Here's my take on what is deeply rooted in the letter I wrote today that I'll put in the post to Justice Alito in the morning. I've also submitted it as a op ed to the Washington Post.
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito May 8, 2022
The Supreme Court of the United States Mother's Day 2022
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Justice Alito,
Respectfully, I'd like to correct your view that abortion is "not deeply rooted in the this Nation's history and tradition." In fact, abortion before "quickening", the first movements of the baby at around the beginning of the third trimester, has been the practice of women for millenia going far back to pre-Christian times. This is deeply, deeply rooted in the world's history and the history of women. And, yes, deeply rooted in this Nation's history if you will but look beyond a naïve, male patriarchal perspective. Child-birth was dangerous in colonial and pre-colonial times. If a woman already had several children she might chose abortion, usually through herbal knowledge, rather than risk death in childbirth that would leave the rest of her children orphaned without a mother and their means of support. The family would struggle to survive! Pregnancy and child-birth still lead to many more deaths, about fifteen to one, than abortion.
People saying it is against their individual freedom not to wear a simple mask that could save lives in their communities are talking about anarchy not democracy where rights come with the responsibility in protecting the rights for all. Forced pregnancy and regulating women's bodies is not the Blessing of Liberty that the Constitution seeks to achieve. Having the government make the most intimate of decisions in a woman's life is the antithesis of those fundamental freedoms. Handing this over to predominately male, minority ruled, state legislatures who are no longer using a republican form of government is, bluntly stated, cruel and does not return the decision to their citizens.
Democracy is difficult. If one person's freedom puts another person's life at risk, there must be a balance found. With rights come responsibilities to protect those rights for all. Putting the right to life of a fetus that cannot yet live outside the womb over the right to life of a woman with or without exceptions does not meet the deeply rooted "principle of responsibility" inherent in democracy.
So, respectfully, Roe v. Wade, whether it makes reasonable arguments or not, basically gets the deeply rooted history of abortion at the right balance at quickening.
Please look deep into your soul and support the deep principle of quickening as the balance between what is the right of abortion and what is an act of murder. Support the will of the majority of the people of our Nation who feel Roe v Wade got it right. I personally like Former First Lady Barbara Bush's answer on abortion that God will take care of that little soul no matter what happens.
Thank you, Cathy. Beautifully stated. I fear that neither Alito nor any of his clerks will read it, lest it interfere with the view from their mountaintop. So I suggest that you submit it to publications that are commonly reaD in DC, starting with WAPO.
Ellen, the Letters to the Editor have some different rules like looking for under 200 words and they like it to refer to an article in the Washington Post. I think also since I've sent it in as a Op Ed I should wait for their reply on that first. Last time I tried it took them about three days to say they couldn't use it. Thanks for the suggestion.
Well, I took the liberty of copying it to my FB page (attributing it to "a friend"), so I know it will be read by possibly 700 friends and maybe even their friends if they share it. You WILL get some readership out of it, whether with the WaPo or not! I wanted to amplify your points and the best way I knew was simply to use the real deal - your excellent letter! I hope you'll forgive my presumption!
I'm very happy for you to do that. Even if Justice Alito or a staff member doesn't read it, if it helps get people work actively to keep women's rights I'll be very happy.
Joanne Oyer is the one who said she wanted to ask her editors at DemCast to publish your letter to Justice Alito. I don’t know any editors. No worries. There are so many of us who commented on your beautifully written letter that it is easy to confuse one of us with the other. Just wanted to make sure you told the right person.
Thank you, Virginia, for calling this to my attention. Yes, I did confuse you with Joanne. I'll move my comment to under her and delete from here. I appreciate your kind thoughts.
I sent this to my senator, Amy Klobuchar, and also posted it on my Facebook page. So great, Cathy. Even when many of us already knew these things, you took it to the next level. Thank you!
Thank you for this powerfully and clearly worded statement. One question, and I might be reading it incorrectly. In "People saying it is against their individual freedom not to wear a simple mask that could save lives in their communities..." Aren't people saying it is against their individual freedom TO wear the mask? Or, people are saying it IS their individual freedom not to wear a mask. Please ignore this if it's totally off the mark, but the rest of the letter is so powerful that I just wanted to check.
Oops, Double negative confusion... I think you're absolutely right. And, I just sent the letter this morning. Well, I'm sure they'll get the idea. Shows you that it is always good to have a second set of eyes to look things over. Thank you!
