१३ मार्च, २०२३
"The federal judge in a closely watched lawsuit that seeks to overturn federal approval of a widely used abortion pill has scheduled the first hearing in the case for this week..."
"... but he planned to delay making the public aware of it, according to people familiar with the case.... Judge [Matthew J.] Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who has written critically about Roe v. Wade and previously worked for a Christian conservative legal organization, told lawyers in a conference call Friday that he did not want the March 15 hearing to be 'disrupted'.... In asking the lawyers to keep quiet about the hearing, the judge did not issue a gag order, which would bar the participants on the call from sharing the information. Rather, he asked them to keep the information secret 'as a courtesy.' He said that the court would provide seating for the public and the press, but his plan to provide little advance notice seemed likely to have the practical effect of minimizing the number of people who would attend, according to people familiar with the discussion. Amarillo, in the Texas Panhandle, is several hours’ drive from other major Texas cities, and only a couple of those cities provide direct flights."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Makes sense.
Why invite anfifa, left-wing mob violence to your doorstep?
DIEversity (Diversity, Inequity, Exclusion). Social progress with "benefits". Pro-Choice ethical religion. Carbon pollutants sequestered in darkness... privacy.
That said, six weeks to baby meets granny in legal state, if not in process.
Seems like he has his priorities in place. His job is to decide the case before him based on the facts before him, not to manage a nationwide PR campaign to shape the fallout according to somebody's agenda.
So he wants to avoid a circus.
Judges are pretty much all control freaks. At least that's what I've observed. This is a non-story.
Do I often see things like "an Obama appointee who has lauded Roe v. Wade in writings and worked for the very liberal ACLU" written to describe judges who are appointed by Democrats?
I wasn’t aware judges were to be PR machines.
I don't know what the legal requirements are, they should be followed, did he break the law in doing this? In my uninformed opinion I would have let the protesters show up and if they interfered with the deliberations of the court in doing the government's official work, I would have them arrested as treasonous insurrectionists, that is the standard now.
If the Left can shout down a federal appellate judge at a lecture, why wouldn't they disrupt this hearing. And, of course, we all recall how the federal courthouse in Portland was shut down for weeks.
Scratch a Progressive and you find an authoritarian.
Gender (i.e. sex-correlated attributes) politics. Reducing labor cost through reduction of women's dignity and agency, policies of conflation to rationalize political congruence ("="), the wicked solution was a principal choice to garner social progress and sustain a bubble economy. Abortionists in clinics in lieu of doctors.
NYT, ever the provocateur, sends out the invitation to the Pink Pussy Hats and other lefty scofflaws to disrupt the legal process.
Enemy of the people!
Rank and file Democrats are too stupid to see how we all lose when our rights, processes and property are destroyed by their consorts.
Those aren't his monkeys. But it IS his circus.
It's a good story for the application of "Imagine the opposite..."
Imagine, say, a Biden-nominated DC District Court Judge with a history of working as Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee doing this same thing with regard to a critical hearing relating to a January 6 defendant. That wouldn't even do the comparison justice, because it probably wouldn't have the national scope of the Texas abortion pill case.
So then just imagine if this same case in Texas were being handled by an Obama-nominated District Court judge who had worked for Planned Parenthood.
My singular question for Althouse -- a genuine expert on federal civil procedure -- is how she feels about District Court cases, as with this Texas case, having effectiveness nationally, beyond the reaches of (in the case at issue) the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals? Put more legalistically, are nationwide injunctions legal?
I'd love to kick back, be quiet, and listen to Althouse on that subject.
The judge needs a cohort of federal marshals prepared to throw disrupters in jail for contempt.
It may not be as egregious as praying in the halls of an abortion mill, but nevertheless ....
"Scratch a Progressive and you find an authoritarian."
Scratch a progressive and you find a [scofflaw]. There. Fixed.
Lawsuit I hope will fail = Insurrection I hope will succeed 😲
Gee, he wants to focus on his job without a bunch of disruptive onlookers creating chaos and distraction in the courtroom. Sounds familiar: we take the same approach when we care for a patient in the operating room.
Perhaps he doesn't realize that the modern purpose of courtrooms is to provide a setting for political theater?
