Talking to Liberals About the Hobby Lobby Decision

This is why you can’t talk to liberals:

In the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision this week, The Daily Kos posted this article which showed up in my Facebook feed the next day with the comment, “Okay Bible-thumpers, answer me this:”; the title of the Kos article is “What if a Muslim Company Used the ‘Hobby Lobby’ Decision to Impose Its Values on White Christians?”

Always up for a challenge, I clicked on the article thinking I would read it and then respond to the Facebook query. 

The first line of the article says:

The slide towards American theocracy was nudged one more step forward by today's Supreme Court decision in support of the "freedom" of corporations with "religious" beliefs to restrict the rights of their employees. In essence, religious "beliefs" trump the obligations, rights, and responsibilities that come with being members of the polity and a broader political community.

That sentence alone was as far as I had to read. 

Absolutely no one’s rights were restricted by the Hobby Lobby decision.  Period.  Anyone that wants them can still go out and purchase abortifacients if they want to.  The Hobby Lobby decision did not ban the drugs. 

So, I responded to the person who posted the article in my feed, I'll call her Miss Liberal, and simply said:

“The first line of the article says the decision ‘restricts the rights’ of the employees, which is erroneous.  No employee rights are restricted.  They can all go buy whatever abortifacients they want.  The decision just means that the employer is not forced to buy them.  Because the first line is a lie, the rest of the article means nothing.”

Am I wrong?

The response I got from Miss Liberal was:

“It does restrict the rights of employees that you do not comprehend does not make it erroneous” [sic]

(We’ll leave the issue of her grammar aside; I'll quit putting [sic] out there; you get the idea)

I don’t usually take the liberal bait, but I was a passenger in a car zooming down the interstate and had nothing else to do besides look at cows, so I thought, “Why not?”

I wrote:

“What rights are restricted?”

Response:

“Insurance was created as a way for employers to pay you less this allows employers to pay you less and give you less access to healthcare because they don’t BELIEVE in certain medications and what things they might be used for What and Why my doctor prescribes me medication Is no one’s fucking business except mine and my doctor’s.” 

Uhhhmmmm, okay.  I’m shaking my head on that one. 

Unwilling to get drawn into the weeds on the origins and purpose of insurance, I’m sticking to my original question; I wrote:

“But can women still buy abortifacients?”

Simple enough, right?

Miss Liberal’s response:

“It’s none of your business what my doctor prescribes me”

(Apparently Miss Liberal doesn’t believe in end punctuation.)

Again, trying to keep her on the path, I wrote:

“Not talking about you – I mean women in general.  My point is that benefits and rights are not the same thing.  Nobody’s rights have been taken away.”

Clear enough?  I’m trying to be non-hostile here, and to keep her on the original question. 

Miss Liberal’s response?

“you cannot see the forest for the trees.”

It’s killing me not to critique the grammar, but I persevere.

It’s at this point that she begins to copy/paste her comment about “Insurance was created…”.  Twice.

So I said,

“Is a person forced to work for Hobby Lobby?  Does one still have the choice to choose a job with the benefit package they want?”

Miss Liberal:

“you’re an idiot”

She copy/pastes the insurance comment again.  It’s getting funny now, really. 

So I try one last time: 

“So you can’t tell me what rights were taken away from me yesterday?

Miss Liberal:

“no.  I just did.  Twice.  but you don’t have high enough order thinking skills to understand it.  I’m sorry, honey.  I’ll keep thinking on how to break it down for you.”

I can’t stand it anymore so I’m ready to get out of this dialogue.  I said:

“LMAO, okay.  But you don’t have the higher order thinking skills to explain what single right the Supreme Court stripped from women yesterday.  You’re assuming insurance is a ‘right’ rather than a benefit.  A woman still has the ability to purchase the same drugs as before the decision.”

Miss Liberal:

“again I am sorry you cannot see what I’m trying to say it’s not thinking skills, kiddo it’s communication skills  talking to idiots takes a lot of work”

My final comment:

“Amen to that.”

I left the conversation on that one. 

The next comment that showed up in the feed was from one of Miss Liberal’s liberal friends who posted a vulgar picture of a woman’s spread legs and a one-fingered salute at her vagina with the caption:  "A message to Republicans from women voters.”

