Four months ago, I offered the opinion that the Democrats’ only chance in the midterms was for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade and here we are. I have no idea whether this single issue can counteract the effect of inflation, pandemic fatigue, the end of support for poor families, and the structural advantages of the Republican Party, but it is our only shot so I will hope. Biden is obviously constitutionally opposed to the radical step of enlarging the Court but he may be forced to endorse that proposal if he wants to avoid a wipeout in November and defeat two years from now.
Sunday and yesterday, I reread the two books I wrote on the
thought of Karl Marx as preparation for my teaching next semester. I say
without the slightest hint of false modesty that I believe they are both first
rate. However, I had not reread
Understanding Marx in a good many years, and I am afraid I had forgotten
that it is actually rather demanding, despite the fact that I was able to conduct
the exposition without using anything more than elementary high school algebra.
The course I shall start teaching on August 15 is going to be more
difficult than I realized and I shall have to warn the students of that on the
first day.
Will this be the last course I ever teach? I just do not
know. I have proposed a graduate course for the Fall of 2023 – The Use and Abuse of
Formal Methods in Political Philosophy – but it remains to be seen whether my
Parkinson’s will allow me to teach it, should the department approve the
proposal.
RPW: I have no idea whether this single issue can counteract the effect of inflation
ReplyDeleteIt cannot.
RPW: Democrats’ only chance in the midterms ... but it is our only shot so I will hope
Democrats abhor Marxists.
WaPo 28 Feb 2022:
Senate Republicans, Manchin block bill to protect the right to abortion
The vote doomed prospects for the measure that would codify Roe v. Wade
"The measure, introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), was co-sponsored by all but two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, who are both opposed to abortion."
Vote Blue, no matter who!
Seen on Twitter
ReplyDeleteKshama Sawant (who is an actual Socialist, not a Democrat):
"I completely disagree with Sanders & AOC. This is a misplaced focus on legislative means. Now's the time for mass protests in 100s of cities across the nation. Roe V Wade was won in the first place thru fighting mass movements, not dead ends in Congress."
https://twitter.com/cmkshama/status/1521387256606470144
According to the leaked draft of J. Alito’s majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, only liberties which are explicitly listed in the Constitution, or which are deeply rooted in the history and culture of our country, are protected against infringement by the states. So, assuming the leaked opinions is accurate and is voted on and approved by a majority of the Justices, proposed legislation could be introduced in a state legislature, and potentially by enacted by that legislature, which prohibits anyone in the state from dying their hair green, because there is no mention of hair color in the Constitution, and freedom to dye one’s hair any color one wishes in not deeply rooted in our history or culture; legislation could be introduced and enacted in a state which bans the sale and playing of video games, because video games are not mentioned in the Constitution, and clearly not deeply rooted in our history and culture. And obviously, the right to marry, or have a sexual relationship, with whomever one wishes, regardless of gender, is not mentioned in the Constitution, and not deeply rooted in our history or culture. And the list goes on and on. Alito and his right-wing co-conspirators, are a scourge on our country, and also perjurers, who during their nomination hearings swore not to upend established precedent. And guess how they got there.
ReplyDeleteThat Paypal is closing the accounts of certain dissent voices was mentioned in a previous thread by someone and here is Matt Taibbi with more details:
ReplyDeletehttps://taibbi.substack.com/p/paypals-indymedia-wipeout?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo0MTIxMzA0MywiXyI6IlppelN0IiwiaWF0IjoxNjUxNjAxNjQ0LCJleHAiOjE2NTE2MDUyNDQsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xMDQyIiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.tAFCKf8b7HkUnqy4LUFJs5c-A7yr_6wf_wgVrkHjjiA&s=r
There are some speculating that the leak was done to facilitate the reversal of Roe vs. Wade by making it difficult for one or two justices in favor to switch and also for the official result to lose momentum.
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether if Griswold, say, and Roe had been written differently, Roe would be harder to overturn. But it's been a very long time since I've read Roe v. Wade.