It's Amarillo. I might enjoy seeing a confrontation between armed Texas LEOs and leftist protestors and Antifa, especially if it gets out of hand. That's when a whole bunch of other Texas LEOs start arriving.
Bring the popcorn.
I'd love to kick back,
I read that as he wants his kick back. Imagine who is giving him his kick back. Let's discuss it.
"Rank and file Democrats are too stupid to see how we all lose when our rights, processes and property are destroyed by their consorts."
I'm not so sure of that anymore. Many of them know, and either do not care, or are eager to "burn the system down." Sure, some of them are stupid, or ignorant, or misinformed. But many of the rank-and-file do not believe in those rights anymore, and have no problem with undermining them. They know what BLM, Antifa, etc. actually stand for, and they agree with them.
"Amarillo, in the Texas Panhandle, is several hours’ drive from other major Texas cities, and only a couple of those cities provide direct flights."
A quick peek reveals nonstops from DFW, DEN, DAL, IAH, DEN (again), DFW (again), LAS, IAH (again), DAL (again), DFW (again again), DFW (again again again) and on and on. And that's only about half a day.
The most famous The New Yorker magazine image ever clearly has to be a 1976 illustration by Saul Steinberg for the cover depicting the view from 9th Avenue (the West Side) of Manhattan.
legalinsurrection.com
I guess that old New Yorker view of the rest of the US (and the rest of us) is still with us.
Just to be Clear?
Violent uprisings against Federal Judges isn't Just OKAY.. It's GOOD, if the judge isn't Woke.. Right?
I just want to make sure i'm on the right page?
Violent protests against the government are OKAY.. If it's a republican government?
Violent protests against the government are EVIL.. If it's a democrat government?
As Jane Fonda said.. MURDER isn't just OKAY, it's GREAT.. If you murder republicans?
Do i have all that right?
For a different perspective, written by a lawyer (as opposed to NYT provocateur)-
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/12/deep-in-the-heart-of-amarillo/
I don't have access to the NYT article. The Reason piece, by libertarian lawyer Josh Blackman, gets into a fair amount of detail re the propriety of the judge asking the lawyers to keep details quiet so as to preserve a bit of peace at the hearing.
It occurs to me that the judge may be trying (unsuccessfully) to prevent bloodshed- the Marshals could bust a few heads pour encourager les autres without worrying about the response of the locals, and the fewer busted heads, the better.
He’s just trying to stop you and your sister harridans from turning a hearing into a clown show. Nothing wrong with that.
The NYT frames a handmade tale with expectation that a baby will soon be born. There is no mystery in sex and conception... Wicked irony.
Is this a Judicial version of the Streisand effect? If I were a pro-choice person and I heard this story of the judge not wanting people to show up for the hearing, I would suspect that the judge planned on issuing a ruling that makes this drug illegal (or withdraws approval, I'm not sure on what exactly is being argued for.) I suspect the judge didn't issue a gag order because there was no actual circumstances that would justify it in this case. This was a bad move by the judge. Court proceedings are supposed to be public.
"I'd love to kick back, be quiet, and listen to Althouse on that subject." Yeah, Chuck, I bet you would, because as Althouse proved in her Stanford debate arguments, she is willing to bend over backward to find no fault with liberal advocates being allowed to disrupt whatever they feel like. Liberal justices routinely legislate from the bench, but if a conservative judge makes a ruling, it's unjustified regardless of its suitability.
If the judge succeeds in banning the abortion pill, it will be a huge win for the Democrats. It will be the mother of all Pyrrhic victories for the pro life movement.
So he wants to avoid a circus.
I think the word you're searching for is "insurrection", with a dose of "ending democracy" and a side dish of "domestic terrorism".
He was "Trump appointed" so it is open season, just like Stanford.
My singular question for Althouse -- a genuine expert on federal civil procedure -- is how she feels about District Court cases, as with this Texas case, having effectiveness nationally, beyond the reaches of (in the case at issue) the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?
Chuck only asks because we're no longer in a time when federal judges race to be the first to stop Trump's actions.
Streisand Effect now in full operation,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
It's America. We do protests.
