, whether I agreed with the court's decisions or not, I respected it and saw its decisions as sacrosanct.  But my disappoint in the current court is complete...this Supreme Court has become an arm of the G.O.P."  I wonder if the writer agreed with the Court's decisions when it was dominated by liberals.  I wonder if the writer has moved far left, as has much of the Democratic Party, and therefore feels differently in her worldview about many issues, especially her view of Republicans.

And this letter:  "Let's stop the battle of when life begins and move it to when does responsibility begin?  If responsibility begins at the point of conception for the males involved in every pregnancy, let's see how quickly women's health decisions are decriminalized and abortion rights laws remain."  I do not know what effect the writer's point would have on abortion laws.  I do know that I completely with her with regards to the responsibility of the male/father. 

In an article inside the paper, the Times quoted one Justice saying "The court bit off more than it could chew."  That was Ruth Bader Ginsburg discussing the decision in Roe vs. Wade.  She felt that the Roe Court should have simply addressed the very restrictive Texas statute at issue in Roe.  (Which was my opinion as to what the Dobbs Court should have done - address the Mississippi statute in question.)  Ginsburg was obviously in favor of allowing abortion.  But she also said this:  "The legislatures all over the United States were moving on this question...the law was in a state of flux."  By shutting down the debate on abortion taking place in the states, the Court created a backlash.  

Ginsburg:  "The Supreme Court's decision was a perfect rallying point for people who disagreed with the notion that it should be a woman's choice...they could, instead of fighting in the trenches legislature by legislature, go after this decision by unelected judges."  Even some in liberal academia criticized the Court in Roe.  One Yale law school professor and constitutional scholar, John Hart Ely, is quoted by the Times as follows:  "It (the decision in Roe) is not constitutional law, and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."  The Times says that Professor "Ely wrote that the Roe decision was untenable as a matter of intellectually honest jurisprudence."

       

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part III

So, what would I do?  First, as discussed in "My Take, Part I," I would enhance school security.  The Israelis are a good role model.  Is it going to be expensive?  Yes.  But as I said, we spend trillions of dollars annually.  Let's spend some on securing our schools.  And, I suspect there are current or retired law enforcement officers willing to volunteer their time.  The same for ex-military.  I am talking about men and women already trained in the use of firearms.

Also as discussed in Part I, I agree with the Rebbe's concern about declining religious involvement and the need for a non-denominational school prayer.  But this is a societal and family problem.  As the Wall Street Journal opined in their 5/26/22 editorial:  "The modern welfare state is adept at writing checks, but not much else.  Today's young killers aren't motivated by material deprivation.  They are typically from middle-class families with access to smartphones and X-boxes.  Their deficit is social and spiritual.  The rise of family dysfunction and the decline of mediating institutions such as churches and social clubs have consequences."  To my thinking, the societal, family and religious issues are far more significant than the issue of guns.

In March, 2018, and following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, then Governor Rick Scott signed into law some new legislation regarding guns.  The age at which someone could buy a rifle was raised to 21.  I agree with this, and here's why.  I am well aware that 18 year old's serve in our military.  But they are trained and disciplined in the use of firearms.  I am also aware that in many states people under age 18 grow up with firearms, and are taught the proper and safe use of such weapons at an early age.  But I also know that many 18 year old's are emotionally immature.  And shooters often dwell on perceived slights that they experienced in high school.  My hope is that being away from school and out in the real world for a few years, will lessen whatever emotional impact they experienced in school. 

The Florida law also put in place red flag laws, which the legislation called "risk protection orders."  I am in favor.  I discussed in Part I the difficulty in banning gun ownership based on a diagnosable psychological condition.  The law in Florida has given judges the ability to at least temporarily ban purchasing a gun by people who have been reported to the authorities to have made threats.  Is there a risk of abuse, say by an abusive spouse against the other spouse, making the victim of the abuse defenseless?  Yes.  Is there is a risk of abuse by liberal judges who too readily issue such orders?  Yes.  But I also read quite a few instances online where such risk protection orders were not only appropriate, but likely highly effective in preventing shootings.  I understand that no law is perfect.

