It's Election Day.
The national media is leaning into this one. See, e.g., "Wisconsin’s High-Stakes Supreme Court Race: What to Watch/The election for a swing seat on the court is likely to determine whether abortion remains illegal in Wisconsin, as well as the future of the state’s heavily gerrymandered political maps" (NYT).
And here I am, based in Wisconsin, for 4 decades. And me, a law professor — a retired law professor who's been on the receiving end of the outburst "And, you! A law professor!" so many times.
Yes, me, a law professor, a Wisconsin law professor. Emerita. I am not taking any position other than my trademark position: Cruel neutrality.
It's real, and I hope it hurts.
I privately know who I'll vote for if I vote, but I will probably walk to the polling place this morning without knowing whether I will vote or abstain. I consider abstention a worthy option.
Posts
91 comments:
When it’s a woman versus a man, Althouse always sides with the woman.
Reports of a cover-up regarding Janet’s abuse of her elderly first husband. Also reports that Janet used the “n” word when she worked in Juvenile court. I believe the Press covers up for the Dems. Just recently, Nebraska state Senator Carol Blood used the “n” word in a recorded legislative hearing. No media reports. She’s a Dem.
It's real, and I hope it hurts.
I've been up since 4, surfing the net.
You get the first LOL from me @7:30
"Wisconsin’s High-Stakes Supreme Court Race: What to Watch/The election for a swing seat on the court is likely to determine whether abortion remains illegal in Wisconsin, as well as the future of the state’s heavily gerrymandered political maps"
My bold type.
I haven't been following this topic so I'm talking out of my, um, hat here, but... isn't this kind of thinking - that abortion's status ought to be (or can be) decided from the bench rather than in the legislatures - what got us into this situation in the first place?
One foot on the dock, one foot on the boat. At some point, a person will get wet, totally, head to toe, with no life preserver within reach.
The No Labels party should have fielded a candidate.
I usually don't vote in judicial elections because I don't know enough about the candidates. I also have generally negative feelings about direct election of judges as they should be as neutral as possible and I don't think the democratic process is well-designed to achieve that outcome.
I consider abstention a worthy option.
You can also go into the voting booth and pull out.
It's just disgusting that the legislature can't get its act together and pass some kind of new abortion law drawing the line in an appropriate place instead of leaving us with something from the 19th century, but that doesn't mean the Court ought to help them out of their jam with (state) constitutional law.
But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body. You may not like what the sovereign does, but it's not your territory to rule.
But I hate that the judicial race has turned into voting as if for legislation, and I don't think one issue should determine the outcome and I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its power. However, we're only in that predicament because the confounded legislature — a conservative majority — can't/won't pass an abortion statute.
"But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body. You may not like what the sovereign does, but it's not your territory to rule."
As long as I don't have to pay for it through my taxes. Your body, YOUR $$. Not my problem
We are (apparently) coming to the end of two generations of political stalemate regarding both abortion and gun laws. As such, both sides long ago staked out utopian, untenable, irrational positions because they saw no chance of new law passage or change. Frustration leads to one-upmanship and cartoonish fantasies.
Now, how do the absolutists back down and save face? By dying off? By copying the head-in-the-sand approach of China (as sticking to its untenable COVID "zero tolerance" policy as infections skyrocketed)? By switching parties or electing 3rd party candidates? By not voting and tacitly accepting change?
By growing up, being leaders, and taking a stand against the extremists? Ugg.
They wont because Evers has said he will veto any sort of compromised position. Why bring it if you know it will fail?
I will hear about the results later knowing it's not the end of the world, as predicted, if either side wins. But I have to say, it's not something I'm watching for, or thinking about at all. Even though I've read and heard pundits telling me this is where I should be focused. Meh.
I think I've reached a point of feeling removed from some of the hysteria that we run to each day. Not watching The Trump Show today either. I'll wait until the end of that show and we're nowhere near the end.
I'm more interested in what China's up to around the world today.
AA said: "But I hate that the judicial race has turned into voting as if for legislation, and I don't think one issue should determine the outcome and I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its power. However, we're only in that predicament because the confounded legislature — a conservative majority — can't/won't pass an abortion statute."
