More a headline than a diary (and will delete if someone else more properly covers the issue/news.
The Guardian – Supreme court strikes down strict Texas abortion law aimed at closing clinics .
5 to 3 ruling with Anthony Kennedy joining the liberal wing of the court.
Good news for women. Bad news for those progressive/regressive folks seeking the overturn the legal status quo on abortion.
Politico SC Overturns Bob McDonnell’s Corruption Conviction
8 to 0. I’m going to have to read and think about this decision before forming an opinion on it, but the top line words don’t sound good at all.
Billmon:
The SCOTUS’s day: Pro choice, pro corruption.
…“Govt’s position in case puts ‘every federal, state & local official nationwide in its prosecutorial crosshairs.’ “
My, wouldn’t that be terrible.
Roberts: “would cripple ability of elected officials to fulfill their role in a representative democracy” i.e. taking bribes.
Horsetrading?
Update: June 28, 2016. As should have been expected.
Reuters – Supreme Court spurns abortion restrictions in two more states
Reverberations from the U.S. Supreme Court’s major ruling backing abortion rights were felt on Tuesday as the justices rejected bids by Mississippi and Wisconsin to revive restrictions on abortion doctors matching those struck down in Texas on Monday.
The laws in Mississippi and Wisconsin required doctors to have “admitting privileges,” a type of difficult-to-obtain formal affiliation, with a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the abortion clinic. Both were put on hold by lower courts.
Thank you, Jeebus.
Until they come up with some other outlandish hoop.
They’re at it 24/7; so, shouldn’t take them long to present another way to skin the cat. Imagine what could have been accomplished with all time, effort, and money that has gone into the anti and pro abortion issue over the decades.
There’s no limit to the machinations of anti-abortion activists, but IMO this Supreme Court ruling sends them back under their rock on this issue. The religious grifters will have to find some other political obsession. (They found out gay marriage is not a winner for them either.) The religious right Catholics in this country don’t have the support of Pope Francis to continue wasting time on abortion and gay marriage. The new Pope is more concerned with income inequality, climate change, and increasing membership in a church that has been losing women parishioners for years. The Pope knows when the women aren’t involved, their spouses and children usually aren’t either. This nasty bunch deserves to be in retreat for a while. Eventually one runs out of commandments that are not politically appealing. Ha!
Also, Trump’s appeal to the Repub base indicates that the religious grifters are losing influence in this party.
Trump is the culmination of forty years of anti-abortion activism to elect Republicans. Not a pretty picture.
Weirdly enough the Protestant evangelicals that came to dominate the GOP didn’t begin life as anti-abortionists and anti-birth control. They didn’t grow up in privileged circumstances and those extra, unplanned mouths to feed made life even harder for all of them. Birth control was favored. (Mainline Protestant GOP folks split on the question — might have a connection to their earlier position on eugenics.) The issue did cross political lines and did lead to a realignment.
GOP elites recognize that they have to get out from under the birth control issue if they are to have any chance at the national level. So, far they don’t know how to do that.
I see Trump more as the culmination of both parties ignoring blue collar white voters. The Democrats appealed to the middle class (eventually the upper middle class), non-whites, and LBGT. The Republicans placed all their efforts on religious fanatics and gun nuts. Both parties gave lip service to working whites but,in reality, only offered trickle-down and “kinder gentler” trickle-down.
But of course. However, why were those “blue collar white voters” so silent over the decades of being ignored? Well, they weren’t actually silent; they were making lots of noise about guns, POC, god, and abortion and they went “GOP, yeah!”
Then Democrats only had to appeal to voters on the basis of the opposite. The cool thing has been that all this crap that Republican white guys (and their wimmens) and Democrats care so deeply about doesn’t cost federal dollars. Even if one side could actually deliver legislation in accordance to what they keep selling. Not that either side plans to deliver because the racket is working so very well for them.
Turns out keeping the social justice mask doesn’t cost you much, either. Esp since the 80s.
Sorry — the term “social justice” escaped me when writing my comment, but it’s what I meant when I said that Democrats sell the cheap opposite of the Republican cheap crap. If they’d done real work on these issues, we wouldn’t see abortion cases like these ending up at the SC. Or the same-sex marriage issue. Mostly they try to inhabit some imaginary space between the rigtwingers and doing the right thing. Often ludicrous fails such as Hillary’s “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women.” That one still stuns me almost as much as the yuuge support she gets from the gay and lesbian community.