The Florida law also allowed school staff trained in the use of firearms to carry a weapon.  I have mixed feelings about this, but I come down in favor.  I would want it to be a concealed carry.  And, I am in favor because of the risk of a shooter getting past the armed guard at the entrance.

I am sure that those on the left will be disappointed by my not advocating for greater gun control, if not outright banning of the private ownership of guns.  And I suspect some on the right will disapprove of my support for red flag laws and raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21.  I welcome all (respectful) comments.

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part II

A look at some facts.  Jason Riley reported in the 6/1/22 Wall Street Journal, that 54% of the gun related deaths in 2020 were suicides, while less than 1% of gun deaths were a result of mass shootings.  That does not mean that all those deaths were not tragic.  Of course they were.  Riley also notes that gun ownership is more common in rural areas than in cities, yet it is the cities that tend to have more gun violence.  And, while whites have a higher degree of gun ownership than blacks and Hispanics, gun violence is a more common problem among those two minority groups.  

Obviously, the disparity in gun violence of whites vs minorities, and rural vs city, suggests that guns are not the problem.  For those who argue that guns are the major problem, you need to address these factual issues.  

I would like to add another issue:  the mainstream media.  How and what the media reports determines viewpoints.  The perceptions disseminated by the media become reality for many people.  An example.  The media never fails to report when a white cop kills a black person.  Therefore, many people can readily name at least some blacks who have been killed by the police.  When I have asked people to name a single white person shot and killed by the police, they are unable to do so.  Yet, far more whites are killed by the police than are blacks.  But, as perception becomes reality, to some, being unable to name a single white person killed by police must mean it does not happen.  Or, at least not very often.  And being able to name several blacks killed by the police must mean it is an epidemic. 

President Biden gave his "do something" speech to the nation about guns on 6/2/22.  There are some suggestions with which I agree, and those I will discuss in the next post.  But here are those items with which I disagree.  I would not ban so-called assault rifles, by which people mean the AR-15 (Armalite 15) rifles.  I have spoken with people far more knowledgeable than I am about this.  I would not repeal the gun manufacturers' liability shield, as I see that as a backdoor approach to put gun manufacturers out of business through countless lawsuits.

Prior to his speech, Biden had suggested a ban on the production of 9mm handguns, the most common gun in America.  I certainly do not agree with that.  People should have a right to protect themselves.  In the recently passed House legislation, the "Protecting Our Kids Act," the law suggested criminal penalties for anyone violating the new requirements for the safe firearm storage on residential premises.  I do not agree with that.  People who are irresponsible can already be held accountable at the state level.  

Not surprisingly, Biden argued in his speech that voters should make the issue of guns "central" to their vote in November.  I doubt that will happen.  Not with the highest rate of inflation in over 40 years.  Not with ongoing supply chain issues.  Not with out of control crime and homelessness across the country.  And not with a wide open border, allowing a large volume of fentanyl to illegally be brought into the country, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.  As more people die from fentanyl than from guns, I suggest that people make Biden's open border policy "central" to their vote in November.

But here is a recommendation I do have for the President.  Tone down the rhetoric!  I heard Jen Psaki, from the White House podium, state that it was an appropriate exercise of free speech to demonstrate in front of the homes of Supreme Court Justices.  No, it's not.  There is even a federal law prohibiting it.  And while that law might run afoul of the First Amendment, it still does not make it right.  I asked in an earlier post if judges should decide cases based upon who makes the loudest noise?  Based on the mob?  Did Biden criticize Schumer for threatening Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?  Because now we just had a man from Simi Valley, California, travel to Washington with the intent of assassinating Justice Kavanaugh.  

Toning down the rhetoric starts from the top.  And you, President Biden, are in a unique position to initiate a more civil political tone.  You ran as a "uniter."  The main theme of your inaugural address was that you were going to unify the country.  Prove it.  

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part I

 (Note.  I have written various posts dealing the subject of guns.  A detailed discussion was done in the 1/12/13 post.  There was additional discussion in the 12/5/15 post, the 3/4/18 post and the recent post of 4/10/22.  All are still up on the blog.)