Whether you like the result or not, the legislature is doing their job that the majority of the voters apparently agree with since they were elected to their positions. For a judge to make the decision on abortion would be their NOT doing their job, but instead the job of the legislature. So, if you fear what a liberal majority would do with it's power, it seems your best option would be to vote for the conservative. Otherwise, you are condoning whatever the liberal majority does with that power. Or, you could always vote for the liberal or abstain and then when the liberal judges do what you fear just say, "I was afraid this would happen, but I decided to help her win' so here we are.
To fuck or not to fuck is the first choice. The liberals' ethical religion denies women and men's dignity and agency, and sequesters the "burden" of evidence for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress.
That said, six weeks to baby meets granny in biological and legal state. Generally, witch hunts and trials... demos-cracy aborted, cannibalized, sequestered in darkness should be discouraged.
But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body. You may not like what the sovereign does, but it's not your territory to rule.
So women have the right to use drugs? The right to sell one of their organs? The right to be a prostitute? The right not to be vaccinated?
Why don't female fetuses have sovereignty over their bodies? When do women obtain this right? Where does this right come from?
What about men, do they have sovereignty over their body?
Doesn't the Hobbs decision mean in fact that women don't have sovereignty over their bodies, just as men don't? That women are just as much a part of the social contract as men are?
Something like $45m spent on this election? Adopt the Nebraska Plan in WI. The Governor appoints all the judges and then they stand for retention with a vote of the people.
Be smart.
direct election of judges as they should be as neutral as possible and I don't think the democratic process is well-designed to achieve that outcome
Competitive, and, ideally, informed, if not actually neutral. Judicial, legislative, executive, too, which is why America was not founded with a democratic/dictatorial philosophy, but rather a representative republic with a constitution, less emanations from penumbras, that mitigated authoritarian progress.
That said, does Wisconsin deny all homicides, or after some compromised time, say six weeks to baby meets granny in legal state? Otherwise, medical doctors would maintain a life bias... of both mother and child.
"It's just disgusting that the legislature can't get its act together and pass some kind of new abortion law drawing the line in an appropriate place instead of leaving us with something from the 19th century, but that doesn't mean the Court ought to help them out of their jam with (state) constitutional law."
Yeah! Wait, what's the "appropriate place?" And Wisconsin's abortion law, while enacted in 1849 was still in place in 1973 when Roe v Wade was settled. So it's really something from the late 20th century.
You can also go into the voting booth and pull out.
That would be the second choice. Choose wisely, ladies.
Ann Althouse said...
It's just disgusting that the legislature can't get its act together and pass some kind of new abortion law
hmmm?
If they Did? what would happen then? Would Gov Evers sign it? Could the republicans override his veto?
I'm NOT saying, that you are intentionally LYING.. i'm Just saying, that you are INTENTIONALLY Lying
Having followed and occasionally posted to this blog since August 18, 2005 I can say to you Ann that I deeply respect and value your insights, and honestly don’t make it my business nor really do I care for whom you vote. That said, I believe you are mistaken in your analysis, or at least incomplete in your analysis. There is another party in this, the Governor. There is zero chance he would sign any abortion legislation that would come from the Wisconsin Legislature. Passing any bill would result in acrimony amongst the majority party, expose them to attack by a unified opposition, and in the end would be futile due to a promised veto. In short, you are asking a political branch to act in a non-political way. That’s not realistic.
If the Wisconsin Legislature passed a law, allowing abortion in the 1st trimesters..
Would Gov Evers veto it? Would the democrats help override?
If the Wisconsin Legislature passed a law, allowing abortion in the 1st AND 2nd trimesters..
Would Gov Evers veto it? Would the democrats help override?
But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body
=========
so why not recourse 9A and meaning of word Retain [post Declaration of Independence >> Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness]
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I consider abstention a worthy option.
ha ha
wish you told me that in 2016, when I voted for a certain pothead Libertarian in a national election, to avoid voting for Darth Vader or Cruella de vil.
(Obviously, if you watch all the Star Wars movies, Darth was the way to go).