Boston tea party, etc.
The forgotten Tea Party.
LLR-democratical Chuck: I'd love to kick back..."
Oh, we know very well what you'd like to be doing based on your posts yesterday.
Boston tea party, etc.
They had to dress as Native Americans so as not to be rounded up and shot.
The forgotten Tea Party.
It was a less sophisticated time so we just had the IRS take care of them.
I wonder if there was a court reporter for the conference call where the judge spoke of the delayed notice. Not automatic for such things.
Blogger Fustigator said...
It's Amarillo. I might enjoy seeing a confrontation between armed Texas LEOs
You know, not long ago the phrase "Texas LEO's" would have conjured up images of tough intimidating, take no shit guys. Now all I can think of is the Uvalde police department cowering in the hallway or chasing threatening to arrest angry parents.
"The forgotten Tea Party."
It was a less sophisticated time so we just had the IRS take care of them.
A "burden" aborted in privacy. Similar to the J6 Select Committee reserving, curating, avoiding denying distribution of evidence (e.g. tapes) and cancelling civil rights.
Judge [Matthew J.] Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who has written critically about Roe v. Wade and previously worked for a Christian conservative legal organization
I wonder, do they every write Judge X, an Obama appointee who has written supportively about Roe v. Wade and previously worked for Planned Parenthood?
Is the writer unaware that Roe v. Wade has been overturned for being a garbage decision without the slightest shred of legitimacy, and that therefore having "written critically about Roe v. Wade" is a mark of distinction and ability to reason correctly?
If the judge succeeds in banning the abortion pill,
It is democracy. It will restore the value of human life, recognize the dignity and agency of women, reduce the opportunity for rape and exploitation in darkness (e.g. illegal alien rape of underage girl, celebrity sodomy of underage girl, social progress with "benefits", take a knee, beg, forward), etc. That said, six weeks to baby meets granny in legal state. We should empathize with the millions annually, globally, who are victims of [elective] abortion, the wicked solution, human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress.
Ann, I think Chuck just groped you by the hip.
Kevin said...
"My singular question for Althouse -- a genuine expert on federal civil procedure -- is how she feels about District Court cases, as with this Texas case, having effectiveness nationally, beyond the reaches of (in the case at issue) the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?"
Chuck only asks because we're no longer in a time when federal judges race to be the first to stop Trump's actions.
It was absolutely raised in connection with Trump-era legal issues. Like the "Muslim ban" orders. Did you even read the Duke Law School "Judicature" article that I so kindly supplied to you? Did you see that they mentioned Trump v Hawaii?
Here's the really funny fucking thing; YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MY OPINION ON THE SUBJECT OF NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS IS. How do I know that? Because I am not even certain of my own conclusion about the subject.
You miserable shitheads aren't even making a passing effort at any sort of serious, focused, subject-limited discussion. I don't know why Althouse puts up with you. I see Althouse making an effort, blogging interesting topical subjects with good links and a very light guiding editorial touch. But you morons respond like callers to Dan Bongino's radio show. With your kneejerk TrumpWing takes on absolutely everything. No links to any sources of value, no effort, no content.
No interest. Boring.
The forgotten Tea Party.
Another victim of government collusion, Fourth leg braying handmade tales, and quietly, behind a layer of privacy, where democracy dies in darkness.
"It's America. We do protests."
And if you're of the wrong ideological persuasion, we take political prisoners.
The Constitution does not recognize the disparate treatment of "the People" and "our Posterity". The Court overturned the federal sanction of cruel, and unusual treatment of abortion victims based on age, clinical, social, color bloc ("diversity") value. The decision to uphold the wicked solution NOW reverts to the States in a democratic fashion. The decision to abort a human life returns to Nature and medical doctors in concert with mothers, where assessment of life and risk are reconciled under the law. [Elective] Abortion is still legal, but discouraged in civilized societies.
Predictable fallout from nationwide Occupations, BLM insurrections, Antifa mobbings, DIEversity cancel campaigns, J6 Select Committee denying civil rights, etc.
Josephbleau said...
I don't know what the legal requirements are, they should be followed, did he break the law in doing this?