Don’t overlook Bernie Sanders’ popularity among those Dems and Independent leaning Dems whose income was less than $45,000.
The Religious Right has roots in the Catholic church. Falwell was a front man for the right wing Catholics, who were freaking out due to Roe v. Wade. Remember, the Catholic doctrine preaches no birth control either. Here’s a little history of the Moral Majority:
“The Moral Majority was formally initiated as a result of a struggle for control of an American conservative Christian advocacy group known as Christian Voice during 1978. Robert Grant, Christian Voice’s acting President, said in a news conference that the Religious Right was a “sham… controlled by three Catholics and a Jew.” Following this, Paul Weyrich, Terry Dolan, Richard Viguerie (the Catholics) and Howard Phillips (the Jew) left Christian Voice.
During a 1979 meeting, they urged televangelist Jerry Falwell to found Moral Majority (a phrase coined by Weyrich[3]). This was the period when the New Christian Right arose.[4][5] Joining Falwell in the Moral Majority was Ed McAteer, who the same year founded in Memphis, Tennessee, the Religious Roundtable.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
Paul Weyrich helped found The Heritage Foundation and ALEC. Richard Viguerie is no newcomer to conservative politics. Howard Phillips converted to evangelical Christianity. Using the appeal of religion to win one’s political agenda is not new. This is one of the reasons some people have been voting against their interests.
I stand by my comment that the religious right will be less influential in the GOP. It’s been an albatross around their necks and those Southern Baptists and other evangelicals didn’t have a problem voting for Trump in the primary. “His New York values” didn’t seem to register that much. The new Pope sounds like Bernie Sanders sometimes, so that avenue is closing.
The Democrats used to have the religious right, back when the Dems were more populist and the party of FDR.
Catholics were strong labor warriors in the 30s. Strong peace advocates in the 70s. Not sure they would be called the “right” back then, at all.
More complicated than that. Of my relatives, on my mother’s side, were early 20th century Catholic immigrants from Germany and Austria. Almost all of them are exclusively Republican down through second and third generation. They were devoted enough Roman Catholics that they grudgingly accepted Vatican II, but Roe reinforced why they were Republicans. (My mother began affiliating with socially conscious/liberal Catholics from a young age and moved far away her family.)
The Catholic labor and peace warriors did not become Republicans. They may have personally opposed abortion, but recognized the inappropriateness of imposing their choice on others.
The politicized Roe decision was the tipping point for conservative Democratic Catholics to become Republicans. They had objected to Vatican II and Nixon got a lot of their votes.
However, it’s the Protestant fundies that constitutes a larger portion of the GOP base. And a large portion of that group were apolitical before Roe. (Their parents, grandparents, etc. may have voted back in William Jennings Bryan’s day, but politics that didn’t embrace the bible had nothing for them.) The remainder were Dixiecrats that hadn’t officially left the Democratic party.
Bad choice of words: “religious right”. What I meant was the Dems had the Catholic and evangelical vote years ago. Now the Dems have only 1/2 the Catholic vote. Catholic hierarchy is Repub. It is not unusual for the priest to be Dem, but the Bishop Repub. Evangelicals are about 80 Repub now.
No — that would have been before FDR. In FDR’s time they were too poor and hungry to be bible voters.
Seem my comment below in response to mino.
Falwell etal. used Roe to expand the Phyllis Schlafly wing of the GOP. It was always a minority of the Catholic vote, but existed for a long time. Joe McCarthy, Cardinal Spellman, etc.
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/u-supreme-court-sets-aside-221558405.html
SCOTUS frees guilty Repulican Bob McDonnell, while innocent Democrat Don Siegelman rots.
Covered in this slap-dash diary. Not interested in hearing any of the discredited opinionators doing their thing on this. Need to read it and hear from top notch legal folks.