The Wisconsin body politic is pregnant with the possibility of a new legal entity: an abortion law that balances the rights and needs of mother and child, and does so in a manner that a strong majority of the citizens can accept as the “least-bad” outcome.
The pregnancy is coming to term painfully and with endless complications. It appears to be a breech delivery and may require a C section. Under unsanitary conditions. With no NICU. And no painkillers.
Good luck.
Abstention here. I am appalled by the partisan tenor of this race. I think it is a violation of the Cannons of Judicial Ethics. I do not care that these two candidates are operating through well-funded surrogates. If I cannot count on you to be ethical on the campaign trail, I cannot count on you to be ethical on the bench. None of the above for me.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_code_of_judicial_conduct/model_code_of_judicial_conduct_canon_4/
Will you let us know if (but not how) you voted, please?
Well, there are two bodies involved in an abortion, that's the whole point of the procedure.
But the left wants to avoid the uncomfortable, and they're anti-science and anti-reality, as well. It's much easier to live in a fact-free environment.
Ann, I think we all know exactly who you’re voting for. (I await your outraged denial.)
Ann Althouse said...
It's just disgusting that the legislature can't get its act together and pass some kind of new abortion law drawing the line in an appropriate place instead of leaving us with something from the 19th century, but that doesn't mean the Court ought to help them out of their jam with (state) constitutional law.
What laws have the Democrats proposed?
None?
So, when you say "it's just disgusting", you mean "It's just disgusting that the Democrats would rather have all abortion illegal, and have a campaign issue, than propose ANY compromise."
Right?
Ann Althouse said...
But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body. You may not like what the sovereign does, but it's not your territory to rule.
You HAVE that right: rape is illegal
You do NOT have any sort of right to kill a human being you create because of the acts you chose.
Abortion is the demand that you get sovereignty over that other human being. And no, the fact that that other human being is temporarily dependent upon you is not grounds for you having the right to kill him or her
Althouse said...
I consider abstention a worthy option.
Kevin responded...
You can also go into the voting booth and pull out.
That sounds fine in abstract. But once you're in there, passions get intense and all of the sudden the ballot is covered in your choices, and you feel the need afterwards to go outside and smoke a cigarette.
Two points in response to Althouse:
1. It is difficult to pass laws affecting highly contested values in a legislature by design. That is what self-rule is all about. We are in a “crisis” over abortion in Wisconsin because pro-abortion people want what they want and they want it now. Tantrums like a child. They want judges to give them what they want even if it is unlawful to do so, but make death threats against judges who refuse to do so. Nice people.
2. To follow your logic about women’s sovereignty over the inside of their body would rule out penalties for those who cause the death of a woman and her unborn child. After all, how do we know what her sovereign choice will be when abortion is legal up to the time of birth? Also, doesn’t this open a window for a pro-abortion boyfriend to slip an abortion pill to a pregnant girlfriend without consequences? Are you OK with that?
"women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body"
Fine. But women forfeit some of that sovereignty when, exercising their autonomy, they allow another person to enter. At that point the balance of interests shifts.
The U.S. has sovereignty over its territory. That doesn't mean we kill invading "migrants" because we feel like it, even though by contrast with innocent babies we did not create them and they deliberately violate the law.
Ann Althouse said...
But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body. You may not like what the sovereign does, but it's not your territory to rule.
Not men, just women?
And would that be "people with uteruses", or would that be "women"?
Finally, you do realize your claim is ludicrous, and has NEVER been actually the case, right?
Some examples:
laws against suicide
laws against drug use
laws against getting paid for giving your blood / organs to someone else
All of those are about "control over the insides of our bodies", and NONE of them have ever been struck down on the grounds that they violate some right to personal autonomy / privacy / control over our own bodies.
You have the right to chose not to have sex. You have the right to get your uterus pulled out so you won't get pregnant.
I have the right to not have sex, and the right to get my sex organs so screwed up I can't get someone else pregnant.
But I don't have the right to refuse to support a baby for 18 years if I get you pregnant.
And you don't have the right to kill that baby if your chosen actions get you pregnant, and create that new different human being.