I'm sure they will! You got a lot of responses from folks who didn't mention it. I am always surprised by simple errors that I just don't catch when I'm checking my own work! But sometimes, time and/or available person don't allow for that, so we do the best we can. And your letter was superb!!!
Beautifully written! That should open some eyes, hopefully Alito’s! I can not understand why anyone would force a girl or women to go through an unwanted pregnancy. If a man had to do it, humans would have disappeared from the earth centuries ago.
I was fortunate to have been able to have planned my three pregnancies. After the birth of our third daughter, my late husband decided to have a vasectomy. I told him that my doctor would not tie my tubes because I was too young at 24, just one month from my 25th birthday. My husband was 30. His doctor had me come in and give my approval. I told him that I did want another child, but it was my husband’s body and he had the right to make that choice.
I like what Barbara Bush said. I believe it, too. I have two grandchildren in heaven because of miscarriages, two because of abortions, and one great grandchild because of miscarriage. One day I will be able to meet all five of them.
Being an unwanted child would be a horrible thing to grow up knowing.
Hi Joanne, Just received word that the Washington Post is not going to use this letter as an op ed so feel free to see if DemCast would like to publish it. I would be honored if they did. Thank you!
Joanne, Let's wait a day or two to see if the WaPo wants to print it. Then you have my permission to see if the DemCast editors want to print it. This is the version with very small edits that was actually sent. Please use this one. I so appreciate your kind words and wanting the letter to have a broader audience. We need action!
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito May 8, 2022
The Supreme Court of the United States Mother's Day 2022
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Justice Alito,
Respectfully, I'd like to correct your view that abortion is "not deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." In fact, abortion before "quickening", the first movements of the baby at around the beginning of the third trimester, has been the practice of women for millenia going far back to pre-Christian times. This is deeply, deeply rooted in the world's history and the history of women. And, yes, deeply rooted in this Nation's history if you will but look beyond a naïve, male patriarchal perspective. Child-birth was dangerous in colonial and pre-colonial times. If a woman already had several children she might chose abortion, usually through herbal knowledge, rather than risk death in childbirth that would leave the rest of her children orphaned without a mother and their means of support. The family would struggle to survive! Pregnancy and child-birth still lead to many more deaths, about fifteen to one, than abortion.
People saying it is against their individual freedom to wear a simple mask that could save lives in their communities are talking about anarchy not democracy where rights come with the responsibility in protecting the rights for all. Forced pregnancy and regulating womens' bodies is not the Blessing of Liberty that the Constitution seeks to achieve. Having the government make the most intimate of decisions in a woman's life is the antithesis of those fundamental freedoms. Handing this over to predominately male, minority ruled, state legislatures who are no longer using a republican form of government is, bluntly stated, cruel and does not return the decision to their citizens.
Democracy is difficult. If one person's freedom puts another person's life at risk, there must be a balance found. With rights come responsibilities to protect those rights for all. Putting the right to life of a fetus that cannot yet live outside the womb over the right to life of a woman with or without exceptions does not meet the deeply rooted "principle of responsibility" inherent in democracy.
So, respectfully, Roe v. Wade, whether it makes reasonable arguments or not, basically gets the deeply rooted history of abortion at the right balance at quickening.
Please look deep into your soul and support the deep principle of quickening as the balance between what is the right of abortion and what is an act of murder. Support the will of the majority of the people of our Nation who feel Roe v Wade got it right. I personally like Former First Lady Barbara Bush's answer on abortion that God will take care of that little soul no matter what happens.
So, the effect of Alito's logic is "If you didn't have rights long ago because of white male Christian oppression, you still don't." So there is no progress to be had according to Alito.
Yes, Robert, but we lawyers know that the question of what is "in" the Constitution is not clear--indeed, that's the basis for the whole field of constitutional law. (We both know that I'm being unfair: I believe that what you mean was apparent on the surface or a literal reading of the words.) But Alito's repeated reference to something being "deeply rooted" is a tell that he does not really believe that. Originalism and textualism, when they become doctrines and not just aids to interpretation, are simply new ways of achieving desired results.
Jon, what frightens me the most the probability that, in fact, Alito and his crew do "really believe" textualism and originalism are the approach to the constitution with the most integrity and, even more likely (almost certain) that they believe without reservations that their stand on abortion is the only moral choice. As WaPo pointed out, they have stayed focused and entirely committed to getting rid of Roe for 49 years!!