Nope. The law requires public notice. it doesn't require X days of public notice
In my uninformed opinion I would have let the protesters show up and if they interfered with the deliberations of the court in doing the government's official work, I would have them arrested as treasonous insurrectionists, that is the standard now.
Your opinion is very uninformed, because the judge does not have the security available to arrest 100 protesters
Of course, what may happen is a bunch of armed good old boys might show up to encourage everyone else to behave
Chuck said...
It's a good story for the application of "Imagine the opposite..."
Yes, it is. Now watch Chuck lose
Imagine, say, a Biden-nominated DC District Court Judge with a history of working as Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee doing this same thing with regard to a critical hearing relating to a January 6 defendant.
1: No judge who was involved in the prosecution of an individual could ever be assigned to a case
2: If no conservative judge can be assigned to an abortion case, then no left wing judge can ever be assigned to a gun case. Once that ruling goes into place, we should win even in the 2nd Circuit
That wouldn't even do the comparison justice, because it probably wouldn't have the national scope of the Texas abortion pill case.
The judge's keeping it quite wouldn't have prevented the public from attending. it wouldn't have prevented the press from attending
What it would have done is make it harder for violent left wing thugs to organize and show up.
And THAT is why Chuck is so upset. he knows his side is completely in the wrong, and that the only hope for "victory" is for violent left wing thugs to intimidate people.
Chuck, I hope you're there the day that violent right wingers decide to show up to stop the Left from engaging in any effective violence
The Vault Dweller said...
Is this a Judicial version of the Streisand effect? If I were a pro-choice person and I heard this story of the judge not wanting people to show up for the hearing, I would suspect that the judge planned on issuing a ruling that makes this drug illegal
If you have a functioning brain you expect the judge to issue a ruling the Left will hate.
But that's because the Left hates the US Constitution, and constantly acts against it, and as such 90% of honest rulings go against the Left
"lawsuits I hope will fail"
If the judge's ruling is constitutional, I would hope that you would support such a banning.
"I'd love to kick back, be quiet, and listen to Althouse on that subject."
Are you sure you can handle the "be quiet" part? Why don't you give it a test run?
The best way to not pollute this and any other thread is to completely ignore the execrable person known as LLR Chuck.
Banned Commenter LLR-democratical Chuck: "You miserable shitheads aren't even making a passing effort at any sort of serious, focused, subject-limited discussion. I don't know why Althouse puts up with you"
Banned commenter has thoughts about who Althouse allows, or should allow, to post on her blog.
Discuss.
I'm not sure what the big deal is. If the judge is actually a true conservative judge what conclusion can he derive that allows the court to ban something it doesn't have the authority to do so? Abortion is now a state issue so perhaps a state can ban the sale of the drugs in question in it's boundaries but can it ban a state resident from buying it in another state? That would appear to me that would require an act of Congress since these drugs are legal as far as the US government is concerned.
I'm not sure what the big deal is. If the judge is actually a true conservative judge what conclusion can he derive that allows the court to ban something it doesn't have the authority to do so? Abortion is now a state issue so perhaps a state can ban the sale of the drugs in question in it's boundaries but can it ban a state resident from buying it in another state? That would appear to me that would require an act of Congress since these drugs are legal as far as the US government is concerned.
Will be interesting to contrast the protests out side this court house with the dozen or so peaceful pro -ife people carryin' signs outside the Kermit Gosnell trial.
Remember him? Well respected, Medical dr, specializing in "women's health"
Had a nice collection of baby feet in jars, as well as other parts in garbage bags and refrigerator.
Toilets and sinks frequently clogged with baby flesh and guts.
If the kid accidentally alive, snip its neck.
can I would request / propose change of venue?
Hope all the out of town visitors can boost attendance at new venue for hearing
Chuck is banned?
Seems kinda weird his posts get approved then.
Q: if Congress acts to make prescription for this chemical unnecessary would any ruling against FDA etc. still apply?
