consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

An excursionary look at a recent 107 page creation of our federal supreme court; most of it being obfuscation in dissent. [UPDATED]

First, Wikipedia, here, of an evolving nursery rhyme text notes:

By around 1830 the reference to maids was being removed from the versions printed in nursery books. In 1842 James Orchard Halliwell collected the following version:

Rub a dub dub,
Three fools in a tub,
And who do you think they be?
The butcher, the baker,
The candlestick maker.
Turn them out, knaves all three.

This 107 page opinion conpendium, the majority opening opinion stating that the latest Texas assault upon abortion rights is bogus -- and unconstitutional.

A strong argument can be made for secure borders. If "back then" the Mexicans had secured their northern border better they'd have spared their army having to wipe out a hostile band of immigrant insurgents who gathered themselves armed to the teeth within a church; they'd have kept the land now known as Texas; and we'd not have that rogue pack of troublesome interventionists in our nation.

Aside from that, the "Turn them out, knaves all three," sophist troika is Alito, Thomas and Roberts.

A.k.a. "The DISSENT."

We know how the ghost who will not be named would have sided, (and at least a number of those believing in a soul after death may rejoice on his feeling eternal heat.)

The nub of the decision seems to be in the two page concurrence of Ginsburg; incredibly terse if considering how much of it was citation to briefing and precedent. With that conflation, it took two pages to say, figuratively, "This is pure unadulterated and untenable bullshit which never should have happened and once happening it should stop."

Good for Ginsburg.

What she in fact wrote, with all but two citations omitted to show a better flow of text, is a single paragraph:

The Texas law called H.B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H.B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory-surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety. So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833(1992), Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H.B. 2 that “do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” cannot survive judicial inspection.

One can quibble that the ending clause should have read "cannot [honestly] survive judicial inspection," but the clear drift of Ginsburg's writing is that the Court faced nothing but total dishonesty - a dishonest statute from the get-go.

Ginsburg's point is unless Roe and Casey are expressly rejected as binding precedent by a subsequent Court of different personnel than at present, the below image holds and governs as law of the nation:


Bleak possibilities do exist, and those rabidly intent, despite what they may publicly declare, to have a presidential contest elevate a monied Wall Street tool based more on gender than quality need to not disregard the progressives who dislike Wall Street and its bought tools; with a nod to progressives showing respect being a possible single-gender "good faith" ticket having a progressive as the lesser part, along with other real and not artificial concessions, such as putting a progressive into DNC leadership in place of the disgraceful present occupant of that position. Put another way, Trump has published his "Judge List," so dumping on progressives and again taking them for granted might backfire, big time, with the lesson to all but the most hardheaded or ill motivated being, this time be fair and not presumptive toward progressive persons who are appalled by Clinton as a presidential candidate - as the standard bearer of the second of two business-owned national political parties, each of which spurns progressives and progressive outlooks. We like the New Deal and want what is left of it to be respected and enhanced, and not gutted by the likes of Ms. Clinton in concert with Paul Ryan the way things were done by Mr. Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

The young are the future, and this past year the young have beyond doubt, in compelling numbers, shown they want progress and not the status quo. To ignore that is to cut off the nose to spite the face, and that's an old saying because it is graphically true. Yet we are talking of a major party of two owned by money, so without some good judgment, the nose may go. And with it, Roe. Rhyme time. Think about it.

____________UPDATE____________
Strib carries what appears to be local commentary not marked as an AP feed: "How Ruth Bader Ginsburg just won the next abortion fight -- In providing a separate opinion in a ruling she finds favorable, she was writing into law the factual finding that abortion is safe — By Linda Hirshman, June 28, 2016 — 12:17pm"

Focused on the short Ginsburg concurrence citing briefing more than precedent, the item suggests:

The justices didn’t believe Texas was just trying to help its poor, hapless women out. Instead, according to Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion: “In the face of no threat to women’s health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity superfacilities.”

From now on, the court warned, it would no longer, as the White Queen said in “Through the Looking Glass,” believe “as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” Not even about abortion. Not even, the court emphasized, when the impossible suggestions, like looking after women’s health, come from the legislative branch. You want to help women out, Breyer wrote? You gotta prove it to us.

The court’s opinion seems to be the death knell for two decades of antiabortion activism, which has cloaked itself in unsupported assertions that women need to be protected against abortion rights. The strategy of purporting to help women, which had, until Monday, been stunningly successful, started with the attack on so-called “partial birth abortion” in 1995. It reached its high-water mark with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s hotly contested 5-4 decision upholding the restrictions on such procedures in Gonzales vs. Carhart in 2007. Kennedy found medical disagreement about the safety advantages of the procedure. Importantly, he then deferred to the findings of the legislature that women would be safer and better off without partial birth abortion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg devoted her dissent in Gonzales to eviscerating his decision to defer, with special emphasis on the way that Congress got to its findings about the safety of partial birth abortion and the findings themselves.

There is more, so read Strib online.

The focus here on quoting Ginsburg was less on what she chose to cite as grounding authority - much of it in briefing - but on her clearly saying either you pack the court and gut Roe and Casey, or you go away. That likely will prove more hope than actuality. The rats keep eating away at the rule of law, whatever bite they can get away with, then the next one; and Roe and Casey; for now, are the law. The further focus here was upon the need of progressive buy-in to better the chances of those Roe advocates who also have their gender bias about this next election - the Albright-Steinem syndrome we can call it, which amounts to a bunch of hooey that was put out primarily by Albright on stage with Clinton nodding away in hamony, (and preserved on Youtube), put out on spec, and that approach was found to have dropped with the resounding thud of a lead balloon.

Again: Earn the progressive joinder given that the Clintons are who they are - people made obscenely wealthy by others giving them money per highly questionable ways and means, intents and purposes. Elevated to a position among the 1% thusly, the Clintons, now two generations of them, are showing continual signs of a will to serve the interests of the 1% in return, first and foremost if not only that. A tepid or nonexistent progressive and youth buy-in can otherwise lead to a Trump presidency, with his judge list. Progressives left only with a boycott or total capitulation to a greatly flawed candidacy should boycott. There is a cost to that, but the cost of a yet-again-as-always-before capitulation is greater. Demand a good reason for a buy-in before buying-in, or there will be no good reason offered. Take it to the limit, if forced that way, or never be heard or respected.

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
My mind is set that if the superdelegate situation is not undone in a permanent way and not by temporal fraud, I will not vote Clinton. I urge others to think it over, but if you do not follow your conscience, you risk being led by some with questionable agendas and duplicitous consciences. Which leads to the so-called "People's Summit," which either was what it said or a love-in for bouncing the rage Sanders' campaigning uncovered into Hillary votes; despite who Hillary is and how she'd likely govern.

Links, here, here and here, for a flavor of thoughts.

The "lesser evil" thing just has gotten too tiring to tolerate any longer. If the entrenched Democrat party wants to put Roe in peril by alienating the young and progressives, let them. It is their party to mess up however they choose. Otherwise, make us an offer we can't refuse. Hillary is easy to refuse. Add something real.

___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Short and sweet; and nothing there in the DWS video clip but strengthening for my position about superdelegate offensiveness.

No comments: