Looks Like I Picked a Bad Week to Return to Twitter

 

I thought the meltdown over Musk possibly ending censorship on Twitter was ridiculous, but the response to the prospect of Roe being overturned is truly absurd.

Of course, people on Twitter don’t understand that not everything is mentioned in the Constitution. Some things just aren’t in there, things like “abortion” and “misinformation” and “freedom of speech” —

Oh, wait. Yeah, I guess that’s in there.

Published in Culture
Tags:
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    • #1
  2. Eustace C. Scrubb Member
    Eustace C. Scrubb
    @EustaceCScrubb

    But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.

    • #2
  3. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.

    Well, no, of course “privacy” isn’t in there. But you have to be a bit more subtle to understand the reasoning of the Court when Roe was passed.

    While the words “privacy” and “abortion” do not occur in the Constitution, the phrase “for obtaining” does occur in the Constitution. It’s tucked away in Article VI.

    And, as every judicial scholar knows, “for obtaining” is an anagram of “aborting info,” suggesting that the right of women birthing people to be aware of their options for terminating a pregnancy was of paramount importance to the framers.

    Q.E.D.

    • #3
  4. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Henry Racette: Some things just aren’t in there, things like “abortion” and “misinformation” and “freedom of speech” —

    IIRC, there is something in the Constitution about speech.

    • #4
  5. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Henry Racette: Some things just aren’t in there, things like “abortion” and “misinformation” and “freedom of speech” —

    IIRC, there is something in the Constitution about speech.

    Henry Racette: Oh, wait. Yeah, I guess that’s in there.

     

    • #5
  6. 9thDistrictNeighbor Member
    9thDistrictNeighbor
    @9thDistrictNeighbor

    How many of these scholars have actually read Roe v. Wade?  How many have read the US Constitution?  Anyone?  Bueller?

    • #6
  7. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”.  All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion. 

    For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other. 

    • #7
  8. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”. All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion.

    For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other.

    Yes. The misunderstanding is fueled by wild hyperbole on the left. That’s unfortunate, because it’s needlessly divisive: the nation isn’t as divided on the subject of abortion as the strident pro-abortion voices would have us believe.

    • #8
  9. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Henry Racette: Of course, people on Twitter don’t understand that not everything is mentioned in the Constitution. Some things just aren’t in there, things like “abortion” and “misinformation” and “freedom of speech” —

    They do not care.  Most people really do not care about legal or law or constitutions like we do.  They just want their way and for the law to allow it to be the way they want it.  The rest does not matter much.  

    There was a time that I believed in science, logic, truth, justice and reality.  It was later in life that I realized none of that matters.  All that matters is the animal emotions and the masses getting what they want and the elite using the masses to accumulate power.   The rest is, well, almost nothing….

    • #9
  10. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Henry Racette: Of course, people on Twitter don’t understand that not everything is mentioned in the Constitution. Some things just aren’t in there, things like “abortion” and “misinformation” and “freedom of speech” —

    They do not care. Most people really do not care about legal or law or constitutions like we do. They just want their way and for the law to allow it to be the way they want it. The rest does not matter much.

    There was a time that I believed in science, logic, truth, justice and reality. It was later in life that I realized none of that matters. All that matters is the animal emotions and the masses getting what they want and the elite using the masses to accumulate power. The rest is, well, almost nothing….

    Of course, I don’t share your dismal cynicism, as you know.

    But the post was intended as a joke. ;)

    • #10
  11. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”. All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion.

    For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other.

    Re-post:

    With Reo v Wade in place, there has been no price for pro-choice Republicans who vote for anti-abortion candidates (who pass anti-abortion laws which then can’t be implemented because of Roe v Wade).  That’s made the conflict between pro-choice Republicans and the Evangelical base on this issue completely theoretical, and made it easier to mai[n]tain that coalition of voters.

    If Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, that’ll no longer be the case – people will need to cop the results of their vote.  How that impacts the votes of the 59% of republicans who are pro-choice will be interesting.  And also, I guess, the statements and behaviour of the Republican politicians who have been able to cater to the Evangelical portion of their base without de facto impacting that 59%.  It’ll be interesting how that plays out in the lead up to the mid-terms.

    • #11
  12. hoowitts Coolidge
    hoowitts
    @hoowitts

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    The misunderstanding is fueled by wild hyperbole on the left.

    Hoc ex se intellegitur.

    • #12
  13. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”. All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion.

    For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other.

    Re-post:

    With Reo v Wade in place, there has been no price for pro-choice Republicans who vote for anti-abortion candidates (who pass anti-abortion laws which then can’t be implemented because of Roe v Wade). That’s made the conflict between pro-choice Republicans and the Evangelical base on this issue completely theoretical, and made it easier to mai[n]tain that coalition of voters.