None of this is intended to disagree with one more overriding fact here. The grab for power is absolute. A cold hunger for power coupled with the zeal of the True Believer is a deadly partnership.
Yes, they are true believers. Except when they aren't. For instance, they are prepared to forget that the Ninth Amendment (as original as the Second, of which they are so enamored) speaks clearly of unenumerated rights. Which ought to suggest that there have been rights that are understood, but were not stated specifically in the Constitution. And if you look--I confess I haven't, but I'm sure they are there--you'll find decisions written by Alito, or at least joined in by him, that do not employ Originalism or Textualism, but some other way of reaching the result.
Next question-will SCOTUS deem that slavery's OK? Very possibly-the 13th and 14th Amendments are being IGNORED by SCOTUS as is the Constitution's Federal Supremacy clause.
Oh my God! I do not believe that the people who wrote and signed the Constitution over 200 years ago expected people in our time to go by it literally. Shall we outlaw everything that has been invented since 1776? Shall we live exactly like they did back in those times? That would be ridiculous, just as saying that something not rooted in the Constitution can’t be a Constitutional law!
According to him we are stuck in 1787, like Groundhog Day. One thing he misses (more likely avoids, as it would be inconvenient) is that the Founders claimed no omniscience. They knew that their draft was imperfect, and never pretended otherwise. And they knew that ideas change—they had all lived through the immense changes from 1775 to 1787. And they weren’t Originalists, either. If they had been, they would have given us a monarchy. The famous question to Franklin, “What have you given us?” (to which the reputed reply was, “A republic, if you can keep it”) shows that the structure of the national government was not pre-determined.
I’m from that generation that protested the war in Vietnam and our activism was disruptive and it got the attention of the politicians and the President and the war we could not win was ended. An entire generation was involved in part because we had the most to lose which of course was our lives. The dismantling of Roe and the potential threat to our freedoms is in part a war against our freedoms and the battlefield is not Washington but our local elections and state wide offices. Those elected officials determine who can and cannot get abortions, who can vote, what children can read and if wearing a mask will be mandatory. These are the races we need to win and the candidate’s we need to support. Two important questions we need to ask each candidate “ do you believe Trump won the election in 2020 and do you believe Roe vs Wade should be abolished”? The answers alone will tell you all you need to know.
As an OLD Dem, I still try to do my bit. But the options are fewer, and the resources limited, but I do what I can. I will limp to any protest, donate to any hope, and vote by whatever means.
I bring my Rollator walker to rallies-gives me a place to sit! I also do postcards to voters and plan to be the driver for my Town Democratic Committee co-chairperson for door knocking (She knows many many folks in town and knows all the back roads in my semi-rural town.) If you have the finances, Vote Forward does postcards.
Before we start talking about expanding the Supreme Court, we need to remember the filibuster in the Senate. The Democrats can do nothing while that's in place. So, the first thing we need to do is elect more Democrats to the Senate in November. Full Stop.
Democrats can create a carve-out for the filibuster with their current majority. The problem is Manchin and Sinema. If they would agree, we could do it now. (It doesn't take 60 votes to amend the filibuster, only 50+1.) But as a practical matter, we do need at least a 52 vote majority plus the V.P.
Let’s keep in mind that the filibuster carve-out already exists for confirming Supreme Court nominations. So only 51 votes are needed. I strongly support Biden immediately nominating 2 new SCOTUS justices, and the Dems make strong arguments for a solid month that this is a) Constitutional and b) the only reasonable and fair response to the 2 seats stolen by the GOP in ‘16 & ‘20. Then make Sinema and Manchin vote.
Changing subjects: David Leonhardt writes that bragging about killing Russian generals is folly on our part. I agree. Loose lips do sink ships. But Leonhardt also loves a good journalist leak story. We create our own hole if we brag about our success in Putin's War. Add to the story later with how we did things but not during the fight, she said to journalists.
The members of the administration who talked should be fired. But WaPo, the NYTimes, and other outlets are complicit. They are not compelled to publish every fact they learn from irresponsible members of the administration. I heard one reporter for WaPo claim that is was necessary to publish the information for "transparency." So, if the reporter learns when and where the next US arms shipment to Ukraine will be delivered, will it be necessary for "transparency" to publish that information--and thereby risk a Russian missile strike on the shipment? Whether the readers of the Post, NYTimes etc need to know something should be balanced against the costs of publishing that information. The unfortunate headlines mis-state the substance of the story, so Russia reasonably believes that the US is targeting Russian generals. A speaker in the Duma claims that the US has become a combatant. Thanks, WaPo, NYTimes and anonymous sources.
