One point of clarity that people who's heads are exploding don't see: The right to own a gun is a second amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to an abortion was never guaranteed by the Constitution. It can be if you get enough support to amend the Constitution. There is a process in the Constitution to do that. If you want abortion on demand, then amend it.
One more bullet point, if you allow, lest we forget:
I’m more concerned with a government that spent 2 years in an unprecedented and massive coordinated deception over a virus that was leaked from a lab funded by the same public officials who made the greatest effort to parlay the “crisis” into a permanent state of panic, fear and repression of basic human rights. We dodged a very dangerous bullet, and yet most of us carry on as if nothing ever happened.
The distinction I make is that if you're in favor of abortion you're only risk is being bored to death by the pro-life picketers talking at you, on and on. If your against abortion, it looks like you have a pretty good chance of physical violence. Have there been any abortion clinic bombings since Eric Rudolph in 1996? I don't recall any, and I'm sure it would have been front page news, but I could easily be wrong. I think Rudolph was a turning point when the pro life people finally understood that it was more about hearts and minds than about roe v wade. Boring, but it's been pretty effective in terms of public opinion. Those favoring abortion have always seemed dedicated to tantrum politics no matter how ineffective.
We just now entered the first inning of this game. There are now 50 democracy laboratories that will execute on their plans. What I am interested to see is what if a state or states takes exception to a corporation that is aiding and abetting the commission of an abortion for their residents. Do they have recourse to take action? I’m not sure why some of these large banks, etc are rushing in head first to this grey area but we will find out the consequences.
Concerning to me, the cacophony of shrieking harpies that have rolled from Twitter into platforms like LinkedIn, once purported to be a business networking venue. The common theme along the lines of "I'm frustrated/exasperated....my body my choice....keep the government out of my health choices (except of course, to fund those choices), and if you don't agree with me, then F*CK YOU!!!". These people being further egged on by our federal state and local political clowns calling out The Hell With SCOTUS. The idea that our society can ever return to some tractable form of consideration and debate seems further out of reach with every subsequent issue.
For 185 years, the US had a clear policy on abortion and then in 1973, we had Roe v Wade that performed tortuous logic to manufacture a constitutional right where none existed. Now, we have simply taken an eraser to a bad decision leaving the country to allow its states to govern their citizens.
Citizens can live in a state that is consistent with their personal beliefs or go to one for an abortion. The SCOTUS did NOT prohibit abortion; they simply said it was the the states' job to deal with it.
As to guns, the nation and states has a fine line to walk -- respecting the clear duty of the Second Amendment whilst exercising its legitimate police duty. Sorry, it is a tough assignment.
Great dialogue as usual.
I fret that companies are getting into the issue of providing support for social issues. It is an inequitable policy and the essence of ERISA is equality in the workplace.
The SC is part of a political system. Almost all controversial SC decisions are going to be colored by motivated reasoning, almost by definition. As if there is a clear logical and/or constrained path there is not much reason for a controversial case to begin with. Slaves didn't not have natural or constitutional rights before the civil war. A bunch of illogical and/or motivated reasoning by the whole country including the SC kept them from those rights. Ignoring those rights led to catastrophe.
Robert Higgs, author of "Crisis and Leviathan", has put it best IMO. If you don't know of the book, it documents how government takes power in crises and never gives it back. Hello "Patriot Act" and "Department of Homeland Security" and "Transportation Security Administration". Hello Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. From his Facebook post (original in 2015):
"When I was doing the research for my book "Crisis and Leviathan" in the first half of the 1980s, I read many court cases, including many U.S. Supreme Court cases, as well as a great deal of legal literature. I also attended Henry Manne's rigorous and demanding summer program (at that time held at Emory University), where profs from top U.S. law schools gave short courses to economists about various fields of law. At that time I developed a profound contempt for what is too generously described as the "reasoning" in Supreme Court decisions. Shoddy arguments may be found in all sorts of disciplines and professions, but this area really wins the blue ribbon. Here the argument is almost always spurious, illogical, and tendentious, propping itself up with abundant footnotes as if seeking to substitute quantity for quality of supporting evidence. My dim view of the Court's "reasoning" has been in no way altered by what I have read about its arguments in the Obamacare and same-sex marriage cases. (I have not read the decisions themselves; I'm now too old to survive such punishment.) The justices are not so much intellectuals as they are political con artists with clever and hardworking young clerks."
The best we, the people can hope for are wise and just decisions. Sometime they get it right, sometimes they don't. Our society is on a populist, non-classical liberal streak from both political parties. Which doesn't bode well if one is a classical liberal.