    If Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, that’ll no longer be the case – people will need to cop the results of their vote. How that impacts the votes of the 59% of republicans who are pro-choice will be interesting. And also, I guess, the statements and behaviour of the Republican politicians who have been able to cater to the Evangelical portion of their base without de facto impacting that 59%. It’ll be interesting how that plays out in the lead up to the mid-terms.

    Since there will be very few states — if any — in which abortion is prohibited, and since unrestricted abortion is a litmus test issue for very few on the right, and since politicians are good at straddling on contentious issues, I suspect it will have relatively little impact on voting on the right. My concern is about turnout in 2022 and 2024.

    But the Constitution is important, Roe was legally speaking a terrible ruling, and the rights of the citizens of the individual states matter, so I’m good with Roe being overturned.

    • #13
  14. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Since there will be very few states — if any — in which abortion is prohibited, and since unrestricted abortion is a litmus test issue for very few on the right, and since politicians are good at straddling on contentious issues, I suspect it will have relatively little impact on voting on the right. My concern is about turnout in 2022 and 2024.

    I don’t think any will outright ban, but severe constraints is as good as for most cases of abortion.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-12-10/the-states-likely-to-ban-abortion-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturned

    https://time.com/6173196/abortion-trigger-laws-bans-roe-v-wade/

    But the Constitution is important, Roe was legally speaking a terrible ruling, and the rights of the citizens of the individual states matter, so I’m good with Roe being overturned.

    Mayhap. I weas more interested in the political fall out.

    • #14
  15. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Since there will be very few states — if any — in which abortion is prohibited, and since unrestricted abortion is a litmus test issue for very few on the right, and since politicians are good at straddling on contentious issues, I suspect it will have relatively little impact on voting on the right. My concern is about turnout in 2022 and 2024.

    I don’t think any will outright ban, but severe constraints is as good as for most cases of abortion.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-12-10/the-states-likely-to-ban-abortion-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturned

    https://time.com/6173196/abortion-trigger-laws-bans-roe-v-wade/

    But the Constitution is important, Roe was legally speaking a terrible ruling, and the rights of the citizens of the individual states matter, so I’m good with Roe being overturned.

    Mayhap. I weas more interested in the political fall out.

    I acknowledge the risk of political fallout, but I’m really more interested in sound Constitutional governance, and in giving the people the right to make their own laws without unconstitutional controlling federal authority.

    I don’t think the world would be a terrible place with abortion entirely illegal. I don’t consider it a fundamental and essential right.

    • #15
  16. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”. All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion.

    For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other.

    Yes, but making it part of the democratic process is an assault on democracy because . . .

    • #16
  17. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Since there will be very few states — if any — in which abortion is prohibited, and since unrestricted abortion is a litmus test issue for very few on the right, and since politicians are good at straddling on contentious issues, I suspect it will have relatively little impact on voting on the right. My concern is about turnout in 2022 and 2024.

    I don’t think any will outright ban, but severe constraints is as good as for most cases of abortion.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-12-10/the-states-likely-to-ban-abortion-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturned

    https://time.com/6173196/abortion-trigger-laws-bans-roe-v-wade/

    But the Constitution is important, Roe was legally speaking a terrible ruling, and the rights of the citizens of the individual states matter, so I’m good with Roe being overturned.

    Mayhap. I weas more interested in the political fall out.

    I acknowledge the risk of political fallout, but I’m really more interested in sound Constitutional governance, and in giving the people the right to make their own laws without unconstitutional controlling federal authority.

    I don’t think the world would be a terrible place with abortion entirely illegal. I don’t consider it a fundamental and essential right.

    Every day is a bad day to return to Twitter.

    No matter how much sympathy one has for the pregnant single woman, one can’t overlook the harm abortion has caused to civil society. Do I need to elaborate?

    • #17
  18. Lawst N. Thawt Coolidge
    Lawst N. Thawt
    @LawstNThawt

    EHerring (View Comment):
    Every day is a bad day to return to Twitter.

    Almost echoed my thought.  I do think Twitter might be the social media worth saving so the current effort is interesting. 

    • #18
  19. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.

    This is a good illustration of the perilousness of “clever” lawyering and judging.  There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment search and seizure language (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”) is suggestive of a right to privacy in certain circumstances.  All it takes is a shift or two in the level of generality, and voila!, we can find a broad right to privacy to fit the whim of a particular group on the Court.  Of course, the Court is more than happy to (at times) condone warrantless searches (something explicit in the text), but forbid more generalized laws on the books for eons (like sodomy), because, well, privacy.

    Edited to remove an inadvertent reference to a stringed instrument.

    • #19
  20. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    dismal cynicism

    Sounds like a band name.   

    • #20
  21. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”. All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion.

    For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other.

    Re-post:

    With Reo v Wade in place, there has been no price for pro-choice Republicans who vote for anti-abortion candidates (who pass anti-abortion laws which then can’t be implemented because of Roe v Wade). That’s made the conflict between pro-choice Republicans and the Evangelical base on this issue completely theoretical, and made it easier to mai[n]tain that coalition of voters.

    If Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, that’ll no longer be the case – people will need to cop the results of their vote. How that impacts the votes of the 59% of republicans who are pro-choice will be interesting. And also, I guess, the statements and behaviour of the Republican politicians who have been able to cater to the Evangelical portion of their base without de facto impacting that 59%. It’ll be interesting how that plays out in the lead up to the mid-terms.

    Good point, but I’ll nitpick a little.  The 59% number is almost certainly NOT comprised of abortion absolutists.  The vast majority of that 59% would be comfortable with reasonable restrictions (15 week ban, parental consent for minors, etc.) similar to the Mississippi law in Dobbs.  I suspect that the abortion question will not be the wedge issue that you suggest.  But time will tell.

    • #21
  22. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.

    This is a good illustration of the perilousness of “clever” lawyering and judging. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment search and seizure language (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”) is suggestive of a right to privacy in certain circumstances. All it takes is a shift or two in the level of generality, and viola!, we can find a broad right to privacy to fit the whim of a particular group on the Court. Of course, the Court is more than happy to (at times) condone warrantless searches (something explicit in the text), but forbid more generalized laws on the books for eons (like sodomy), because, well, privacy.

    • #22
  23. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.

    This is a good illustration of the perilousness of “clever” lawyering and judging. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment search and seizure language (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”) is suggestive of a right to privacy in certain circumstances. All it takes is a shift or two in the level of generality, and viola!, we can find a broad right to privacy to fit the whim of a particular group on the Court. Of course, the Court is more than happy to (at times) condone warrantless searches (something explicit in the text), but forbid more generalized laws on the books for eons (like sodomy), because, well, privacy.

    Whoops.  Good catch.

    • #23
  24. Chris O Coolidge
    Chris O
    @ChrisO

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    dismal cynicism

    Sounds like a band name.

    Nah, that’s the album name from the band Dismal Cynics.

    …featuring the catchy track “Death and Taxes”?

    Come to think of it, maybe that was The Fatalists.

    • #24
  25. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.

    This is a good illustration of the perilousness of “clever” lawyering and judging. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment search and seizure language (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”) is suggestive of a right to privacy in certain circumstances. All it takes is a shift or two in the level of generality, and viola!, we can find a broad right to privacy to fit the whim of a particular group on the Court. Of course, the Court is more than happy to (at times) condone warrantless searches (something explicit in the text), but forbid more generalized laws on the books for eons (like sodomy), because, well, privacy.

    So many are concerned about violins against women.  

    • #25
  26. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DaveSchmidt (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.

    This is a good illustration of the perilousness of “clever” lawyering and judging. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment search and seizure language (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”) is suggestive of a right to privacy in certain circumstances. All it takes is a shift or two in the level of generality, and viola!, we can find a broad right to privacy to fit the whim of a particular group on the Court. Of course, the Court is more than happy to (at times) condone warrantless searches (something explicit in the text), but forbid more generalized laws on the books for eons (like sodomy), because, well, privacy.

    So many are concerned about violins against women.

     

    • #26
  27. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

    There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”. All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion.

    For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other.

    The Yankees do not hate the Phillies, dislike perhaps.  The Yankees hate the Red Sox.

    And everyone (but for their home fans) hates the Yankees, even Mets fans. 

    • #27
  28. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):

    And everyone (but for their home fans) hates the Yankees, even Mets fans.

    And justifiably so.

    • #28
  29. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Chris O (View Comment):

    Fake John/Jane Galt (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    dismal cynicism

    Sounds like a band name.

    Nah, that’s the album name from the band Dismal Cynics.

    …featuring the catchy track “Death and Taxes”?

    Come to think of it, maybe that was The Fatalists.

    You’re both mistaken. The band name was “Damsel Cynics,” and it’s one of the 1980’s darker all-girl bands.

    • #29
  30. Architectus Coolidge
    Architectus
    @Architectus

    Zafar (View Comment):
    How that impacts the votes of the 59% of republicans who are pro-choice will be interesting.

    I, too, count myself among those in favor of school choice, believing that if we can rally that pro-choice educational majority we can make great strides in improving the future lives of our children and nation.  Oh wait…  were you talking about something else entirely? 

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.