Thanks, Robert, and there they go again. It's why you find me agitating in your space these days. It's almost pathetic to say but I think it really is all about money. Sensational headlines and bad news sell more subscriptions. Joe Biden is in his office doing his job. Nobody wants to read about that. We require a great deal of noise to even get our attention these days. We are so easily distracted that war and atrocity and crimes against humanity will also lose us without daily headlines and photos. See a few glazed eyes in response to dead children? Crank it up. And, truly, I hope I'm not alone in my barf-y face reaction to the word "transparency."
Good morning, Virginia. Transparency is on my list of words that mean absolutely nothing specific. It's a list that includes, at the top, dysfunctional family and reached out. Did the father in that family have sex with the goats or just wake up on Thursdays and kick the kids? Did the person reaching out call, text, email, knock on my front door? Who knows? And that, my friend, is my way of reaching out--a rant about dysfunctional families. Once I actually find a pulse, I might add to the list. There are, of course, grammar issues like lie/lay.
I had to go back to the beginning to catch up! I don’t think that news people should tell our military secrets until the war is over. Anything else is fair game.
I would not forget about the war, no matter what. I have had to stop watching so much because all of the death and destruction is really getting to me. Of course, that is what war is, isn’t it?
I am also sick of the daily hyped up announcements about how much groceries and gas have gone up. I know about the groceries. Gas, not so much because the only places I am going these days is to doctors’ appointments.
Well, the news people. Sigh. Don't you wish we were still referring to Walter Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkly. Thirty minutes at the end of the day. Of course, that was the beginning--war, in real time, right there on the television. I don't actually think there was any chance of going back from that, nor do I believe anyone could have imagined how that technology would take root and grow and one day control us all. It's only now that a few mindful people--not the majority by any means--have begun to get a glimmer of how total that control is. But, as you know, I gave up television news (and mostly television period) many years ago. It wasn't a deliberate decision. I honestly just found the noise too much. My impression is that I know as much or more than the 24-hour news cycle watchers. Could be wrong but I'm informed enough to satisfy my personal need to know and my standard of how much to call myself an informed citizen. A lot of those images are what I would almost call War Porn. What purpose do they serve except to pump up ratings and fuel online subscriptions? In short, they make $$$$$$$
I trust our administration, so I also fully agree that they need privacy and secretive behaviors at this point. If it were an administration I didn't trust, I would be very upset. Where is the balance? I mean that as a good conversation for us to have.
Thanks for the subject, Deborah. I think this whole idea of transparency and the rights of all citizens to know the details of all the work of an administration is a dangerous one. The most important work of any administration is done in conferences, negotiations, discussions that happen quietly behind closed doors. There are some decisions that aren't open to the public because the public (that would be me) isn't qualified to consider them. I vote for people I basically am willing to trust and then I do trust them to do their jobs. My job is to be an informed citizen and to vote with intelligence. So that's my two cents worth.
Well, I agree. I am concerned, as I indicated, about how we can get information when the elected people aren't representing us or may be doing something criminal or unethical. How do we deal with that part of things? I know we have a freedom of information act, and perhaps the next step is to work with journalists to value carefully when it makes good sense to release the information they find and when it makes better sense to wait. It's a truly rife topic, ins't it?
I wonder if I just posted that half a reply or if I sent it off into space. Anyway, here I go again. Do we decide on a law or tradition then stick to it, even if people come along and abuse it and corrupt it or do we make exceptions in certain cases? At the last gasp, I think I would have to say stick with whatever the law or policy is. All that however assumes an informed citizenry who have made intelligent decisions in the first place. There is a scene in Robert Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons," in which Thomas More's son-in-law declares that he would cut down every law in England to get to the Devil and More's response is, "And where would you hide then, the laws all being flat?" It's a thought.
Actually I've just remembered that's not the whole line. It's "And when the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide the laws all being flat?" Important thing to have left out.
Am I right that if the draft SCOTUS opinion prevails, states will have substantially greater freedom to enact laws restricting more than abortion? For example, would Virginia's (or 2 dozen other states') reactionary GOP be able to reverse the famous Loving v. Virginia case in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race?