It's been 50 years. but the lie is now over. Show some respect for yourself, and your own intellect, and stop pushing it
tim maguire said...
I usually don't vote in judicial elections because I don't know enough about the candidates.
Sure you do: The Democrat will always vote to impose Democrat party policies on everyone, completely irregardless of what the law or the Constitution says.
The Republican will often vote the way the law requires, rather than just what the Party wants
I also have generally negative feelings about direct election of judges as they should be as neutral as possible and I don't think the democratic process is well-designed to achieve that outcome.
Because we all know how "neutral" the Obama and Biden appointed"judges" are.
We're in this mess because the appointed supposedly "neutral" judges became black robed legislators, executives, and oligarchs.
There's no possible way the democratic process can do worse
It does not help that Kelly is heavily endorsed by pro-life groups. While he may decry his opponent signaling how she would rule in a case, he is doing the equivalent with his backers.
Ann Althouse said...
But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body. You may not like what the sovereign does, but it's not your territory to rule.
As a libertarianish sort of person, I agree. But I go even one step further: I think all humans - not just adult females - have the same right to bodily sovereignty and integrity.
It's just disgusting that the legislature can't get its act together and pass some kind of new abortion law drawing the line in an appropriate place instead of leaving us with something from the 19th century, but that doesn't mean the Court ought to help them out of their jam with (state) constitutional law.
You're right Professor. I don't know why the GOP in the WI legislature can't reasonably compromise and pass something allowing the procedure up to 15 weeks. Let Tony Evers veto it and be the "up until the moment of birth" guy.
But, if Kelly loses, Wisconsin becomes Illinois and Minnesota. There's more going on than just abortion.
Claiming that WI legislative maps are severely gerrymandered is a lie. Sorry if Madison doesn't get to run EVERYONE's lives.
I expect Judge Karan with the bad haircut to win.
Ozaukee County, still a white flight county, isn't as red as it was ten years ago. It's almost purple. Even though people want to move further away from Milwaukee for safety and better schools, the white women still vote Democrat.
Makes no sense, but it's reality. Abortion is EVERYTHING to women voters.
Whole Foods knows who you're voting for too.
" ...we're only in that predicament because the confounded legislature — a conservative majority — can't/won't pass an abortion statute."
The Wisconsin Supreme Court would merely overrule whatever the legislature passed, Ann.
And you a law professor. Haruumph.
The margin of victory will be more than two.
I don't know much about the Wisconsin legislature, but if they're not acting on abortion I assume that's because the majority leadership genuinely oppose abortion, and doing nothing is a legal option for them -- as doing anything proactively is a no-no for judges. There's a lot of wiggle room in legislative rules. And a lot of mysterious rules in legislative wiggle room.
One thing that always surprised me, even when I was on the pro-choice side, was the frequent knee-jerk assumption that people who oppose abortion don't really oppose it, that they just want to... "add your own assumption here."
No. They really oppose it. They really believe in God. They really believe sin and evil exist. You can have your own opinions about their opinions, but it's always pretty dumb to imagine you can hear their thoughts.
A factor in Wisconsin may also be that drawing out the process runs cover for their more centrist Party colleagues.
My father always said that it was rude to ask someone about their vote.
From now on, today. When you make a declaritory remark you have to add. "And, you! A law professor!"
But I hate that the judicial race has turned into voting as if for legislation, and I don't think one issue should determine the outcome and I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its power. However, we're only in that predicament because the confounded legislature — a conservative majority — can't/won't pass an abortion statute.
It sounds to me that the legislature is checkmated by the governor who would veto any reasonable compromise. The Democrats want the issue above all because it guarantees the middle aged white woman vote.
I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its powe
So you think they will disregard the SCOTUS decision? How do they think that will work?
If Trump was the disease (Xi and Putin thought so), then Biden and his ilk wasn't the cure. We're leaning over the abyss.
Whole Foods knows who you're voting for too.
Baby carrots for sale on isle two.
Ground beef for sale on isle three.
Decarbonated beverages in a refrigerated climate.