ReplyDeleteOf course the current majority on the Court wd probably find a way to overturn it regardless of how it was written.
ReplyDeleteActually there probably is not a constitutional right to play video games bc it's not an aspect of the right to privacy, or at least that's a stretch. (But it doesn't matter bc no state is going to ban the playing of video games.)
ReplyDeleteThe obviously vague language of the released document gives me reason to think that the supreme court is using this to overturn or create precedents in the near future.
ReplyDeleteLFC,
ReplyDeleteI agree that no state is likely to outlaw playing video games. The point, however, is that Alito's leaked opinion would allow such prohibition as not barred by the Constitution, as well as thousands of others.
Post-script:
ReplyDeleteGiven Alito’s leaked opinion, the problem which LFC alludes to about coming up with language in a S. Ct. opinion which would satisfy the stringent demands which Alito imposes would be impossible to satisfy. As the failed efforts of the analytic philosophers to come up with a viable theory which links language to assertions of empirical truth demonstrates, i.e., precisely what part of the cat is lying precisely on what part of the mat, language is not amendable to the precision of mathematics. Justice Douglas, in his majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, ruling that the state’s prohibition on the sale of contraceptives impinged on the “penumbra” of rights within the 4th Amendment, which by its literal terms only precludes the government form engages in searches without a warrant. Conservatives have routinely criticized J. Douglas for his “penumbra” of rights concept, but what more can be said? Traditionally, states had the right to enact legislation pursuant to their “police powers” to protect the public from threats to their security, safety and health. I interpret J. Douglas’ concept of the “penumbra” of rights to encompass all rights, undefined and unspecified in the Constitution, which lie outside of a state’s police powers – a state may not prohibit people from dying their hair green because there is no rational argument that dying one’s hair green is dangerous to one’s health or security. Ditto a state’s prohibition of the sale of contraceptives. Regarding abortion, the woman’s liberty interest not to bear a child is within that “penumbra” because it lies outside the state’s legitimate interest in her health and safety, as well as outside the liberty interest of the fetus, until the fetus has so developed that it can survive outside the woman’s womb, even with the assistance of artificial support. What is covered by the penumbra of rights changes over time, as the fetus develops. According to J. Alito, and his right-wing minions, there is no such thing as a “penumbra” of rights. They require mathematical precision in the Constitution, something that no legislators could possibly achieve - even drafters as brilliant as Adams, Franklin and Jefferson. (I think I may have the makings of a law review article brewing here.)
I have a title for my law review article: Analytic Philosophy And The Constitution: Its Implications For The Right To An Abortion And A State’s Police Powers.
ReplyDeleteI will turn to writing it – maybe – after I finish the brief I am writing that has to be filed with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals by Thursday. I am putting the finishing touches on it, and it will likely provoke the ire of some of the judges on the court. But I have to do what I have to do.
I'm not an expert on const law, so I won't rain on your parade here, but that's a v expensive notion of what the Const protects (even given the vague 9th Amendment). It's not what Douglas said he meant by "penumbras," is it?
ReplyDeleteGriswold said the rt to buy and use contraceptives is in the 4th Amendment's penumbra, but I doubt that playing video games is, and under current doctrine I wd guess a state cd constitutionally prohibit the playing of video games unless somehow it's shoehorned into 14th Am. "liberty" under substantive due process.
Correction: expansive not expensive.
ReplyDeleteLFC,
ReplyDeleteI have other fish to fry at the moment, so I do not have time to dig up the Griswold decision and see precisely what J. Douglas meant by “penumbra” and its scope. Off the top of my head, I do not believe he limited it to the 4th Amendment. I believe he applied it to all of the Amendments, including the 14th, and I believe if the issue came up, he would say that the right to purchase and play video games is within the penumbra of the concept of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment and may not be impinged on unless the state can provide a rational basis for believing it playing video games has a sufficiently adverse effect on the health or safety of those who play them, playing them may not be restricted. I do not recall if he mentioned the 9th Amendment, but when I have time I will check.