And the next comment (because I continued to lurk a bit after I quit commenting) was from another of Miss Liberal’s friends:

“This guy screaming about ‘abortifacients is cracking me up!  What a loon!   Lol!”

And yet another shows up and begins to complain about “the All-Male Supreme Court” who “has implanted their demon seed into the minds of conservatives everywhere…”

Oh, my.

I can’t even begin to go there.  By the end of the dialogue they had everything but UFO's in there.

I know better than to try and talk to a liberal; I really do.  But, like I said, I was killing time on the interstate and this one just looked so easy.  Low hanging fruit.  Obviously I never did get Miss Liberal to answer the question as to what constitutional right was taken away, or even restricted, by the Hobby Lobby decision.  The usual liberal M.O. is to resort to profanity and insults, in my experience, but I guess I still keep hoping I can get through to one or two of them every now and then. 

Not this time, I’m afraid.

One More Chance

I'm sick to death of parsing the Supreme Court ObamaCare ruling.  Did Roberts change his vote?  Jan Crawford's story is causing quite the uproar.  Did he have ulterior motives?  What were his true intentions?

I've swayed and wobbled since Thursday's ruling from feeling sick and nauseated to thinking he did us a favor in that certainly we will be able to defeat Obama in November because of this.  I mean, the only hope for the Republic now is to overturn this power grabbing, convoluted law.

At this point, whatever Roberts intended is beside the point.  Here we are.  I think Paul Ryan summed it up perfectly for me yesterday when he was speaking with George Stephanopoulos:

Look, this is the most important election in our lifetimes. This ruling -- and I guess this was John Roberts' thinking -- he raised the stakes of this election higher than it could have been raised. 

This election is a choice of two futures. Do you want a government-centered society in a government-driven economy and government-rationed health care? Or do you want the American opportunity society with a safety net, a free economy, economic freedom, personal liberty? That's what we want. That's the American idea. We have one more chance as a people to get that back, and that chance is going to come on November the 6th.

Whatever Chief Justice John Roberts was thinking, Paul Ryan is correct.  This is now the most important election in our lifetimes.

And Ryan is correct.  We have ONE more chance.  That's it.

To that end, it becomes critical that conservatives retake not only the White House but the Senate and hold the House.

Find out about those toss up Senate races and pick a candidate to support.  Send whatever contributions you can.  Real Clear Politics is a good place to start looking at the races.

One more chance.

The Supreme Court Awakens Resolve and Determination

Romney has raised a lot of cash today.  I just made a donation.  You can too.

As of right now, the Romney campaign has raised over $1.5 million today:

Reaction to the Supreme Court opinion from around the web:

I linked to this yesterday but I want to be sure you see it.  The Supreme Court decided that ObamaCare is a "tax."  In fact, it's at least twenty new taxes.

Mitt Romney's response:



The stock market plummeted in the hour after the decision came down.  When I was blogging this morning the market was at -135.51.  It's now at -156.78.

Professor Glenn Reynolds:

I do expect a lot of re-energization among Tea Party folks who had perhaps grown a bit complacent. 

Via The Foundry, the Senate may consider repeal through reconciliation:

Now that the individual mandate has acquired the official constitutional status of a “tax”, there is no longer any doubt that the Congress, and more specifically the Senate, can repeal it pursuant to the simple majority vote threshold available under the Budget Act’s reconciliation process. Some Senate insiders were concerned that the reconciliation process would leave too much of Obamacare intact, including the individual mandate. But today’s decision, while alarming in so many other ways, dispels with that concern. 

The mandate is now a revenue provision. Therefore, it is germane and not subject to a Senate parliamentary point of order to strike it from a repeal bill. The Senate’s filibuster process that would require a supermajority of 60 Senate votes to approve repeal is now irrelevant.

The thread at Memeorandum grows.

American Power:

I'm not surprised by today's ruling. I noted previously (somewhere around here) that the Court's decision on Arizona's SB 1070 was a warning against premature football-spiking. Chief Justice John Roberts, I suspect, is being extremely careful about preserving the institutional legitimacy of the Court --- and by extension, the legacy of "the natural court" under his leadership. 