1 "Federalism is great, and it is a wonderful pressure relief valve. "
That is one facet of federalism. If, like me, you think govt is a not-always-necessary-evil, it's sometimes hard to see the distinction between the 5000 foot tall federal behemoth and the 5000 foot tall state behemoth fighting for the chance to step on the citizenry. The classic example is the KELO case. In that case the local govt decided to condemn Ms. Kelo's property. Was it for a public work such as a road, a port, or a hospital? No, the property would be given to a private developer who would construct real estate that would pay more ad valorem to the local govt. Ms. Kelo fought this attempt all the way to SCOTUS, only to meet the courtly, cheerful, malevolence of John Paul Stevens. Stevens's KELO opinion waved the federalism flag, and told Ms. Kelo she was out of luck. Almost everyone lost: Ms. Kelo with a below market condemnation award, loss of her home and the memories associated with it, the local govt because the development scheme blew up, leaving a barren lot as the county's property. Only the incompetent 'economic development authority' employees continued to get their salaries, and Stevens with his cheerful malevolence toward the peasants won. So much for the down side of federalism.
Next, there's the issue of abortion. Without being able to quantify it, I am sure that, believing abortion is murder, that the issue matters more to me than to you. Fair enough, no one has to believe what I do. But given my beliefs, I think you will understand my conviction that it's now the states who decide when babies are murdered instead of the feds, is a hollow victory. I do agree with your larger point that abortion will be a small issue in this fall's elections, compared to inflation and a declining economy.
"If you are against voters deciding, ask yourself why. If a politician is against letting voters decide in their state, why do they despise the democratic process so much? What else would that politician do to usurp the democratic process?"
While I agree with you, the centralized power does protect citizens and trumps states. For instance, slavery and segregation are not allowed no matter what the state says. The question is whether the US Constitution backs the fed's decision, which was one question here. So in fact, there are some things we do fear from the states. The problem for the pro-life community is that such an opinion may delay/work against a human life amendment. We do want the right to life, but not privacy, to be found in the constitution.
One point of clarity that people who's heads are exploding don't see: The right to own a gun is a second amendment right guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to an abortion was never guaranteed by the Constitution. It can be if you get enough support to amend the Constitution. There is a process in the Constitution to do that. If you want abortion on demand, then amend it.
The important decision is yet to come - West Virginia vs EPA.
Your mind works perfectly. Don't let anyone tell you differently. It's a blessing to read such a take.
Great article, as always.
One more bullet point, if you allow, lest we forget:
I’m more concerned with a government that spent 2 years in an unprecedented and massive coordinated deception over a virus that was leaked from a lab funded by the same public officials who made the greatest effort to parlay the “crisis” into a permanent state of panic, fear and repression of basic human rights. We dodged a very dangerous bullet, and yet most of us carry on as if nothing ever happened.
The distinction I make is that if you're in favor of abortion you're only risk is being bored to death by the pro-life picketers talking at you, on and on. If your against abortion, it looks like you have a pretty good chance of physical violence. Have there been any abortion clinic bombings since Eric Rudolph in 1996? I don't recall any, and I'm sure it would have been front page news, but I could easily be wrong. I think Rudolph was a turning point when the pro life people finally understood that it was more about hearts and minds than about roe v wade. Boring, but it's been pretty effective in terms of public opinion. Those favoring abortion have always seemed dedicated to tantrum politics no matter how ineffective.
We just now entered the first inning of this game. There are now 50 democracy laboratories that will execute on their plans. What I am interested to see is what if a state or states takes exception to a corporation that is aiding and abetting the commission of an abortion for their residents. Do they have recourse to take action? I’m not sure why some of these large banks, etc are rushing in head first to this grey area but we will find out the consequences.
Concerning to me, the cacophony of shrieking harpies that have rolled from Twitter into platforms like LinkedIn, once purported to be a business networking venue. The common theme along the lines of "I'm frustrated/exasperated....my body my choice....keep the government out of my health choices (except of course, to fund those choices), and if you don't agree with me, then F*CK YOU!!!". These people being further egged on by our federal state and local political clowns calling out The Hell With SCOTUS. The idea that our society can ever return to some tractable form of consideration and debate seems further out of reach with every subsequent issue.
For 185 years, the US had a clear policy on abortion and then in 1973, we had Roe v Wade that performed tortuous logic to manufacture a constitutional right where none existed. Now, we have simply taken an eraser to a bad decision leaving the country to allow its states to govern their citizens.