I am confused
The Judge could have ruled strictly from submitted briefs. No hearing
The Judge could have did a Zoom meeting with all the parties. No hearing
The Judge could have heard oral arguments in person and kept the public out. No Public allowed
But instead, a asked (not ordered) the lawyers to keep the hearing quiet. Public access
The left has made an urban sport of shutting down public speech. They are reaping what they sowed. We used to have a social contract of conduct. Maxine Waters orders to "get in their face and not give the a moment of peace", amended that contract.
It's America. We do protests.
Its a new century. The leftist do protests, conservatives do insurrections. Equal application of the law is passe.
I imagine the Texas Judge took into account the Garland's refusal to protect SCOTUS Judges to heart. Figured he would have to fassion his own personal defense strategy, knowing Garland would refuse to send Federal law enforcement, just federal forensic team to gather evidence after the assassination.
“I don't know why Althouse puts up with you.”
I don’t know either, but I will give Althouse credit for not holding grudges and having a forgiving heart. We’ve ALL behaved poorly at times, I think Althouse recognizes this as human and tries to get past it. She doesn’t have to allow comments.
iowan2 said...
I am confused
The Judge could have ruled strictly from submitted briefs. No hearing
I think this is true; depending on local rules, rules "of the case," etc. But no need to worry about that, since Judge Kacsmaryk recognized that there could/should be a hearing for oral argument.
The Judge could have did a Zoom meeting with all the parties. No hearing
Again, that might have been true but that's not the issue; with a Zoom hearing, the court could have and/or would have set up public access, with notice as to logging on, etc.
The Judge could have heard oral arguments in person and kept the public out. No Public allowed
That's a hell of a lot more problematic, and would have prompted the public, media, etc., to protest, intervene, file a motion with the chief judge, etc. You are getting colder. A lot colder.
But instead, a asked (not ordered) the lawyers to keep the hearing quiet. Public access
The judge did ask that, And the judge said he would keep the hearing off the court's public "PACER" docket until late Tuesday so that no one outside of the attorneys could prepare for it, essentially. And that is really, really a squirrely thing for a U.S. District Judge to do, and to ask the attorneys to do.
The left has made an urban sport of shutting down public speech. They are reaping what they sowed. We used to have a social contract of conduct. Maxine Waters orders to "get in their face and not give the a moment of peace", amended that contract.
Blah blah blah.
But in an effort to “minimize disruptions,” he said he was going to keep the hearing off the public docket until Tuesday night.
This isn’t the first time in which Texas courts are being used to try to force laws onto the rest of the country. Is abortion a state issue or isn’t it? Why does this Texas court have the right to decide such matters for states other than Texas? There are millions of us in the rest of the country that don’t want the rest of the US to adopt Texas politics.
The Judge’s actions of delaying the public’s knowledge of the proceedings is troubling. There have always been protestors in such hearings, the protestors disrupt and then are they are removed and the proceedings continue to go forth.
Ann Althouse said...
It's America. We do protests.
We also do elections which, as the man observed, have consequences.
In the vein of iowan2's comment, maybe instead of just showing up to shout down and intimidate people, a more effective strategy would be speaking to build a moderate consensus that would enact some laws covering various ethical situations.
Judge could not keep public out assuming no trade or national security secrets.
He could not and did not ask them to keep the hearing quiet. Only asked to delay giving notice.
William at 11:15 is spot on.
Separately, having been to and through Amarillo countless times over the past few decades (as it's a Route 66 city and I'm a frequent roadtripper), it's worth mentioning for those who've never been there that Amarillo is a very nice little town. Nice as in, people are mellow, friendly, quiet-life types for the most part. It's not exactly an interesting place per se but it has a nice CBD and some great little shops, and a pretty decent complement of restaurants from mundane to quite fancy across a surprising range of cuisine.
But people there don't really cotton to loudmouths and disruptive personalities. They're far too polite for that. True plainsmen and women of the Panhandle.
Just don't roll into town expecting that they've got infinite patience, though, or an ass-kicking's likely to go down - and not in your favor.
Signed,
An Amarillo lover and admirer whose love for the "big city" is too great for him ever to move there
I hope the lawsuit fails.
Cast an eye on the demographic time bomb we're all sitting next to.
Think about the implications.
How long, do you suppose, will it be before they start mandating that "every womb(an) do her duty to the nation"?