Perhaps the decision is like “Kelo” that superficially sounded wrong but was fundamentally sound. Of course the tip off on that one was the SC divide. This one is unanimous; so, there must be some fundamental constitutional or legal principle at stake that isn’t obvious from setting aside O’Donnell’s conviction. If that’s not there, …
From a more intelligent source than yahoo:
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-27/influence-peddling-gets-first-amendment-protection
That’s my take as well, but will wait for some others to weigh in on this. It was mentioned that Roberts would have been troubled if the gifts were for acts in favor of legislation, but considering all the powers and acts executive and legislative members have to do “favors” for “gifts,” campaign contributions, or donations to the monuments to themselves US Presidents have built today reducing the question to one of pending legislation is incredibly narrow.
David Sirota, IBTimes Cigna-Anthem Merger: Gov. Malloy’s Insurance Regulator Told Ethics Officials She Was Not Involved In Cigna Issues, Even As Her Agency Was
Oh, and those insurance companies have been stuffing campaign coffers for Malloy.
But today the Supreme Court made that all okay. Sheesh we’re back to the golden age when the only brake on government corruption were the muckrakers. But the infotainment news saturation is now so overwhelming that ordinary people don’t have the interest in following corruption issues.
Harper’s – Thomas Frank Nor a Lender Be.
(Interesting that in seeing HRC’s “tech program”, Billmon and I both went to Frank’s work.) Billmon’s tweets:
Her infrastructure bank will be public/private neoliberal gift to corporations to repatriate offshored profits and bypass Congressional input.
Bypass taxes as well.
Any Clinton public/private infrastructure bank will be like charter schools. Nationalize the cost and privatize the profits.
Government has centuries of experience funding and building public infrastructure. Adding a profit seeking third party to the equation is unnecessary and therefore, a ruse. Sure wish Democrats were smart or savvy enough to recognize when they are being played.
It’s the abortion ruling that should have been unanimous.
Title: Whole Women’s Heath vs. Hellerstadt
Will take the five to three. Particularly since is appears to have clarified “Casey” that was used to narrowly by the lower court to find in favor of Texas and against women.
Unanimous decisions have a lot to do with the Chief Justice and Roberts is not about to go there on abortion unless or until his mind grows appropriately for the position he holds. However, Alito and Thomas are hopeless; so, no chance of unanimity on this one.
Political facts recognized. I emphasize should have been.
Okay. I try to keep my shoulds in the realm of possibility. A reason I have little patience with Democrats spouting stuff Hillary “should do.”
I do have an (utterly unfounded) belief in Mankind’s mental ability. Need to recharge my cynicism batteries.
Pragmatic realism isn’t cynicism. OTOH, one can invest in something/someone that is so right at the right time and also recognize that it’s a long shot against very obvious obstacles and that too is pragmatic realism with a dash of hopes and dreams without which our specifies may not have survived this long.
Would be remiss if I didn’t state that Bernie and leftie supporters far exceeded expectations. Their over-performance was a wonderful sight to behold. And if we can come that close to beating the most wired in and wealthy Democratic primary candidate ever, the tipping point is near.
Or a bridge too far. We did lose and, in my opinion, against the scummiest opponent since Nixon, and without Nixon’s ability.
Came damn close and that was without heading off the cheating, finding ways around the MSM, and beginning a year ago with a candidate that had national name ID in single digits and is 74 years old. (Imagine if we’d had a candidate just like Bernie but a decade younger and the campaign started in November 2014 with prep work beginning two years earlier. Remember HRC has been actively running for POTUS for a decade.) What propelled Bernie is his honesty, authenticity, consistency. That where we start and build from.
honesty, authenticity, consistency
They broke all those molds some time age.
They were ever prevalent among politicians. Still there’s always a few. Bernie isn’t alone — they are out there.
Zepher Teachout wins NY #19 Democratic primary. Currently with 74% of the vote. CD 19 is tough for a Democrat. Might be why the Democratic party didn’t put any effort into the primary to defeat Teachout. Her GOP opponent in November is apparently the very definition of sleaze and corrupt. This could be a nice pickup.
and a republican nobody, Darryl Glenn just got the chance to take on Michael Bennet in colorado.
this asshat is a hard right fundie freak from colorado springs who’s greatest accomplishment has been somehow becoming a county commissioner.
bring on the popcorn, this should be interesting.
Bennet was vulnerable, but not anymore based on your description of Glenn. The CO GOP needed another a nominee like Gerdner that doesn’t let his freak fly to beat Bennet.
the co GOP doesn’t have much of a bench…as evidenced by this mismatch.
Colorado Springs was such a neat town back in the late 70s. It’s a shame what happened to it.
The DNC is sure claiming her now. Costs them little, no?
They are? DCCC may throw a few bucks her way to avoid charges that they were against her. Expect them to adopt a “benign neglect” attitude towards her candidacy; it is, after all, not a district that they made any effort to flip. If Teachout wins, the DNC and Hillary will claim credit for it.
She was small donation funded. Not DCCC.
More — not that either of us had any doubts about the Dem elites response to Teachout.
For those that don’t want to click and read — the RNCC was quick to publicly congratulate the GOP primary winner; DCCC still silent. But nice to see the support that she is getting. A very nice and long statement from Jim Dean (what happened to his brother?) that begins with this:
Mary Ellen Balchunis’ PA-7 candidacy is a cautionary tale. A progressive going up against a DCCC approved and supported candidate. But she didn’t commit the unforgivable or unpardonable offense of endorsing Bernie. She endorsed Hillary because “she’s known her for some time.” She crushed the DCCC hack. Now the DCCC has taken PA-7 off its “Red to Blue map” for ’16 and conceding the district to the GOP incumbent. Like the UK wankers.
Classic!
Didn’t mean to suggest that the DCCC contributed anything to Teachout for the primary. Only that they might throw a few bucks, (like $5,000) to her for the general.
D+1 district in a difficult year for Republicans. I think she’s got a good chance.
It’s not a D+1 district. But close enough to a toss-up that Teachout has a good chance to win. Not because the GOP could be struggling on downticket races this year, but because Teachout has natural charisma and good campaign chops.
The GWB/Clinton entrepreneurial fetish rides again. (Thomas Franks covers the Democratic version in Listen, Liberal and it’s another neoliberal PR stunt to deny their agenda.)
Sound like her economic solution is to recreate the ’90s tech bubble. Although she doesn’t know enough of economics and finance to know that it was a bubble and that it blew up. wrt to tech, she knows even less.
Always the DESERVING ones are selected for. She would not know egalitarian if it bit her.
Why would she — she’s been gifted jobs since she arrived in AR. And can turn $1,000 into $100,000 by reading the WSJ cattle futures reports.
Hillary Clinton
So edgy – circa 2000. I’m guessing that Madame Secretary doesn’t get out much to regular train stations, airports, and other public spaces (such as libraries or Starbucks). Does she even know what WiFi is since she has never operated a computer?
Billmon: Why should we pay for Bill Gates’s WiFi?
Gates is about as likely to end up in one of those public places with free Hillary WiFi as Trump’s kids are to go to a public college.
Hmm.
They’re both good on the campaign trail — very good — but I’m not sure the country can take two women. I’m just not sure,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement.
Assuming that you’re referring to HRC and EW appearing together. If team Clinton is buying into the polls that HRC is no invincible, then EW as VP is a most excellent choice. One many lefties would in their naivete endorse.
A total win-win-win for the neoliberalcons.
Look at this amusingly transparent clod:
http://gov.texas.gov/news/press-release/22427
“Governor Greg Abbott today issued the following statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling on HB 2:
“The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost. Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”
So the good Governor admitted to the game: our priority in crafting HB 2 was not women’s health, it was stopping abortions. I mean, we all knew that was the real goal, but they’re so excited by the prospect that their “quiet room” voices are heard in public on a periodic basis.
On the McDonnell reversal, the reports are that what united the Supreme Court was clear prosecutorial overreach in the construal of receipt of gifts as a crime when there was no evidence presented of exactly how McDonnell delivered his side of the bribe.
And the Constitution tilts toward the accused in principle when evidence is not proven. Too bad the majority of the Court doesn’t apply the same principle to Fourth Amendment cases involving ordinary citizens.
Sure — then no quid pro quo can ever exist when those in high office (state and federal) that use their status to pitch some crappy product or business and receive expensive gifts and/or huge campaign contributions as thank yous.
And Marc Rich didn’t buy his pardon. We’re such rubes.
And Don Siegelman? Perjured testimony and no explicit “quid pro quo” without the perjured testimony?
Looks like IOKIYAR to me.