Citizens can live in a state that is consistent with their personal beliefs or go to one for an abortion. The SCOTUS did NOT prohibit abortion; they simply said it was the the states' job to deal with it.
As to guns, the nation and states has a fine line to walk -- respecting the clear duty of the Second Amendment whilst exercising its legitimate police duty. Sorry, it is a tough assignment.
Great dialogue as usual.
I fret that companies are getting into the issue of providing support for social issues. It is an inequitable policy and the essence of ERISA is equality in the workplace.
JLM
www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
The SC is part of a political system. Almost all controversial SC decisions are going to be colored by motivated reasoning, almost by definition. As if there is a clear logical and/or constrained path there is not much reason for a controversial case to begin with. Slaves didn't not have natural or constitutional rights before the civil war. A bunch of illogical and/or motivated reasoning by the whole country including the SC kept them from those rights. Ignoring those rights led to catastrophe.
Robert Higgs, author of "Crisis and Leviathan", has put it best IMO. If you don't know of the book, it documents how government takes power in crises and never gives it back. Hello "Patriot Act" and "Department of Homeland Security" and "Transportation Security Administration". Hello Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank. From his Facebook post (original in 2015):
"When I was doing the research for my book "Crisis and Leviathan" in the first half of the 1980s, I read many court cases, including many U.S. Supreme Court cases, as well as a great deal of legal literature. I also attended Henry Manne's rigorous and demanding summer program (at that time held at Emory University), where profs from top U.S. law schools gave short courses to economists about various fields of law. At that time I developed a profound contempt for what is too generously described as the "reasoning" in Supreme Court decisions. Shoddy arguments may be found in all sorts of disciplines and professions, but this area really wins the blue ribbon. Here the argument is almost always spurious, illogical, and tendentious, propping itself up with abundant footnotes as if seeking to substitute quantity for quality of supporting evidence. My dim view of the Court's "reasoning" has been in no way altered by what I have read about its arguments in the Obamacare and same-sex marriage cases. (I have not read the decisions themselves; I'm now too old to survive such punishment.) The justices are not so much intellectuals as they are political con artists with clever and hardworking young clerks."
https://www.facebook.com/robert.higgs.568/posts/pfbid0FqSFuX1v98vJXpSAu2nHZA4NSzJ9ffXCRVJuEcGnJ4UXLNfRfQpWnXJQBiFKRPxcl
The best we, the people can hope for are wise and just decisions. Sometime they get it right, sometimes they don't. Our society is on a populist, non-classical liberal streak from both political parties. Which doesn't bode well if one is a classical liberal.
Mr. Carter, couple of points:
1 "Federalism is great, and it is a wonderful pressure relief valve. "
That is one facet of federalism. If, like me, you think govt is a not-always-necessary-evil, it's sometimes hard to see the distinction between the 5000 foot tall federal behemoth and the 5000 foot tall state behemoth fighting for the chance to step on the citizenry. The classic example is the KELO case. In that case the local govt decided to condemn Ms. Kelo's property. Was it for a public work such as a road, a port, or a hospital? No, the property would be given to a private developer who would construct real estate that would pay more ad valorem to the local govt. Ms. Kelo fought this attempt all the way to SCOTUS, only to meet the courtly, cheerful, malevolence of John Paul Stevens. Stevens's KELO opinion waved the federalism flag, and told Ms. Kelo she was out of luck. Almost everyone lost: Ms. Kelo with a below market condemnation award, loss of her home and the memories associated with it, the local govt because the development scheme blew up, leaving a barren lot as the county's property. Only the incompetent 'economic development authority' employees continued to get their salaries, and Stevens with his cheerful malevolence toward the peasants won. So much for the down side of federalism.
Next, there's the issue of abortion. Without being able to quantify it, I am sure that, believing abortion is murder, that the issue matters more to me than to you. Fair enough, no one has to believe what I do. But given my beliefs, I think you will understand my conviction that it's now the states who decide when babies are murdered instead of the feds, is a hollow victory. I do agree with your larger point that abortion will be a small issue in this fall's elections, compared to inflation and a declining economy.
"If you are against voters deciding, ask yourself why. If a politician is against letting voters decide in their state, why do they despise the democratic process so much? What else would that politician do to usurp the democratic process?"
While I agree with you, the centralized power does protect citizens and trumps states. For instance, slavery and segregation are not allowed no matter what the state says. The question is whether the US Constitution backs the fed's decision, which was one question here. So in fact, there are some things we do fear from the states. The problem for the pro-life community is that such an opinion may delay/work against a human life amendment. We do want the right to life, but not privacy, to be found in the constitution.