Yes. you are right, although the draft disclaims any intent to allow states to restrict other rights. But as my discussion of Alito's dissent in Obergefell shows, he claimed that states have the right to abolish same-sex marriages.
I certainly hope not. I am waiting to see if Governor Youngkin is ignorant enough to follow DeSantis and the rest and try to pass an abortion law in Virginia. I will have my daughters and granddaughters go with me to Richmond to protest if he does.
I am an eternal optimist, so take this with a few grains of salt, but I think the release of the draft opinion has been—or can be—a watershed, shifting the outline for the fall elections, and thus the future of this country and even the world in a markedly more favorable direction than they seemed to be a week ago. (The preceding is a sentence the governor should commute, but I’m going to leave it as it is.).
Except for beer and the Catholic Church, most of what we call civilization hasn't been around "for millennia." So you'll be ok, Brett! There is the matter of The Supreme Court., though. That wasn't around either. But look at it this way: unemployed, you'll have that much more time to drink beer!
There is an excellent letter to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune this morning regarding Alito’s comment that any right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” to be protected. The only people allowed to root anything in our Constitution in the 1700’s were white men who owned property. No one else. So, white men who owned property in the 1700’s are still calling the shots in 2022.
Robert, the Obergefell decision was decided under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment rather than the due process clause as was the case with Roe. This distinction is laid out well in an essay by Jill Lepore in 2015 on the eve of the Obergefell decision. While it may not escape the breadth of Alito's reasoning it does create a futher obstacle to reversal.
HI, Thomas. Thanks, for the link to the article. It certainly caused me to think more about Obergefell, and I went back and re-read the opinion in light of the article.
The author (writing before the decision in Obergefell) is arguing about how Obergefell SHOULD be decided (on equal protection grounds) rather than due process grounds. She, of course, did not have the benefit of the actual opinion. We do. Given the actual language of the opinion, I don't think it is right to say that Obergefell was decided only under the Equal Protection clause.
The Court discusses two issues--liberty (due process) and equality (equal protection). Before deciding whether same sex marriage (a liberty) was entitled to equal protection, the court had to decide if same sex marriage is a liberty protected by the Due Process clause. So, both clauses come into play--and both are necessary to the holding in Obergefell. Alito et al could simply claim that Obergefell erred in finding that same-sex marriage is a liberty protected by the Due process clause, at which point the equal protection argument is irrelevant. That is why Alito dissents in Obergefell only on the question of whether the right exists. Here is the relevant language from the majority opinion in Obergefell:
"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect.
"The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
"[T]he right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.
"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
Thank you for such a complete response, however I continue to believe that within his dissent his concession that Griswold protects intimate associations creates an impediment if he attempts to striking down Obergefell should a test case be brought. He knows he can't ban contraceptives but he also is willing to give employers passes in supplying them if they have religious objections. See, Hobby Lobby, which I believe was wrongly decided.
Ah, Thomas! I agree with your logic and belief in the binding nature of precedent. But I don't think Alito would be bothered by either. He is on a religious mission--it's not more complicated than that. I certainly understand that he might be dissuaded from going further to avoid damaging the fabric of the nation, but he is willing to go far down that path in Dobbs. I hope you are right, but I fear that you are wrong.
You wrote: "And some Democrats are finally talking about expanding the Court as a way to deal with a reactionary majority that has jettisoned precedent and the Constitution in their effort to impose conservative Christian ideology on all Americans."
I hope it's more than "some Democrats." Here's the religious skinny on the STENCH BENCH:
John Roberts - Catholicism
Clarence Thomas - Catholicism
Stephen Breyer - Judaism
Samuel Alito - Catholicism
Sonia Sotomayor - Catholicism
Elena Kagan - Judaism
Neil Gorsuch - Anglicanism/Catholicism
Brett Kavanaugh - Catholicism
Amy Coney Barrett - Catholicism
My view is that their Catholic catechism (ideology) is what is being imposed on this entire country. I would not call these extremist individuals "Christians" by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I consider their theocratic behavior "conservative." My view is that they are religious zealots who are trying to change the very nature of this country from what is a fragile democracy into a full-blown theocracy. They have conveniently forgotten that there once was a concept of "separation of Church and State" and to my limited knowledge, I think it still exists in the First Amendment.