I wasn't aware that Cruel Neutrality was possible in a liberal. Never seen any evidence of it, that's for sure. Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Think about those chili peppers when you vote.
I was just saying the other day that Wisconsin needs another prog supreme court justice brought to you by outside money. What could go wrong?
Any midwestern state can becomes an Illinois mini-me if they are not careful. Think of Michigan, marching resolutely back to failure. Is Wisconsin next?
I agree with Althouse at 8:09. Michigan did the same thing.
The GOP and the pro-life movement were completely unprepared to deal with Dobbs, and it is going to cost us all dearly. Sensible, permissive legislation with reasonable restrictions should have been the GOP order of the day. Instead, they served up snap-back legislation and high-fives.
This disgusting failure shows how politically immature the Republicans are. Here's a pro tip: politics is not about owning the libs. It is about promoting policies that benefit society by embracing ordered liberty.
I still have not heard a rational argument for a compromise. If you believe in a woman's total autonomy, than there is no reason to limit abortion at any stage. To opt for a 15 week limit is to acknowledge that your argument of autonomy is baseless. If you believe that the child's life is sacrosanct, than there is no reason to allow abortion at any stage. To opt for a 15 week limit is to acknowledge that your argument of the sanctity of life is baseless.
The only rational arguers in this issue are those on either extreme end. Those who want to compromise just want to split the baby because they want the issue to go away. But it won't go away because the two extremes can never accept a middle position. It would be like saying we will compromise on slavery by saying it is ok in some places but not ok in others or that you can enslave someone only for 15 years and then you have to set them free.
Greg the Class Traitor said...
Ann Althouse said...
But there should be a right — statutory or constitutional — recognizing women's sovereignty over the inside of our own body.
Not men, just women?
And would that be "people with uteruses", or would that be "women"?
Finally, you do realize your claim is ludicrous, and has NEVER been actually the case, right?
Some examples:
laws against suicide
laws against drug use
laws against getting paid for giving your blood / organs to someone else
Please don't forget My favorite. As a Male, you are considered to be part of the militia,
As thus, can be Drafted into the Army; and sent up a hill (or onto a beach).. to DIE
That's Right, as a MALE; society can ORDER YOUR DEATH in combat.. When EVER it so chooses.
Which, i guess;
is WHY Althouse claims there Is (or 'Should Be') a right for WOMEN to have sovereignty over their bodies.
MALES, have NEVER had such rights... EVER
Just to be clear. If society can say it Needs male soldiers to DIE for the defense of society..
Surely (IF women are equal to men); It can say it Needs female bodies to make more soldiers??
I agree that the choices today are piss-poor. But my ire is also reserved for the Legislature.
You of course have a right to remain silent on who you vote for. I presume you will vote for the L, and that is ok.
Janet will win. The Dems have perfected election cheating.
n.n said...
Whole Foods knows who you're voting for too.
-Baby carrots for sale on isle two.
-Ground beef for sale on isle three.
-Decarbonated beverages in a refrigerated climate.
For the last one did they leave the cap off? Pay for offsets?
"When it’s a woman versus a man, Althouse always sides with the woman."
Unless the man is homosexual.
In the 19th century, human evolution was inferred, there was still mystery in sex and conception. We need to normalize human rights, recognize the dignity and agency of women and girls, and men and boys, too. Human rites are a deplorable choice, a progressive practice from the time of witches, warlocks, and storks, too. Women deserve better than take a knee, benefits, VP.
That said, "cruel neutrality" is an ancient philosophy, most recently indulged by "good" people... persons. We can do better than repeat history, again, and again, and again.
The Pro-Abortion ‘Life Of The Mother’ Argument Is A False Flag Operation
The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice. That said, six weeks to baby meets granny in legal state.
If I understand Wisconsin law and politics then the recall election will be held approximately one year from now.
A republican has no chance of piercing this blue wall in Wisconsin if voter ID is banned and mass mail in ballot is approved by the new court.
Abstention jibes with “better than nothing is a high standard.”
Am I imaging things, or was there a stealth edit to this post? Wasn't there a reference to female sovereignty originally?
Wa St Blogger said...
