I was on vacation the last 2 weeks, but after looking at all of the abortion memes from the usual suspects, and even the media coverage more broadly, what stands out to me is that none of them attack the SCOTUS decision on merit, or argue why is was legally wrong. There is no attempt at even making a constitutional argument now.
▪️This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine gets into an argument with Poppie over abortion, and he asks here where she gets the right, and she yells “The Supreme Court!” The reality is now apparent that Roe was used as a crutch by the left, and now they can’t walk.
▪️Roe, and later Casey, found a right to abortion implicit in the constitution via the right to privacy and particularly in the 14th amendment’s due process clause. But as SCOTUS just ruled, they never properly explained this and it made no sense legally or historically.
▪️The court pointed out that when the 14th amendment was adopted, the vast majority of states outlawed abortion in ALL stages of pregnancy, and by the early 20th century every single state had laws restricting abortion. Clearly the 14th A wasn’t written with abortion in mind.
▪️Furthermore, there’s no historical context for abortion rights, not only in the constitution, but in state constitutions, federal or state courts, or even in scholarly treatises. Considering the Constitution never mentions or implies abortion, it’s bizarre to say the 14th amendment establishes abortion rights.
▪️Of course, atrocities like Jim Crow and “separate but equal” also happened after the 14th amendment, but these were obviously violations of the equal protection text, and there was plenty of historical and legal precedent arguing against them. There is no such similarity with abortion.
▪️To argue the right to privacy and due process grants constitutional abortion rights (my body, my choice) one would also need to uphold the right to obtain any food and drugs regardless of FDA authorization, prostitution, gambling and a whole host of other activities. Which would be a consistent argument.
▪️But there is no such consistency. Abortion is somehow protected by the constitution, but seeking potential lifesaving medication not approved by the FDA isn’t? In fact, this last week the administration prohibited JUUL from selling their E-cigs, how is there not a similar right to use E-cigs?!
▪️Basically, the left wanted there to be a constitutional right to abortion because they just wanted it. But there’s no consistency or real argument why abortion, and not all other areas of govt interference, are sacred.
▪️The only thing I’ve seen from memes on the actual ruling is that Thomas wants to revisit other cases like same-sex marriage, contraception, etc. But this ignores the rest of the judges who disagree and explicitly wrote why this ruling only applied to abortion. Some quotes:
🔹“And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion”
🔹“We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.””
▪️With the SCOTUS dismantling Roe, there is no rational argument on the left anymore for why abortion rights are protected by the constitution. They can’t even yell like Elaine did in Seinfeld, so they’re ignoring all constitutional/legal arguments, leaving unrelated, emotional memes.
▪️This isn’t to say there aren’t any good arguments for abortion rights, just not constitutional ones (unless you’re willing to have a radical interpretation of the 9th amendment to include all areas of bodily autonomy, but the left prefers to let the state endlessly regulate these areas).
The Dobbs v. Jackson decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
As with the leftist freak out over “banned books” this is not banning books, it’s still easy to get Harry Potter and bookstores should be able to limit whatever books they want for whatever reason. But not only does it show a double standard, the rationale is far less justifiable than removing certain content from school libraries. At least there the justification was the content of certain books are inappropriate for children, clearly not every book should be available in a school library. Here, there’s no argument about the content they just don’t like the author’s politics!
Because news came out about his letter to the FBI, revealing he was a nutcase. The letter was rambling and incoherent, claiming he was trained by the US military off the books, and that Walz had instructed him to kill Amy Klobuchar so he could run for Senate. None of it made any sense (Walz is not running for Senate) and none of the assassinations made any sense, even in a diabolical way.
Nearly all of his hit list was Democrats (including Walz) and abortion clinics, but he was supposedly working for Walz?! Plus, one of the guys he killed wasn’t even on his list, and others were no longer in office or deceased. None of it makes sense from any coherent angle.
Basically, it appears the guy was mentally ill and neither the left or right can use the incident to push their agendas anymore, so the story was dropped.
This is so dumb. First, this means LA began as Spanish land founded to support Spanish missions (i.e. colonialism). Which contradicts their entire premise. But the reality is that Los Angeles is a quintessential American city.
▪️When the US acquired California in the 1840s, LA was a small town of less than 2,000 people. It was basically nothing. It became large only after the gold rush and the railroads completed in the 1870-80s, which brought thousands of new settlers and a booming commercial center.
▪️But LA had a major issue limiting its growth, no water. It wasn’t until Mulholland found a water source and built an aqueduct down from Northern California that LA had the infrastructure to grow into a major city.
▪️Then, a combination of oil, real estate and the film industry caused it to boom in the early 1900s. Post WWII, industries like aerospace continued its spectacular growth. Calling this “Mexican land” is a brain dead take. Neither the Mexicans, Spanish nor ...