Sister Toldjah:

The fight over ObamaCare has never been just about what’s allowed under the Constitution or some spurious notion of a “right” to health care. At the core is a conflict of visions over the nature of government and the relation of citizens to that government: Is it a federal government of limited, specific powers and a freeborn citizenry with inherent rights that cannot be revoked, or is it a paternalistic State of unlimited power, with citizens reduced to wards?

In the end, ObamaCare is a political question of the purest, most basic kind: What is the nature of our polity?

Doug Powers:

Though Obama and the Democrats have won the day, given the lack of popularity of the health care law (two thirds of Americans wanted the Supreme Court to overturn at least some part of the law), in just a few months they may very well look back and view this time as the moment that was the last straw for voters and the end of the president’s re-election hopes. We’ll see. 

And be sure to read the reaction at NRO:

The Court has failed to do its duty. Conservatives should not follow its example — which is what they would do if they now gave up the fight against Obamacare. The law, as rewritten by judges, remains incompatible with the country’s tradition of limited government, the future strength of our health-care system, and the nation’s solvency. We are not among those who are convinced that we will be stuck with it forever if the next election goes wrong: The law is also so poorly structured that we think it may well unravel even if put fully into effect. 

That's good advice.  Take heart and keep fighting.  Stronger than ever.

Check out the 2012 Senate races.  We need to take the Senate.

The sleeping giant awakes.

The ObamaCare Verdict Live-Blog

Here we go.

As we wait for the long anticipated Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare here are some links you might be interested in.

Legal Insurrection is on the story and will be updating.  Professor Jacobson's analysis is always spot on.

ScotusBlog will have the ruling immediately at their live blog site here.

Tabitha Hale outside the Supreme Court and offers this picture of the chaos outside:

Stay tuned for updates.

Update 1:  More coverage at CSPAN.

Ed Morrissey has an open thread up at Hot Air.  His prediction?

 I think there’s still a decent chance that the court might uphold it, but a slightly better chance that the whole thing will get tossed, more out of convenience than anything else, but the mandate will still be the key. 

The only prediction I'm making is that the ObamaCare ruling will be the last one.  There are other rulings to come in like the Stolen Valor case.

Update 2:  Here come the opinions.

Alvarez case:  the decision of the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.  Stolen Valor is unconstitutional but Congress may be able to do a new law.

Update 3:  Mandate is unconstitutional via Fox.

The opinion is authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Wait:  SCOTUS blog says the individual mandate survives as a tax.  Everyone is trying to figure it out.  The mandate may have been struck down in the commerce clause but struck down as a tax.

Don't panic yet.

Update 4:  It appears that the mandate survives; Chief Justice joins the left side of the court on the mandate.  The law will stand.

The law will stand.

Well, this buts Romney in a difficult position, doesn't it?  One of his campaign points is that he will repeal ObamaCare on day one.

Update 5:  Obama will speak within the hour on the decision.  I won't be watching that one.  Sorry.

Professor Jacobson has a pep talk.

Update 6:  There will be a lot of parsing to come.  I'm no legal expert by any means.  But it seems to me that what they've said is that if you don't buy insurance then the government can "tax" you.  The government can mandate that you buy insurance and if you don't, they can tax you.  Can't we repeal taxes?

You want to read the decision?  Here it is.

Let's find some more informed commentary.

Shannon Bream broadcasting from the steps of the Supreme Court, says that the Court holds that Congress cannot penalize states by taking away their Medicaid funding, under the ruling if the states refuse to accept the new influx of new Medicaid patients..

Statement from Mitch McConnell:

“Today’s decision makes one thing clear: Congress must act to repeal this misguided law. Obamacare has not only limited choices and increased health care costs for American families, it has made it harder for American businesses to hire. Today’s decision does nothing to diminish the fact that Obamacare’s mandates, tax hikes, and Medicare cuts should be repealed and replaced with common sense reforms that lower costs and that the American people actually want. It is my hope that with new leadership in the White House and Senate, we can enact these step-by-step solutions and prevent further damage from this terrible law.”  

Nothing yet from Romney.

Update 7:  On Twitter, Michelle Bachmann:

Ed Morrissey:

So what now?  Mitt Romney and Republicans can now run on repeal as a big issue in the campaign.  They should emphasize the tax argument when they do, because this tax hits everyone.  The ruling may alleviate some of the bad polling the ACA has received, but probably not by much.  It’s going to remain deeply unpopular for the next few months.  On top of that, the decision to uphold the law also means that the fight is still on over the HHS contraception mandate.  We can expect the Catholic bishops to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration’s attempt to define religious expression for the purpose of controlling and limiting it — and we can probably expect the challenge to it to reach the Supreme Court, too. 

 Eric Cantor has announced that the House will vote (again) to repeal the health care law on July 11.  For all the good that will do.  Why bother?  The Senate will laugh and throw it back.

Update 8:  As the folks at SCOTUSBlog parse the opinion, Amy Howe notes that "those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes."

It seems to me now that the thing to do is to defeat Obama in the fall and take the Senate.  That's never been more important.

For the record, the stock market is currently tanking.

Update 9:  Check out this "calculator" at WaPo to see how ObamaCare will affect you.

Current Drudge screenshot:

Certainly this all becomes a political issue now.  ObamaCare is the largest tax in American history.

Via Twitter, the Romney campaign says they've raised over $100,000 since the ruling came down.

Update 10:  Juan Williams:  "We live in very partisan political times."  That's why they pay him the big bucks to comment on Fox News.

Awaiting comments now from John Boehner and Mitt Romney.  I won't be covering Obama's comments.  You can find that on your own if you're so inclined.

Via Twitter:

Exactly!

Update 11:  Lots of reaction at Memeorandum.

Update 12:  So much for civility in discourse.

Marco Rubio on Fox:  "You don't have to buy health insurance but if you don't you're out of compliance and you have an IRS problem."

Jeffery Lord says this could be the beginning of a political revolution:

Obama…who adamantly insisted the individual mandate was not a tax…has now been saddled by the Supreme Court as the taxer-in-chief.This in fact can be a huge potential victory for -- Mitt Romney.This is Romney's moment to lead the charge against tax increases, in this case the ultimate insult -- a tax for simply drawing a breath. A tax mandated by the Supreme Court and propagated by his opponent.

Still awaiting comments from Romney.

Update 13:  Ann Coulter tweets:

And VP contender, Bobby Jindal:

Romney in his speech now vows to repeal ObamaCare.

"What the court did today was say that the court does not violate the Constitution."   Romney says the law is bad law and raises taxes on the American people by $500 billion dollars and cuts Medicare by $500 billion dollars.  Romney says up to twenty million Americans will lose their current insurance under ObamaCare and that ObamaCare is a job killer.  "Most troubling of all is that ObamaCare puts the federal government between you and your doctor."

Romney wants to keep in place pre-existing conditions coverage.  He also vows to help lower the cost of health care and health insurance.

"This is the time for the American people to make a choice," he says.  Are you comfortable with more deficits?  Bigger government?  Or do you want to return to a time when consumers make their own choices in health care.

If we want to get rid of ObamaCare we have to get rid of Obama, he says.

"We must replace ObamaCare."

Romney took no questions.

The stock market is -135.51 right now.

I'm going to sign off here for now.  We've still got the Eric Holder contempt vote today so maybe there will be some nugget of fun today.

Do no be disheartened.  Regroup and reload.  We have the ballot box in November and like it or not, your best shot right now is Mitt Romney.  Get involved and do whatever you can to support Romney and get him elected.

Retake the Senate.

Never give up.

On Revising (and Erasing) History

Via Instapundit, Victor Davis Hanson has penned another piece that outlines the mass of contradictions that is Barack Obama.  It is difficult not to paste the entire thing here but start with this; after noting Obama's chastisement of the Supreme Court and his warning against overturning law, Hanson writes:

I am confused: I thought we were supposed to welcome such judicial audit. Was not that the charm of the Warren Court? Did not the Obama administration go to federal court to ask justices to set aside the Defense of Marriage Act that it was entrusted to enforce — seeking judicial help not to follow a law that it chose not to seek to overturn in Congress? 

I also thought that a younger Barack Obama once had regretted that the Supreme Court had never addressed “redistributive change” and, per the U.S. Constitution, had confined itself only to defining negative liberties rather than demanding positive “rights” that legislatures were supposed to ensure — or else. And did ObamaCare really pass with broad majorities? I thought that it received no Republican votes in the House and only squeaked by. And it would have been filibustered in the Senate without the Ted Stevens pseudo-scandal and various sweetheart deals to swing senators. Or is that now inaccurate?

Of course Mr. Hanson's memory is correct; it is Obama being the revisionist in this case.  In the mind of a narcissist like Mr. Obama, events exists only as they suit his needs.  If history needs revision, well who better to do it?

There's more:

I need to go to a re-education, or perhaps a re-memorization, camp. What happened to “unpatriotic” presidents running up $4 trillion in debt in eight years, or is trumping that in three then patriotic? Was the presidentially appointed Simpson-Bowles commission the proper bipartisan way to address deficits, or were its findings coopted by the one-percenters? In December 2010, I thought suddenly raising taxes was supposedly the wrong thing to do in tough times. Was it not by March 2011?

Again, it just depends on your point of view, I guess.

E. J. Dionne had a different point of view.  He agrees wholeheartedly with Obama's blast against the Supreme Court:

So imagine the shock when President Obama decided last week to speak plainly about what a Supreme Court decision throwing out the health-care law would mean, and then landed straight shots against the Mitt Romney-supported Paul Ryan budget as “a Trojan horse,” “an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country,” and “thinly veiled social Darwinism.”
...
Progressives would be wildly irresponsible if they sat by quietly while a conservative Supreme Court majority undid 80 years of jurisprudence. Roosevelt wasn’t a wimp, and Obama has decided that he won’t be one, either. Conservatives are unhappy because they prefer passive, intimidated liberals to the fighting kind.

People like Dionne make me want to bang my head against a wall.

Hanson has the last word:

“Truth,” after all, is not the Socratic absolute, but a socially constructed commodity, defined by power and predicated on race, class, and gender, concerns that can be made to serve the greater good, if adjudicated by — well, again, fill in the blanks.

Read the whole thing.

"People Are Just Afraid of Change" Goes Before The Supreme Court

All eyes are on The Supreme Court this week as arguments against ObamaCare begin today.  For a summary of what will be argued when, check out this post at The Foundry.  Today's 90 minutes of argument are "mostly technical" on the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act.

Tomorrow things will get interesting with two hours of argument on whether the Constitution allows Congress to compel Americans to buy a product (in this case, a "financial instrument.")

The argument on this seems ludicrous to me (emphasis mine):

"The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product," Neal Katyal, who defended the legislation in appellate courts while serving as Obama's acting solicitor general, said in an interview with AFP. "We're not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don't know when you're going to consume it." Katyal added that "we are not regulating what people buy, we're regulating how people finance it." 

 That seems to be no difference at all, to me.

Neal Katyal also provides yet another example of the liberal attempt to sway the court:

Katyal also framed any decision overturning the law as judicial actvism, bordering on tyranny. "If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be abouthealth care," he said. "It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy.'" 

Michael Hammond, writing at Red State, points out that the liberal media has a long-standing practice of attempting to intimidate the court:

The justices are only human. 

And conservatives have fallen down in failing to make a bigger issue over liberal attempts to threaten and intimidate the court -– first, in the New York Times, then in the Washington Post [“Will Conservatives save Obamacare?” by Robert Barnes, the Washington Post, March 18, 2012, page B1] -– and repeatedly by Bob Beckel and others on Fox. 

All of the threats are thinly veiled (“Roberts is protective of the court’s reputation, however, and sensitive to the perception that its decisions are politicized.”), but they are nothing more or less than disguised threats to attack the court if it doesn’t do as liberals want.

There's absolutely no point in falling down the rabbit hole trying to anticipate how the court will vote and I'm not about to try.

What IS clear is what is at stake.  The objections conservatives (and others) have to ObamaCare have been made clear and it is now up to the Court to decide.  My position has always been that this law is a huge over reach of government authority and treads on state's rights, individual liberties, and personal freedom, not to mention the staggering expense and new taxes:

Neal Katyal says the opposition to ObamaCare is just that "people are afraid of change."  I'm afraid the problem is a lot more serious than that.

I'm apprehensive and naturally pessimistic.  I'm the one who never believed Obama would get elected in the first place ("How in the world could people vote for him?  You can't elect a president on the basis on one speech!"  "He's got no record!  He's only been in the Senate for 117 days!").  I am not particularly optimistic about how this will turn out.

As the Supreme Court does not allow live-coverage you will have to wait for audio later in the day.  The Foundry will be posting updates as will others.  Jamie Dupree is inside hearing arguments and will update when he gets out.

Take Your Time...

No rush, says the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court rejected a call Monday from Virginia's attorney general to depart from its usual practice and put review of the health care law on a fast track. Instead, judicial review of President Barack Obama's signature legislation will continue in federal appeals courts.

The justices turned down a request by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a leading opponent of the law, to resolve questions about its constitutionality quickly. The Obama administration opposed Cuccinelli's plea.
Only rarely, in wartime or a constitutional crisis, does the court step into a legal fight before the issues are aired in appellate courts. Hearings already are scheduled in May and June in three appeals courts.

The process grinds on.   See Professor Jacobson for the proper perspective.

Elena Kagan's Deal Breaker

I'm listening to the Kagan hearings today because I want to see which Senator asks her about her medical degree empowering her to write language for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.  Outrageous!  I also want to see who DOESN'T ask her about it.

By now you've read, I hope, Shannen Coffin's report on Kagan's manipulation of science to further her personal political agenda while serving in the Clinton White House.  Shannen Coffin is, of course, a former deputy attorney general who defended the ban on partial birth abortion during the Bush years.  An excerpt:

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

Except that the ACOG didn't decide that partial birth abortion was the best procedure; Kagan did:

The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”

Notwithstanding its allegedly apolitical nature, ACOG shared this draft statement with the Clinton White House. Miss Kagan, then a deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy, already knew ACOG’s stance as a result of a July 1996 meeting at the White House, at which ACOG representatives told administration officials — according to a Kagan memorandum [PDF] — that “in the vast majority of cases, selection of the partial birth procedure is not necessary to avert serious adverse consequences to a woman’s health.”

Upon receiving the task force’s draft statement, Kagan noted in another internal memorandum [PDF] that the draft ACOG formulation “would be a disaster — not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation.” Any expression of doubt by a leading medical body about the efficacy of the procedure would severely undermine the case against the ban.

And so rather than have the ban undermined, she made up science.  She wrote the language that ended up in the ACOG opinion which was used in future litigation against bans on partial birth abortion.  Coffin's final word:

Miss Kagan’s decision to override a scientific finding with her own calculated distortion in order to protect access to the most despicable of abortion procedures seriously twisted the judicial process. One must question whether her nomination to the Court would have the same effect.

Indeed.

Jennifer Rubin says:

Some senator should have the wherewithal to take this on and require that Kagan explain herself. Not only is it, if accurate, a disqualifying episode for a Supreme Court justice; it is grounds for a solicitor general to step down. And her failure to advise the courts — which believed they were relying on neutral, expert testimony — constitutes a significant ethical breach.

And Pundette:

Thanks in great part to Kagan's apparent fabrication, all state laws banning partial birth abortions were struck down in 2000. No one knows how many children might be alive now if it weren't for Kagan's alleged falsification. Accurate data on partial birth abortions is hard to come by; there are many reasons why a doctor might not want to own up to performing this diabolical "procedure." But low estimates put the number of victims at somewhere between 650 and 2200 babies terminated annually before the ban. I don't know how many were killed in states that had a ban in place before the 2000 decision. But would it be going too far to say, if these charges are true, Kagan lied, babies died?

And so I'm listening to Elena Kagan today to see if she is given the opportunity to explain herself.   Because regardless how you feel on abortion, this is a deal breaker.  She lied.  She used her political position to further her political agenda and fabricated science to do so.  It's a major ethical violation.

Update:  Coffin notes at The Corner that over reaction to this news is not the way to go.  All this actually means for now is that there are certainly questions to be asked of Kagan.  She was not necessarily tampering with evidence.  See his notes here.

Follow today on Memeorandum and at The Other McCain who links a second Kagan lobbying effort on the abortion issue.

SCOTUS Smacks Chicago Handgun Ban

I guess it's safe to assume that Elena Kagan isn't happy with the Supreme Court decision on gun rights today.  Another reminder for the future that elections have consequences.

Professor Glenn Reynolds offers his thoughts here.  I find this interesting:

Third, it really is interesting how much emphasis the majority, and Justice Thomas’s concurrence, put on the racist roots of gun control. See this article and this one by Bob Cottrol and Ray Diamond for more background. And isn’t it interesting that this is happening on the same day the Senate’s last Klansman went to his reward?

The Wall Street Journal has an early write-up:

The legal question before the court had much to do with questions of constitutional history. Before the Civil War, courts held that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. After the Union victory, the Reconstruction amendments were adopted to elevate individual rights over state powers and cement the federal role in enforcing them.

The Supreme Court has subsequently held that many constitutional rights considered fundamental to American principles of liberty override state laws. However, more technical provisions—such as the Fifth Amendment requirement that grand juries approve criminal indictments—apply only to the federal government and don't necessarily bind states.

Monday's ruling elevates the Second Amendment right to bear arms to the status of a fundamental right that states can't abridge.

Also, see Mary Katharine Ham's response at Weekly Standard where she points out that the gun ban in Chicago has not actually led to an abatement of violence there but has instead left the innocent unprotected.

You can read the Court's opinion here (PDF / 214 pages)

It's Elena Kagan

Word is out that Obama will nominate Elena Kagan for SCOTUS this morning.  The internet is already ablaze with buzz on Kagan and what her nomination might hold.

Start with Ed Whelan at The Corner who recognizes her intellect but lists several objections.  Call me odd, but shouldn't a Supreme Court justice have some experience on the bench?  Kagan has none.  This is not a plus for me. 

Meanwhile, Robert Stacy McCain has larger concerns:  Is Elena Kagan gay?  Is Elena Kagan a lesbian? 

Legal Insurrection notes the irony of the Kagan pick.

While she has no bench experience, The New York Times outlines Kagan's rise over the years.

Keep an eye on Memorandum today for the explosion of Kagan stories.  

{Photo credit:  Jose Luis Magana / ASSOCIATED PRESS

)

Harry Reid's Reading List

Harry Reid stated on Tuesday that he hasn't read a single one of Sotomayor's legal opinions and doesn't intend to:



This shouldn't surprise any of us as nobody in Congress actually read The Porkulus bill either. But in case you want to be more informed than Senator Reid, The Caucus has compiled some of Sotomayor's notable opinions and articles here.

Rubio Statement on Sotomayor

Every blog in town seems to be talking about the Sotomayer nomination and I'm not sure I have much to add at this point. I haven't done my homework on her yet to the degree where I'm comfortable commenting on that. However, I HAVE done my homework on Marco Rubio, the Florida Senate candidate, and here is the statement he released on the nomination:

"I look forward to hearing more about Judge Sotomayor and her views about the proper role of the courts and judicial activism. The role the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not to make law. Given this, I am deeply concerned about Judge Sotomayor's past comment that the courts are 'where policy is made' and look forward to hearing her explanation and defense of that view.

"Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair hearing and respectful treatment, but there is much in her legal background that is troubling and demands scrutiny and honest discussion. I hope that a serious examination of her record and beliefs will not be shelved or cast aside simply so Democrats can attempt to claim political credit for a 'historic' court nomination."

Taking the advice of Robert Stacy McCain, I'm linking some of my favorite posts on Sotomayor from today: American Power, theblogprof, The Other McCain, Don Surber, Pundit and Pundette, Critical Politics, and Hot Air to name a few. Go on over to Memeorandum where you'll find lots of links - both left and right.

I agree with Rubio's statement in that Sotomayor deserves a fair hearing. I also agree that there are some troubling things there, but I'm not that's a shocker for anyone. Bring on the hearings!

An Empathetic Judge?

This is an interesting viewpoint: Jordan at Generational Patriot caught a bit of nuance in Obama's philosophy for picking the Supreme Court replacement. It's all about the "empathy."