When I heard about the racist, antisemitic bastard shooting and killing black people who were just out shopping in the supermarket, I was furious.  I knew little about the shooter, but I wanted to see a public execution.  Then, we learned about an evil shooter killing children in an elementary school in Uvalde.  How anyone could shoot ten year old's was simply incomprehensible.  I alternated between extreme anger and sadness/tears.  But, unlike others (commentators and people telling me to write about guns), my anger was directed at the perpetrators, not at guns.  

I suggested that the issue was far more complicated than "guns."  After all, I thought there were issues of school safety and security, social media, violent video games and realistically violent movies and TV shows, dysfunctional families, fatherless families, young alienated loner males, mental health, and a weakening of religious upbringing and involvement in churches and synagogues.  But the mainstream media, and some readers, told me the only real issue was guns. 

A word about the Second Amendment.  I will not debate the meaning of the Second Amendment here.  However, I do acknowledge that no right in the Constitution is absolute.  Not even the First Amendment right to speech.  Also, it would be impossible for me to cover each of the issues set forth in the above paragraph, in this post.  So I will touch on a few, before getting to guns.

Mental health.  There was an interesting article on NBC online on 5/28/22.  They quoted the Harvard Review of Psychiatry as follows:  "The assumption that mass shootings are driven solely or even primarily by diagnosable psychopathology stretches the limits of mental health expertise."  They also state that many of these shooters do share symptoms with others who never become shooters.  Symptoms such as "depression, isolation from family and classmates, narcissism, paranoia and suspicion...(and) feeling easily threatened or insulted by others."  That does not instill confidence in being able to screen for mental illness.

Social media.  On 5/28/22, CNN reported that the "Uvalde gunman threatened rapes and school shootings on social media app Yubo in (the) weeks leading up to the massacre, users say."  The problem is, 99% of the estimated 60 million users of Yubo are age 25 and under.  None of them took the threats with sufficient seriousness to make a report.  CNN indicates that Yubo began in 2015 and is based in Paris.  So it would appear that both users of the site, and the site itself, failed to alert authorities about the threat from the Uvalde gunman.  

School safety and security.  The Western Journal (5/30/22) had an interesting piece about school security in Israel.  The Israelis are famous for being leaders in security, given the threats that they face on a daily basis.  According to the Journal, Israel has a "complex, multi-layered approach" to school security.  It includes behavioral profiling, monitoring people's social media profiles, having metal detectors going into schools and having to sign in, and having one entrance and one exit.  The head of security knows everyone coming in and leaving.  And they have a "spotter" 50 meters out from the school patrolling the area.  They have security fencing and numerous cameras, and there are barricades that prevent cars from driving onto the campus.  Does all that cost a lot?  I am sure that it does.  But we are spending multiple trillions of dollars a year at the federal level already.  Can't we spend some of that for school safety?  

Declining religious involvement.  Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (the Rebbe) is widely regarded as being the most influential Rabbi in the 20th century.  Rabbi Schneerson was the head of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.  (Disclosure.  I have attended religious services at Chabad for years.)  The Rebbe was a big believer in school prayer.  However, he was well aware that many of his fellow Jews feared that Christian prayers would dominate the schools.  Therefore, he advocated for a non-denominational prayer that would acknowledge the existence of G-d.  He said that all people needed to know that "the world in which they live is not a jungle, where brute force, cunning, and unbridled passion rule supreme, but that it has a (Supreme Being) Who...takes a 'personal interest' in the affairs of each and every individual, and to Him everyone is accountable for (his or her) daily conduct."  Are we, as a society, better off without school prayer?  I certainly don't thinks so.  

And the Rebbe made this very astute observation:  "If in a previous generation there were people who doubted the need of Divine authority for common morality and ethics, (and who believed instead) that human reason is sufficient authority for morality and ethics, our present generation has, unfortunately, in a most devastating and tragic way, refuted this mistaken notion.  For it is precisely the nation which had excelled itself in the exact sciences, the humanities, and even in philosophy and ethics, that turned out to be the most depraved nation in the world..."  The Rebbe was referring, of course, to Nazi Germany.