P.s. it all depends on how expansively one is going to construe privacy and autonomy interests, at least under current doctrine (meaning with Roe still as precedent), as I understand it.
ReplyDeleteOk I wrote the above before I saw your last comment. I have to sign off now too.
ReplyDeleteIt might have been harder to overturn Roe had the original plaintiffs followed Ruth Bader Ginsberg's advice and based the case on the equal protection clause rather than on the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. What's in or out of a penumbra is easier to argue about than whether something is or is not equal to something else.
ReplyDelete"It might have been harder..."
ReplyDeleteNot for a clerk with a Federalist Society membership.
David,
ReplyDeleteInteresting idea, basing a woman’s right to an abortion on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Ginsburg was successful in deploying that provision in favor of her clients when she was a practicing attorney, because in the contexts in which she argued there was essential equality – the right to inherit; the right to spousal benefits; the right to be hired and the right to be promoted. However, it is a bit harder to make this argument in the area of reproductive rights. Conservatives like Alito would say there is no equality. What medical procedure could a man have which is comparable to an abortion. On what basis, for example, could a state prohibit men from having vasectomies? Sperm, in and of themselves, are not human, and have no prospect by themselves of becoming a human being. A lot of men kill sperm everyday, and no state would consider criminalizing male masturbation. (Although I could imagine a female playwright making such illegalization the plot of a play.) A human embryo being carried by a woman is not comparable to male sperm. I don’t think an equal protection argument would have saved Roe v. Wade.
Marc,
ReplyDeleteMy recollection is that Ginsburg's equal protection argument was not based on identity or similarity of procedures, but simply on the fact that there is no medically effective procedur denied to men, and that to deny one to women was a violation of equal protection. Mine is no doubt a crude rendition of a more polished argument.
I don't think she argued that equal protection would be a slam-dunk, only that it would be a stronger argument than one based on due process. She also advised bringing the case, noting that the abortion legalization was quietly gaining approval in a number of states. She was concerned that a Supreme Court case could arouse the opposition--and she was surely right on that.
Mistake above: She advised NOT bringing the case...
ReplyDeleteGuys, this isn't based on the strength of the arguments, it's based on ideology and it's only the beginning. There is no basis and no argument that will change the minds of at least four of the gang of five (I assume Kavanaugh is slightly wobbly).
ReplyDeleteLFC, all the Justices and clerks have a lot to lose Only one person who has access to the draft has absolutely nothing to lose, or maybe a clerk from that chamber.
It seems J. D. Vance has won the R Senate primary in Ohio. Trump is back?
ReplyDeleteaaall,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your playing Clue with us, but frankly I am not sure which Justice or Justice’s clerk you are referring to. As Chief Justice, Justice Roberts can even punish another Justice if s/he played a role in the leak. He controls the writing assignments, and can make it very uncomfortable for a Justice who leaked the draft. And any clerk who did it and was discovered could say good-bye to his/her legal career. So, I have no idea who the likely candidate of the leak was, assuming that Justice Roberts is not a totally unscrupulous person and is playing dumb.
I watched the PBS News Hour report on the story and the Democrats announcing their plan to draft legislation to legalize abortions nationwide. The Democrats are either totally delusional, or extremely disingenuous, or a combination of both. Pitting aside the unlikelihood of getting such legislation passed over Republican opposition, even if they succeeded, it would be totally meaningless. The purpose of such a federal statute would be to protect the right of women to obtain an abortion in those states which will have passed laws banning abortions at various stages of pregnancy. In any of those states, if a woman was denied an abortion and then sued to enforce the federal law, the case would go to the Supreme Court, and as currently constituted – which will remain so constituted for many years – the Court will strike down the federal statute as unconstitutional. The decision overturning Roe v. Wade will hold that there is no fundamental right to an abortion. If there is no such right, then a federal statute saying that a state may not pass a law banning abortion in that state may not be overridden by a federal statute and would violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. If any Democratic Senator does not know that, s/he is an idiot. The alternative explanation is they are not idiots, and are just using the prospect of passing such legislation as a means to drum up the base to vote in the mid-term elections. Although I am one who believes in fighting fire with fire, and not bringing knife to a gun fight, I also believe it is wrong to give women the false hope of passing legislation which has no chance of surviving constitutional review in order to get out the vote.