Both Democrats and Republican spouted off on this during the Sunday shows. From Politico:

What does that mean? Usually that’s a code word for an activist judge,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said on ABC’s “This Week.” He said a judge needs to “be fair to the rich, the poor, the weak, the strong, the sick [and] the disabled.”

“I may have empathy for, for the little guy in a fight with a big corporation, but the law may not be on his side. So I think that’s a concern,” former Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“What I hear in President Obama’s statement is that he wants the justices of the court to try to understand the real world we live in and the impact of some of these decisions. Apply the law, but do it in a sensible fashion,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”

I think Jordan sums it up pretty well when he writes the following:

"Empathy is something for Congress to have, for they are the voice of their people. Empathy is something President Obama can lecture on, for he is the spokesman of America. It's a totally welcomed and humane thing to have, for we are not robots nor monsters. But, with objective law, the ceiling of all Western civilization, it cannot be the guiding light. Otherwise, we fall into the depravity of relativism, and with that, the decline of our values and nation are all but assured. "

Hmm. If empathy is the new criteria, and the Catholic weekly America suggests that we should get someone without a law degree, and it should be a woman, maybe Susanna Logan would fit the bill. She's got LOTS of empathy!

Al Gore for Supreme Court?

Good grief and I thought the suggestion of Janet Napolitano to replace Souter was enough to make me spew Cheerios all over the computer this morning, but this is too much. From the Catholic weekly America:

"... there is one person who selection transcends all the different classifications and whose selection would – instantly – galvanize the entire Democratic Party because it would entail the righting of an injustice that was simultaneously specific and so egregious as to appear cosmic. President Obama should nominate Al Gore to the Court. The choice would be electrifying.

"Some will object that Mr. Gore is not even a lawyer, which is true. But, there is a long tradition of having those with legislative or executive experience on the Court, a tradition that has fallen by the wayside as Presidents have sought nominees with little or no paper trail. Earl Warren was a lawyer, and had served as attorney general of California, but it was his stature as a three-term Governor who was nominated by both parties for the job that earned him the nod for the Court in 1953.

"Mr. Gore spent sixteen years in Congress making laws, serving in both the House and Senate. He served eight years in the executive branch enforcing laws. All this without a law degree."

Imagine! It's incredible what you can accomplish without a law degree!

Holy smokes.

Update: Smitty suggests we put Robert Stacy McCain up for Supreme Court as he also has no law degree, but Stacy, so far as I know, isn't a woman (have you SEEN the Speedo picture?). In order to meet what pundits believe is the "woman requirement" and a candidate who also has no law degree could be Little Miss Attila. I suspect her legal opinions would be fascinating and I'm pretty sure where she stands on the Second Amendment.

The Sixth Amendment Under Attack

The Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson decision in which the Supreme Court said that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. I can't believe the left isn't coming unglued on this one, or the ACLU for that matter. I'm betting that they will.

The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has weighed in: Stephen Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Centre for Human Rights in Atlanta, described the administration's position as "disappointing - no question".

Ed Morrissey questions the logic behind finding this out from a British newspaper, which is a valid point. Not a word in the New York Times. He also writes:

"Rolling back Michigan v Jackson would be a mistake. People who ask for an attorney should get one without further questioning. Americans have the right to counsel at all stages of the process, not just in court, as Obama argues. The adversarial process begins with arrest and interrogation, not when people first face a judge. While Miranda has been turned into a fetish, Michigan actually does the work Miranda promises — to get people counsel when they most need it. That does serve a real purpose, despite what Obama argues."

There seems to be the possibility for a domino effect here; once you lose one of your constitutional rights they all are in jeopardy. The Second Amendment is constantly under attack. The Fairness Doctrine attacks the First Amendment. And now the Sixth Amendment is under fire. Where will it end?

How many criminal convictions would later be questioned because the accused didn't get a lawyer under interrogation? What about the poor, the mentally deficient, the unsophisticated, the handicapped? No lawyer?

If Michigan v. Jackson is overruled, what of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)? That ruling said counsel must be provided in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys or lawyers.

HuffPo says a decision to hear the case could come as early as Friday. It seems that this administration is treating the terrorists better than American citizens.

Update: Related Link: SCOTUS Blog