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? A Few Comments By My Readers

(Note.  Following the shooting in Buffalo, and especially after the shooting of 10 year old's in Uvalde, I have heard from people with various opinions.  Emotions were quite raw.  I found myself with tears multiple times after these shootings.  This post is to allow readers who have contacted me to express their opinions, without comment by me.  As a conservative, and sharing some of the values of classical liberalism, I believe that all voices should be heard.)

"Don't call me to discuss.  I'm too emotional.  A rage.  But, I urge you to immediately write your thoughts and positions on guns, community and school shootings.  Sandy Hook, Parkland, Sylmar, Orlando, Arvada, Buffalo, Columbine, Borderline Bar, San Bernardino, Uvalde, and on and on.  I think that I hate the word 'gun' more than just any other word.  Worst invention ever.  I believe the second amendment should be overturned.  I know you disagree with me and the views of many others on this subject.  But, I think now is the time for you, again, to address these issues.  I had to get this off my chest.  Don't try to rationalize the second amendment or guns to me.  Just write your blog.  Hopefully, tonight."  (Sent 5/24/22)

"Look at the background of all of the shooters.  All loners/lonely.  All angry.  All leaving social media posts of intent.  No one reporting warning signs.  All with poor or no parenting - even the two engineers in NY.  All suffering from mental illness.  When will Mental Health professionals open their eyes and deal with violent behavior?  I am for background checks to pacify the left.  But show me a case where it would have made any difference.  All the guns were legally obtained, even from the stupid parents in Michigan!"   

"It seems like you'll look for every reason NOT to regulate guns.  It certainly can't be the Second Amendment which does not prohibit all regulation of guns.  Your prior blog about guns, which I thought was your worst, has not aged well.  Yes, there are other things we can and should do.  But gun regulation should be an EASY beginning.  There's the lead for your blog.  To acknowledge that evil exists gets us nowhere." 

To paraphrase a retired police officer friend who spoke to me:  I am furious at those cowards who stood outside and did not go in.  I refuse to call them fellow cops - they are cowards!  If you don't ever want to face danger, then don't put on the badge and don't carry a gun.  But if you put on a badge and carry a gun, do your damn job!  I've been in firefights.  I've been shot.  It's the risk we take by doing the job.

"Move the eligible age for purchasing a firearm up to 21?  What if someone gets married at 18 - do they need to wait three years to be able to defend their person, loved ones and home?  Should they move the age for marriage?  Up or down?  Age for driving?  Age for drinking?  Age for smoking marijuana?  Age for a non-emergency abortion?  Age for receiving 'transexual-ed' in school?"

"The vast number of shootings and murders are the result of gang violence.  No 'assault weapons' are involved.  Stop gang violence and the murder rate will plummet.  Knives kill many more than AR rifles.  Drug overdoses killed 108,000 kids last year, supplied by Mexican Cartels and the CCP.  This is all just a political game to shore (up) democrat polling losses.  We have a mental health crisis, a failure of faith and family cohesion, with politicians and the media sowing division within socioeconomic segments of American culture."  

"The most common form of death by firearm is suicide.  But a close second is related to drug warfare.  Like the alcohol-fueled wars in the days of Prohibition, the huge amount of money involved in the drug trade leads to continued armed skirmishes in both our cities and our rural areas.  In addition to the gun violence the drug trade creates, it has single-handedly created thousands and thousands of opioid overdose deaths.  Drug-fueled gang warfare in Central America is the main impetus to illegal immigration from South and Central America...Gang-related deaths, the opioid crisis, illegal immigration, corruption of law enforcement - does any other problem in our country create a comparable list of crises?  What is the solution?  GET THE MONEY OUT OF DRUGS!!  If it wasn't for US drug users paying them, these drug gangs and armies would no longer be funded...Decriminalizing drugs and provision of supervised free use and treatment centers, would cut the heart out of the economic fuel for drug deaths - whether by gun or by overdose."