What do others think?
On the question of who leaked, other people besides Justices and clerks cd poss have had access to the draft (esp to a hard copy, esp if it was left less than locked up). Security staff, cleaning staff, admin staff, secretaries, etc -- not a large number of people but more than just the Justices and their clerks. (I'm just basically repeating what N Totenberg said on the radio.)
ReplyDeleteIdentity of the leaker prob will never be uncovered.
Marc Susselman,
ReplyDeleteWhat can Roberts do to Breyer? (Sure, leaking would be uber-unlike Breyer.) Seems there's virtually nothing Roberts could do to Breyer at this point.
What does it say about the virtue of the US Supreme Court that the leaking of a draft majority opinion provokes such outrage among Court insiders but the wholly unethical extracurricular activities of various justices & their family members do not?
Eric,
ReplyDeleteThat's a good pt re second graph.
Re Breyer: there is absolutely no way that Justice Breyer himself leaked the draft. Not possible, imo. Someone from his chambers might be a different matter.
As per usual, most of the people chattering on about the implications of Roe being overturned are men or are women who are well past the childbearing years.
ReplyDelete* on cable tv news shows
ReplyDeleteBingo, Eric. That's why I proposed Bryer. Not like him for sure but this draft came out a few months ago and a few days after that he gave his retirement notice which was the opposite of his recent statements. Possible major attitude shift after he wrote his silly book and then wing-nut reality hit him in the face. He could have used an intermediary from outside the Court or winked at a clerk.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'd think Kavanaugh is a possible wobbler so a conservative clerk/Justice could have engineered this. Typical right wing skullduggery, anyway. I'd guess the liberal side least likely to leak.
MS, the Dems need things to campaign on. The House already passed this:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text
Reading about, anti-abortion folks seem to think it would work. The Feds have all sorts of regs that apply to the states - FDA, various ag standards, environmental standards, transportation, migratory birds, etc.
If this is going to be an issue the Dems need to put it in front of the Senate and make an issue of Republican obstruction. Sort of how politics is suppose to work.
Just a thought: If 18 USC 1531 which passed constitutional muster in Carhardt is constitutional then how is H.R. 3755 facially unconstitutional?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html
Ruth Marcus has a column in today's Washington Post arguing that the leak most likely came from the conservative side. Her reasoning is that Roberts was said to be working on Kavanagh and Barrett to join him in upholding the Mississippi law and leave it at that--don't overrule Roe. The theory is that the leak would make it harder for Roberts to convince one of them to join him. She pointed out that there is nothing to be gained on the liberal side for leaking the decision. That said, I join LFC is saying we'll never know.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThat would make Alito a real conniving s.o.b., but I guess we already knew that.
I had occasion to read several of his opinions when he was on the 3rd Circuit before he was elevated to the S. Ct. I thought his opinions were generally poorly written and poorly reasoned, with one exception, when he struck down a school district’s speech code as unconstitutional because it violated the 1st Amendment.
aaall,
ReplyDeleteThe federal statute at issue in Gonzales v. Carhart prohibited an abortion procedure, intact extraction, during the 3rd trimester of a pregnancy. Under Roe v. Wade, a woman has the right to an abortion up to the end of the 2nd trimester. There is an exception in the 3rd trimester if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. During an intact extraction, the head of the fetus has emerged, but the rest of the body is still in the birth canal. The physician then crushes the head of the fetus and then removes the entire fetus. The federal law banned this procedure if it could be determined that the fetus was viable. Proceeding with the procedure in that case would constituted killing a living human being, according to those who opposed the procedure. The S. Ct. held that the statute was not facially unconstitutional.
This would be a totally different situation with respect to a federal law legalizing abortion if Roe is overturned based on Alito’s reasoning. If Roe is overturned in accordance with the leaked drat opinion, then the right to an abortion would no longer be a fundamental constitutional right, and states could not be restricted from banning abortions entirely. In that case, a federal statute which prohibited states from restricting abortions would be facially unconstitutional.
A sidenote. I grew up during my first 9 years in Hoboken, N.J., the birthplace of Frank Sinatra. There was a rumor that Frank Sinatra’s mother, who had been trained as a nurse, performed abortions for free for young women, despite the fact that they were Catholic.
18 USC 1531 seems based on the Commerce Clause. How H. R. 3755 would fare before the SC should it become law is irrelevant. Dems restore reproductive rights after the Reps on the SC take them away and then the Reps on the SC take them away again. Since I assume the usual suspects on the Right will be making noise about Teh Gay and contraception, etc., there would be an opportunity to make our super legislature a campaign issue.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I'm finding the theory that the leak came from the Right some what persuasive.
aaall
ReplyDeleteSorry to be such a pessimist, but basing an abortion rights statute on the Commerce Clause won’t help. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on the Commerce Clause. That worked because it forced businesses which engaged in interstate commerce to provide services to minorities in places of public accommodation. Requiring that a state and its medical facilities provide women abortions because the facilities purchase merchandise in interstate commerce is quite different than prohibiting restaurants, hotels, etc. from denying services to minorities. A medical procedure which some states regard as involving the right to life of another person is obviously not the same as serving meals or providing hotel accommodations. The currently constituted S. Ct. will strike down such a law with alacrity.
"Requiring that a state and its medical facilities provide women abortions because the facilities purchase merchandise in interstate commerce is quite different than prohibiting restaurants, hotels, etc. from denying services to minorities."
ReplyDeleteWhich isn't what H. R. 3755 does. It asserts in the findings:
"(25) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to protect abortion services pursuant to—
(A) its powers under the commerce clause of section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States;
(B) its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(C) its powers under the necessary and proper clause of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States."
However, it doesn't "require" the provision of abortion services -
"(b) Purpose.—It is the purpose of this Act—
(1) to permit health care providers to provide abortion services without limitations or requirements that single out the provision of abortion services for restrictions that are more burdensome than those restrictions imposed on medically comparable procedures, do not significantly advance reproductive health or the safety of abortion services, and make abortion services more difficult to access;"
Congress can prohibit the states from doing all sorts of things. That the Nader, Stein, Comey, Putin Court would strike it down is besides the point and merely an additional argument for serious judicial reform - a political project. Handled correctly this could de-legitimize and demystify the Supremes.
There is no way to effectively ban (or require) abortion that is consistent with any reasonable concept of human freedom (see Nazi Germany, Romania and the PRC). This will soon be apparent and is about politics not law.
aaall
ReplyDeleteSorry, but it is about law, not politics. Politics is not going to change the composition of the current court. That train left the station in 2000 and 2016 when not enough Democrats came out to vote for a candidate who would have filled the vacancies on the S. Ct. with judges who shared your view and my view, and the view of millions of Americans, that abortion is a fundamental right. Railing about how unfair the current S. Ct. is will not change its composition, and given that composition no legislation enacted, regardless what provision(s) of the Constitution they invoke, is going to pass muster with this S. Ct. It will take a generation to get that train back into the station, and (how many times do I have to say this) the progressives who think that voting and politics is some game they play to advance their liberal ideology has brought us to this pass. Too bad. They can join Nader and Bernie in castigating the cruelty and irrationality of Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and presumably Kavanaugh and Barrett, but it is what it is and crying over spilled milk is not going to undo the mess they created. They should have thought about this when they voted for losing candidates, or didn’t vote at all, in 2000 and 2016. Now I need to find cover from the anticipated onslaught from the Usual Suspects.
This may be of interest:
ReplyDeletehttps://balkin.blogspot.com/2022/05/levinsonfest-on-reforming-us-supreme.html
I would note that Bernie has been a team player. Moving on, I'm only pointing out that, and as our host has noted, we now have an issue that can be used to mobilize voters in the coming midterms. Given that the midterms are one of two critical elections, it's good to at least try. A lot can happen in six months.