Where do you suppose they'll set the minimum standards? 2.1 kids? 3? 4?
Society cannot function under conditions of a demographic implosion. Once that fact is made manifest, it'll likely be too damn late, but you better believe that the control freaks that got us into this mess are going to do what control freaks always do, and start with the coercive measures.
Mark my words: One day, it'll be the conservatives trying to keep these 'civil liberties' alive, and the coercive left that's demanding the death penalty for abortionists. It will happen, just as soon as the control freaks realize that they can't lord themselves over people who were never born...
If you doubt me? Think about the implications of our last three or so years; could you have imagined anything like the response to COVID before 2019?
It's gonna be amusing as all hell to be saying "I told you so..." I almost hope I'm still alive when it happens. And, it will happen, just as it will be the same happy f*ckwits of the left that are now wearing p*ssyhat costumes and claiming that the prophecies of Margaret Atwood are coming true around us... They'll pivot in the space of an atomic orbit, and you'll swear that they never had any other policy than that of nurturing natalism.
Can't play at secular godhead, unless you've got potential worshippers. Learn that. Know that. Recognize the implications.
So, is the issue one of DIEversity in the manner alleged by Steinbach et al, or Anti-Life activists and misogynistic advocates forcing a dysfunctional relationship in the courtroom?
I must confess I'd forgotten for a bit that Chuck was supposed to be a "life long Republican". Isn't it amazing the way this LLR is so upset at the thought of a conservative judge doing something that might hurt abortion?
It's almost like he's a lefty troll who lies about everything
This isn’t the first time in which Texas courts are being used to try to force laws onto the rest of the country. Is abortion a state issue or isn’t it? Why does this Texas court have the right to decide such matters for states other than Texas?
Leftists have such short memories.
I remember leftists singing District Court Judges praises when one one stay something out of the Trump White House.
Not Sure about Inga, but the left loved District Court Judges declaring the rulings were National is scope. Another example of the left not wanting to follow the rules they created. Also not being able to look into the future a bit and think about what happens when a Democrat was back in the White House.
Just like Pelosi's new rules for sitting members on committee. All new rules today. Thank you Speaker Pelosi.
Ever Dumber Lefty Mark: "Chuck is banned?
Seems kinda weird his posts get approved then."
LLR-democratical Chuck was banned but Althouse explained repeatedly that it is difficult technically to auto-ban someone so Dumb Lefty Mark's co-lefty bizarro-violent-homosexual-sex-fantasy amigo Chuckles takes advantage of that.
But Dumb Lefty Mark's white-knighting for Chuckles is duly noted.
Violent Sexual Fantasist LLR-democratical Chuck: “I don't know why Althouse puts up with you.”
Russia Collusion Truther and Hillary/FBI Hoax Dossier Dead Ender Inga: "I don’t know either, but I will give Althouse credit for not holding grudges and having a forgiving heart."
LOL
I think its amusing how our raging leftist Triumverate of Dumb Lefty Mark, Inga and LLR-democratical Chuck come to each other's defense.
Where do you suppose they'll set the minimum standards? 2.1 kids? 3? 4?
A couple: one woman, one man, two "our Posterity": one boy, one girl, Net-Zero carbon emissions, no immigration, no renewable energy, no reliable energy, ESG.
the Kermit Gosnell trial.
Remember him? Well respected, Medical dr, specializing in "women's health"
Sanger the eugenicist, Gosnell the abortionist, #CecileTheCannibal, Levine the Mengele, women second, human rights selective, ethical religion, twilight faith, Antisci, "burdens" of evidence aborted in sanctuary states. A progressive line with liberal license.
“Here's the really funny fucking thing; YOU…”
Pretty sure there’s a rule that places f/king before funny- every f/king time.
Other than that- carry on. Your kinda f/king funny to read.
Andrew: haven’t you heard??!
The Klau$ $chwab agenda is to have citizens own nothing in a matter of time- and be happy b/c of it!!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrg8t34yXRs
Takirks: above is Unplanned Childlessness
An interview w/Jordan Peterson.
A friend’s daughter is on her 8th child(+2from her husband’s previous marriage)(-1 lost in an accident last fall:0( . Viva our freedom for Life.