I still have not heard a rational argument for a compromise...
If you believe that the child's life is sacrosanct, than there is no reason to allow abortion at any stage. To opt for a 15 week limit is to acknowledge that your argument of the sanctity of life is baseless.
Respectfully, NO..
A person could argue (and Believe), that before 'quickening' (about 12-15 weeks), a baby isn't a baby yet.
A person could argue (and Believe), that before 'viability' (25 weeks?), since a baby isn't able to live outside of a mother, it isn't a baby yet.
Or, from the other hand..
After 'quickening', and once a BABY is kicking.. It's a BABY!! Not a lump of inanimate flesh
After 'viability'.. Why The HELL are you murdering a Baby, just put it up for adoption.
AND, from the other other hand: IF (and Only IF) a woman WANTS her child.. it IS a child, otherwise, it's just like a used tampon (or old boyfriend).. Something to throw in the trash
Yah, the libs will jack the vote. Nothing to see here...
Gahrie, that is in her first response.
Respectfully, NO..
A person could argue (and Believe), that before 'quickening' (about 12-15 weeks), a baby isn't a baby yet.
I appreciate your respectful reply. I do know those arguments, I just don't think they are rational. The first is a semantic argument. The only thing that changed between the 11th week and the 16th week are development markers. The child is genetically the same. It is still human, it is still alive, it is still developing. The demarcation is arbitrary, especially given that no one can come up with a clear argument to say that one demarcation is better than another.
A person could argue (and Believe), that before 'viability' (25 weeks?), since a baby isn't able to live outside of a mother, it isn't a baby yet.
The viability argument suffers from the coma/life support argument. We go though extra-ordinary forms of care on the chance that the person will become a fully functioning human. In abortion, we use extra-ordinary efforts to insure that the person does not.
Belief and willingness to argue does not make the argument valid. Neither argument is rational. They are justifications to allow a compromise. What we define as life and what we define as human occur at conception - It is alive, it is human. The only point one can stand on to believe the first two and still justify abortion is to add a third, unjustified criteria (heart-beat, brain waves, viability, etc.) All those criteria are dispensed with when dealing with born-people who have had major trauma and need extensive assistance to maintain life.
“It's just disgusting that the legislature can't get its act together and pass some kind of new abortion law drawing the line in an appropriate place instead of leaving us with something from the 19th century...”
The majority of your commentariat seems to believe that the “appropriate place” is zero. In that case, no new law is needed. Why fix what isn’t broken?
Gahrie, that is in her first response.
Oh, my response must be trapped in a spam filter then.
I voted in the race, but didn't like either canadate all that much.
I decided in the booth. Talk about blech
George Carlin has a bit about how bad politicians are the fault of those who vote since they are the ones who vote them in in the first place. It's a funny bit with a twist on the usual perspective.
My understanding of Dobbs is that the USSC toke the courts out of the decision making on abortion and put it in the Legislature's court. Liberal or conservative majority should not matter.
Mark said...
It does not help that Kelly is heavily endorsed by pro-life groups. While he may decry his opponent signaling how she would rule in a case, he is doing the equivalent with his backers.
The WI Constitution does not contain a "right" to abortion.
So, by his backers, kelly is showing he's going to follow the written Wi Constitution.
Which is what judges are supposed to do
I guess that "signal" is "bad", if you want a black robed dictator, rather than a judge
Amadeus 48 said...
I agree with Althouse at 8:09. Michigan did the same thing.
The GOP and the pro-life movement were completely unprepared to deal with Dobbs, and it is going to cost us all dearly. Sensible, permissive legislation with reasonable restrictions should have been the GOP order of the day.
Oh bullshit.
The Democrat Governor and the Democrats in the State Legislature have spent the last 8? months with the reality that all abortions are illegal in WI.
What have they done about it?
Have they proposed a 15 week ban?
Have they done ANYTHING about it other than campaign on a "maximalist abortion" position?
No?
But "it's the Republicans fault!!11!"
Only if you're a complete fucking lunatic.
In a democratic system, the people who propose the compromise law to move things closer to their desires are the ones who are currently most upset about the status quo. that's the Democrats
Until THEY propose a compromise, nothing SHOULD happen.
And they haven't proposed ANY compromises.
Anyone who votes for the abortion Karen is rewarding the Democrats for playing games with "their bodies".
A person could argue (and Believe), that before 'viability' (25 weeks?), since a baby isn't able to live outside of a mother, it isn't a baby yet.
Yep. They could also argue that black slaves aren't really people, that Jews aren't people, and all sorts of other stupid things.
And since those defenseless babies aren't protected by the US or WI Constitutions, if you get a law passed agreeing with the position, it will be the law.
What you can not sanely argue is that 4 black robed thugs should be allowed to impose that belief on everyone else, in violation of the US Constitution (which guarantees us all a "republican form of government", not a judicial dictatorship) and of the WI Constitution (which they would lie about in issuing their diktats).
So whatever you believe, Kelly is still the only legitimate candidate
It's over.
The guy hired by the RNC and WI Republican Party to challenge Trump's defeat now lost too.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out the door, partisan hack Kelly.
We saw right through your BS
Greg, Republicans are a single vote away from being able to overturn a veto from Evers.
They have all the power, yet sat on their hands by choice.
It's not the Democrats job to give you a talking point when you hold all the power. Either drive the bus or accept that the do-nothing moniker. Put your Majority big boy pants on and git er done, Greg.
Cashed my ticket on the Pro WITZ taking majority 1st time in 15 years at 3.5-1 odds. Handicapping leading me towards Blue moving forward throughout the country since 2020 and 2022 now Wisconsin 1st takeover majority in 15 years even with antiquated 19th century abortion issue and total gerrymandered areas, Lets see if Majority can fix some of the insanity up in there. Next wager WOOD MEMORIAL last shot for a couple nags to get to 40 for possible Derby entry, HIT SHOW looks good but may be too short we'll see closer to race and I finish doping the form. Way to go PROWITZ,you done good, nothing some millions didn't hurt!
Althouse
"I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its power. "
Ann is terrified that they may give more rights to Black people.
It's real, and I hope it hurts.
I hope for your sake you aren’t one of the ones hurt.
She won by 10 %. Now WI can work on that gerrymandering issue, the 1849 abortion law, Act 10. The overreach by Republicans has bit them in the ass. About time too. It’s obvious the Republican majority have only been interested in extremist conservative policies. The possibilities for significant changes are now a reality. First, get rid of 1849 law. Second get rid of the massive gerrymandering allowing Democratic votes to matter. Next overturn the state legislature, just like Michigan did.
Republicans have themselves to blame.
Ann is terrified that they may give more rights to Black people.
What rights don't they have?
What would these new rights be?
Where would they come from?
All men and women have full bodily autonomy when we live in a state of nature. However, most of us prefer to live in a civilized manner. Civilization requires a social contract. A main part of that contract is surrendering your bodily sovereignty to the will of the people. Just as a man must accept his responsibility to the draft, a woman must accept her responsibility to obey the laws on abortion.
"I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its power. "
Did you fear what a conservative majority on the court did with its power?
Inga said...
"I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its power. "
Did you fear what a conservative majority on the court did with its power?
No.
because the conservative majority used their power to enforce the written WI State Constitution and written WI laws.
Whereas the left wing scum bags are simply going to use their power to force their personal political positions on everyone else.
Are you really such a worthless garbage creature that you can't see the difference there?
Inga said...
She won by 10 %. Now WI can work on that gerrymandering issue, the 1849 abortion law, Act 10.
Um, no, WI was already free to work on all those. What's she's going to do is vote to take away the people's right to decide any of those, and replace it with the 4 lock step leftists forcing their desires on the rest of the State.
Mutaman said...
Althouse
"I fear what a liberal majority on the court would do with its power. "
Ann is terrified that they may give more rights to Black people.
Really, But?
Some what "more rights" will they "give to black people", and on what grounds will they "give" them?
What's that? you hate democracy, and love oligarchy, and therefore 4 oligarchs forcing their desires on the entire State is just about as good as it gets for you?
Post a Comment