The SC and the rest of our failing Constitution need a redo but one thing at a time.
To paraphrase Sinatra:
ReplyDeleteOnce there was a silly old ram
Thought he'd punch a hole in a dam
No one could make that ram scram
He kept buttin' that dam
'Cause he had high hopes
He had high hopes
He had high apple pie
In the sky hopes
So any time you're feelin' bad
'Stead of feelin' sad
Just remember that dam ram
Oops there falls another damn ram.
Who should have voted before they built the damn dam.
Jumped out of a plane a few decades ago and looked up to see the lines all twisted. If one persists they usually untwist.
ReplyDeleteBTW, don't ever turn your back on a ram. Learned that the hard way.
The only places that a vote for Nader in 2000 mattered were Fla and possibly one or two other closely contested states. If one lived in NY, CA, or MD, for example, a vote for Nader made no difference at all. So when people condemn Nader voters in 2000, what they mean (or shd mean) is "those who voted for Nader in a few specific states."
ReplyDeleteLFC,
ReplyDeleteI am going to make a rather picky point so as not to concede your general assertion regarding responsibility for the election of George W. over Gore. Two points. First, you are using ex post facto reasoning to draw your conclusion. While it is probably safe to say that prior to the election, a voter in California or New York could feel safe to vote for Nader without jeopardizing Gore’s election prospects, I do not know that that was true of Maryland, as well as many other states. And although the post-election results indicated that the election came down to Florida, no one knew this was going to be the case prior to election night.
My second point is more sociological. No one can say what effect Nader supporters in say, New York, California, Maryland, Missouri, etc. had in fortifying the support of voters in Florida to stick to their progressive guns, at Nader rallies, for example, regardless the risk. So, I hold them all responsible for Gore’s defeat, and the current constitutional crisis we face now with the ultra-conservative S. Ct. Yes, I know, who am I, God, to hold them responsible? No, I’m not God, but I still hold them responsible.
By the way, was there any state in the 2016 presidential election where if all the Jill Stein votes had gone to Hillary, Hillary would have won the election? Did Jill Stein make a difference in the electoral college vote in 2016 as Nader did in 2000?
ReplyDeleteMS
ReplyDeleteI've lived in Md a long time. I was sure that Gore was going to carry the state. Accordingly I knew that in 2000 I cd vote for whomever w.o affecting the outcome. I didn't actively support Nader's candidacy in terms of volunteer work or anything, but I did vote for him -- had I been voting in Fla or another contested state, I would not have. Because my vote was cast in Md, which I knew Gore was going to carry, I don't hold myself the least bit responsible for Bush's victory.
P.s. In 2016 I voted for Hillary in Md. even though I knew it didn't matter bc I knew she was going to carry the state by a v large margin, which she did. But w Trump on the ballot, I figured it wdnt hurt to swell Hillary's popular vote totals. However, had I made a different decision, nothing I did in Md wd have mattered one way or the other, bc it's a solid blue state in presidential elections.
ReplyDeletes. wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteApparently not. Only two states were affected by the Stein votes, such that if they had voted for Clinton, she would have taken the state instead of Trump: Wisconsin and Michigan.
See https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/
The votes in Michigan, with 16 electoral college votes, were:
Trump 2,279,805
Clinton 2,268, 193
Stein 50,700
Adding the Stein votes to Clinton yields 2,318,893
The votes in Wisconsin, with 10 electoral votes were:
Trump 1,409,467
Clinton 1,382,210
Stein 30,980
Adding the Stein and Clinton votes yields 1,413,190
Adding these electoral votes to Clin ton, and subtracting them from Trump, yields Clinton, 258, to Trump, 280.
However, it was not only the Stein votes which hurt Clinton. Add to the Stein effect, which made Pennsylvania and Florida close, the Sanders voters who refused to vote for Clinton, but did not vote for Stein, who decided not to vote at all, and there were enough votes to put Clinton over the top.