Takirks is on to something important.
Freeing women to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, and all sorts of less exalted occupations has certain benefits for society and for the women involved, but it's proving to be a luxury good.
The sense that I have considered is that over the course of a career, women as a group are less productive than men, for a variety of reasons, than their male classmates. We as a wealthy society can afford that, but we may be running out of that money.
Now comes takirks, who has a more robust explanation for why the current experiment in women's liberation may be short-lived- we need the women to stay home and make babies.
Not very modern to suggest, and I'm not saying we'll get to Taliban levels of female oppression, but I can see returning to 1950s societal norms- men as the breadwinners and women as the homemakers. We may not be able to afford our current indulgence.
@ West TX Intermediate Crude;
Don't mistake my pointing these things out for advocacy in any particular direction. I personally have no brief for any of this BS, nor any desire to be a part of it or a society that takes these measures. I'm merely pointing out that the trendlines are running in that direction, and that the control freak personality types that have run roughshod over human rights to get us here are going to keep going on as they have gone.
The Democrats had zero issues with eugenics or creating the conditions for what amounts to an ethnic cleansing or genocide of American blacks. And, believe me, that is precisely what's been going on: Absent Planned Parenthood, the percentage of the population for black Americans would be around 18-20%. The fact that it's at 12%? Thank the Democratic Party. When they get done bringing in their replacement population of underclass members, which they think is what they're doing by opening the borders, blacks will likely drop down to around 2% of the population, similar to what it is in Mexico. And, they'll do that by the same means that they've supplanted the gang bangers: By being more efficient at the things they do. It won't be pretty.
Just like the whole gender/sex/idiocy issue won't be pretty, when the control freaks get around to noticing the minor little problem of people not breeding in sufficient quantities to have social experiments run on them, or pay the taxes for all the lovely programs and jobs held by the laptoperati class. As soon as they figure that out, look for all the things they've "done for (really, to...) women" being abandoned in a hot minute, and them slapping the mandates down. It will happen; it's merely a matter of when they realize the crisis is upon them.
It's gonna be amazing to watch, as the social conservatives maintain the same positions they've always held about the value of human life, and human dignity, but the leftoid freaks will turn that into backwards-looking revanchism, incompatible with all right-thinking people's lifestyles.
If these people weren't so sheeplike and predictable, I'd find them amusing. As it is, I'd just like to be shut of them and all their brilliant ideas.
Here's a tip from someone who has read a good deal of history: You don't go changing things overnight, and if you do? You'll wind up like Mao and his sparrows, up a creek without a paddle in the middle of a self-created famine.
Never give an ideologue power of any kind. Whatso-freakin'-ever. They'll munge it all up, every single time.
As expected, conservatives go way overboard on abortion, attempt to turn the electorate against them. Just saw something about the death penalty in South Carolina.
They spent fifty years building up to undoing Roe v Wade, and they've already started the process of losing their hard-fought victory. Completely unforced error.
Chuck the liar has serious mental issues that he thinks he can work out on the Althouse blog. He keeps trying to enlist Althouse as a peer(sic)(no. really. the idea is sick) when she is anything but. In the petri dish that is this blog Chuck is the MERS virus.
A word of advice for Chuck the liar. Find a personality you can live with then stick too it.
Now fuck off and let those of us not a pathologically passive aggressive as you get on with it.
@takirks-
I did not intend to imply that you are advocating for such change; my apologies if I was unclear. I'm of 2 minds myself- I think it's great if we are (were) wealthy enough and fertile enough to Have It All indefinitely, but my observation is that we are not. I think we are at the end of a particular Holiday from History and will be forced by circumstances, if nothing else, to get back to the business of getting the work done and getting the kids raised if we are to survive as a civilization. Luxuries are great as long as they are affordable.
I completely agree with your caution re changing things overnight- is not that what has been done, within my lifetime, with respect to sex roles, human identity, and the roles of citizens in our republic?
MikeR @ 7:10 a.m. above is 100% correct.
One has to consider it's a deliberate sabotage. Maybe the fundraising spigot of the abortion debate is so rich they just can't face life without it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा