Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Important to Them, So It’s Important to Us
Going from no nukes, to union power, to baby seals, to open borders, to trans-sexual marriage, to whatever is next, it can be hard to pin down an underlying system of ethics for modern progressives. Their lack of any apparent overriding ideology offers flexibility in dealing with the matters of the day according to what is convenient at the time, but it can also result in such a remarkable lack of consistency that they can lose the support of even their more ardent supporters from time to time. But there is one central issue upon which progressives have maintained absolute consistency over the past several decades: abortion.
Whenever a Republican runs for Congress or nominates someone for a position as a judge, the Democrat rallying cry is nearly always, “This Republican wants to take away your abortion rights!” Why they chose abortion as their rallying cry, I can’t imagine. Only around 30 percent of American women support abortion. Even though abortion support is higher among men, it would never pass in a general election, and Democrats know it. Why is it so important to them? I just don’t understand.
Since they know that voting on a law creating a Constitutional right for abortion would be political suicide for a lot of Democrat Congresspeople who live more than 50 miles from an ocean or a major city, they had to pass that law via the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade. That worked fine, except now they find themselves entirely dependent on the Supreme Court to maintain the most vital policy to their party. Since Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President, this made presidential elections important to Democrats as well. Vitally important.
Abortion is their central priority but they do have other priorities, which can get in the way of their central mission. For example, when they argue that the right to bear arms is not a Constitutional right, that can weaken their argument that abortion is a Constitutional right, since the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment and abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Their lack of an overriding ideology makes Democrats flexible in such matters, but some voters lack such flexibility.
All of this means that the Supreme Court is extremely important to the Democratic Party. Everyone knew that whomever Trump nominated to replace Justice Kennedy would be accused of horrible things by the Democrats. When the Republicans did not want to put Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court at the end of Obama’s term, they played some political hardball to avoid that, using Robert Byrd/Harry Reid style procedural techniques to get what they wanted. They did not personally destroy Merrick Garland or accuse him of being a sexual deviant. They used Senate rules to try to get an outcome they wanted, and in that case, it worked.
Democrats also use procedural shenanigans, of course, generally even more ruthlessly. They invented many of these tricks. But they also use the politics of personal destruction. Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual deviancy (not sexual assault or rape, like Bill Clinton), despite the testimony of many women who had worked with him for years, saying that such accusations were ridiculous. When Democrats say that we should believe women in matters of sexual assault, they don’t mean women who defend Republicans.
Kavanaugh, I’m sure, knew this was coming. Democrats will tend to use accusations of sexual deviancy against Republican nominees, because:
- They can’t accuse them of murder (that involves actual evidence, like a dead body).
- The daily stream of various salacious sexual stories will be widely covered in the press because it’s good for ratings.
- Republicans tend to be socially conservative, so accusations of sexual deviancy fit perfectly for Democrats’ goals, such as:
- Showing that Republicans shouldn’t be judgmental, because we’re all freaks.
- Showing that Republicans are hypocrites. Hypocrisy is the left’s cardinal sin.
- Showing that Republicans are evil, and thus any effort to defeat them is laudable, no matter how unethical it may appear at the time.
I find the hypocrisy angle to be the most fascinating here. Why would a group of people with no apparent system of ethics find hypocrisy to be so egregious? Conservatives are bothered by hypocrisy as well, but most of us understand the fallen nature of all people, and we tend to admire the effort to live an ethical life, understanding that we will all fail to one degree or another. But progressives, in general, are much less forgiving of hypocrisy for some reason. I have a few theories on this, which is probably best left to another post. But again, I find this absolutely fascinating.
Anyway, there’s a great thread going on right now, with 350 comments or something, started by EJ Hill (Where’s Your Hill?). He asks if the Kavanaugh nomination is a hill you’d be willing to die on. Is this really worth the trouble?
As a conservative, I don’t view government as central to my existence, so it can be hard for me to get worked up about procedural stuff such as this.
But progressives take a different view. For good reason. The Supreme Court is vital to the maintenance of the central plank of the Democrat party platform: abortion. And since so many Democrat policies are unpopular with the American people, it’s much easier to institute such policies through the unelected judiciary than through to popularly elected legislative branch.
So the Democrats find the Kavanaugh nomination to be of absolutely vital importance.
Therefore, I agree.
Let the battle continue. It matters, so it’s worth it. And if you think this is bad, just wait until Justice Ginsberg wanders off and Trump nominates a replacement. Oh, my goodness. That will be brutal. This should be easier.
Right now, the Republicans have the votes. And they had better use them. If the Republican party can’t pull this off, that would be an enormous victory for the progressive movement. And it would clearly demonstrate, to the American voter, the benefits of electing Republicans to Congress.
Or lack thereof.
Published in General
Or we could go back to a written back and forth set of interrogatories.
Why doesn’t anyone take the logical leap. The Supreme Court has too much power. There I said it. These nine unknowns (to 90+% of the public) wield power far beyond anything that they should.
Here’s one suggestion of how to change this.
I basically disagree with the article because it does not get to the root of the problem and the circus would be all over the country rather than in a Senate Chamber with television cameras.
It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to overturn a Supreme Court decision via legislation that specifically says it is overturning a Supreme Court decision and narrowly drawn to that task. The Court’s opinion – and it is an opinion and not some type of untouchable divine statement – should be part of the process. But the legislative branch should be where the power should rest as was the intention as originally framed and not in the Supreme Court.
It was said that Teresias was blinded because, having been a man and a woman in his life, he was asked the old question, who has more pleasure in sex–men or women. He answered, “Women, ten times more.” He was immediately blinded–maybe for lying or maybe for telling the truth.
Abortion is good for men. It is good for women. Not the procedure–the availability. It makes getting sex much easier. You can even be opposed to it morally and still be glad that if but for the grace of God that ever happened to me….
Then there is the powerful belief that some people should not be having children. Planned Parenthood began in eugenics. If the only morality you know is strict utilitarianism it will be immediately obvious that a fetus will suffer less than a woman “saddled” with an unwanted child. But also the misery it causes the kids who can’t be raised properly.
And on our side? moral abstractions and nothing that can be made into a gripping movie.
Abortion is dehumanizing. Socialist have to dehumanize people in order to see through how the vision things should work. The humans targeted through abortion are the weakest members, and the first to go.
Having the nominee appear and answer questions is a recent, as in I think the 1950s, development. It’s unnecessary and should be abandoned.
It’s easy for Congress to overturn a Supreme Court decision. At least in theory. (See Schoolhouse Rock) We can’t even get these guys to pass a budget (Ibid), let alone craft a detailed law to address the concerns of 9 black robed solons.
The Congress also has the express power to define the jurisdiction of the court. I can’t think of a single time they have exercised this power.