LFC,
ReplyDeleteYour honesty always impresses me.
In reality, why do they (the mainstream Democrats) get away with singling out the third party voters and non-voters in 2000 and 2016 to make us (I'm a non-voter) feel guilty or to try to make us feel guilty and to boost their self-righteousness?
There are thousands of issues and no one or very few follow ethical paths on all of them.
For example, how many mainstream Democrats drive an electric car or use a bicycle? Most use private cars and thus, contribute to global warming. I don't own a car by the way and never have. Should we guilt-trip them constantly about their contribution to global warming?
How many mainstream Democrats eat factory-farmed meat, thus contributing to the horrid treatment of animals in factory farms? I haven't eaten meat for 25 years. Should we guilt trip them constantly about how animals suffer so that they can stuff themselves with beef and chicken?
No, it's not in good taste to preach about people driving cars or those eating meat. In fact, it's not in good taste to preach. Enough said.
Let's face the awful truth--awful, that is, for those who are looking to lodge the blame elsewhere: Gore lost because of all those who voted for Bush. Clinton lost because of all those who voted for Trump.
ReplyDelete"...nothing I did in Md wd have mattered one way or the other, bc it's a solid blue state in presidential elections."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you are empowering bad political behavior. In order to remain on the ballot a party has to get a certain number of votes. Helping out the removal of the Green Party (and any left party) from the ballot is a good thing. The energy and resources that the Greens waste would be better spent pushing the Democratic Party to the left. Rather then put the cart before the horse, it might be better to first create a structure conducive to multiple parties.
"In reality, why do they (the mainstream Democrats) get away with singling out the third party voters and non-voters in 2000 and 2016 to make us (I'm a non-voter) feel guilty or to try to make us feel guilty and to boost their self-righteousness?"
1. Loaded question much?
2. We can count.
3. First Amendment.
"There are thousands of issues..."
In the US there is currently one major issue: Does the US become a one party herrinvolk democracy with an authoritarian, kleptocratic government. This is one of the problems with too many on the far left - the inability to focus and evaluate. E.g. in 2016 Stein campaigned on Clinton's position on fracking trying to peel off purist votes. Of course, Any Republican is going to be worse then any Democrat (ex. Manchin) on energy.
MS, the largest factors in 2016 were (in no particular order) Comey's handling of his investigation, the MSM's coverage of Clinton, Clinton's incompetent campaign,Trump campaign/Russian collusion, and misogyny.
Even with Stein, had Clinton not had to deal with those, she would have easily won. In fact, Comey alone was probably sufficient.
.
aaall
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you are empowering bad political behavior. In order to remain on the ballot a party has to get a certain number of votes. Helping out the removal of the Green Party (and any left party) from the ballot is a good thing. The energy and resources that the Greens waste would be better spent pushing the Democratic Party to the left.
It's a reasonable argument. Not sure I completely agree (I tend to think ballot access shd be open to all parties except probably explicit neo-Nazis), but it's certainly a defensible position. As I mentioned, I voted for Clinton in 2016. Her margin in Maryland was enormous (I forget exactly what it was, but it was of near-landslide proportions).
s.w.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the kind words, appreciated.
LFC,
ReplyDeleteThat's cool. You have many qualities which make it a pleasure to converse online about political issues with you: you don't preach, you're not self-righteous, you're not dogmatic, you're helpful, you're well-informed and well-read, you don't brag, you're not a gunner or an arm wrestler.
By the way, no need to thank me or to return the compliment. That's not my purpose at all.
LFC, unhampered access to the ballot would be a nightmare. When the gov. recall was recently on the ballot in California there were over 40 names on the ballot. Without having to meet certain minimum standards, ones that are achievable only with a certain minimum level of organization (or deep pockets), the ballots would be unmanageable as well as off - putting to regular voters. Neo-Nazis don't need another party, the one they already have will do.
ReplyDeleteAgree with s.w. about LFC.
ReplyDelete