Here's my take on what is deeply rooted in the letter I wrote today that I'll put in the post to Justice Alito in the morning. I've also submitted it as a op ed to the Washington Post.
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito May 8, 2022
The Supreme Court of the United States Mother's Day 2022
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Justice Alito,
Respectfully, I'd like to correct your view that abortion is "not deeply rooted in the this Nation's history and tradition." In fact, abortion before "quickening", the first movements of the baby at around the beginning of the third trimester, has been the practice of women for millenia going far back to pre-Christian times. This is deeply, deeply rooted in the world's history and the history of women. And, yes, deeply rooted in this Nation's history if you will but look beyond a naïve, male patriarchal perspective. Child-birth was dangerous in colonial and pre-colonial times. If a woman already had several children she might chose abortion, usually through herbal knowledge, rather than risk death in childbirth that would leave the rest of her children orphaned without a mother and their means of support. The family would struggle to survive! Pregnancy and child-birth still lead to many more deaths, about fifteen to one, than abortion.
People saying it is against their individual freedom not to wear a simple mask that could save lives in their communities are talking about anarchy not democracy where rights come with the responsibility in protecting the rights for all. Forced pregnancy and regulating women's bodies is not the Blessing of Liberty that the Constitution seeks to achieve. Having the government make the most intimate of decisions in a woman's life is the antithesis of those fundamental freedoms. Handing this over to predominately male, minority ruled, state legislatures who are no longer using a republican form of government is, bluntly stated, cruel and does not return the decision to their citizens.
Democracy is difficult. If one person's freedom puts another person's life at risk, there must be a balance found. With rights come responsibilities to protect those rights for all. Putting the right to life of a fetus that cannot yet live outside the womb over the right to life of a woman with or without exceptions does not meet the deeply rooted "principle of responsibility" inherent in democracy.
So, respectfully, Roe v. Wade, whether it makes reasonable arguments or not, basically gets the deeply rooted history of abortion at the right balance at quickening.
Please look deep into your soul and support the deep principle of quickening as the balance between what is the right of abortion and what is an act of murder. Support the will of the majority of the people of our Nation who feel Roe v Wade got it right. I personally like Former First Lady Barbara Bush's answer on abortion that God will take care of that little soul no matter what happens.
Respectfully,
Thank you, Cathy. Beautifully stated. I fear that neither Alito nor any of his clerks will read it, lest it interfere with the view from their mountaintop. So I suggest that you submit it to publications that are commonly reaD in DC, starting with WAPO.
Jon, I did so yesterday - submitted it as an op ed to the WaPo. They do read them and send you a nice note even if they decide not to print it.
Cathy, could you also send it to them as letter to the editor? Just in case?
Ellen, the Letters to the Editor have some different rules like looking for under 200 words and they like it to refer to an article in the Washington Post. I think also since I've sent it in as a Op Ed I should wait for their reply on that first. Last time I tried it took them about three days to say they couldn't use it. Thanks for the suggestion.
Well, I took the liberty of copying it to my FB page (attributing it to "a friend"), so I know it will be read by possibly 700 friends and maybe even their friends if they share it. You WILL get some readership out of it, whether with the WaPo or not! I wanted to amplify your points and the best way I knew was simply to use the real deal - your excellent letter! I hope you'll forgive my presumption!
I'm very happy for you to do that. Even if Justice Alito or a staff member doesn't read it, if it helps get people work actively to keep women's rights I'll be very happy.
I sincerely hope that they do print it. It should be read by everyone, whether they are pro choice or anti abortion.
Joanne Oyer is the one who said she wanted to ask her editors at DemCast to publish your letter to Justice Alito. I don’t know any editors. No worries. There are so many of us who commented on your beautifully written letter that it is easy to confuse one of us with the other. Just wanted to make sure you told the right person.
Thank you, Virginia, for calling this to my attention. Yes, I did confuse you with Joanne. I'll move my comment to under her and delete from here. I appreciate your kind thoughts.
Really well written.
I sent this to my senator, Amy Klobuchar, and also posted it on my Facebook page. So great, Cathy. Even when many of us already knew these things, you took it to the next level. Thank you!
Excellent, Deborah, I sent my letter priority mail this morning!
Thank you for this powerfully and clearly worded statement. One question, and I might be reading it incorrectly. In "People saying it is against their individual freedom not to wear a simple mask that could save lives in their communities..." Aren't people saying it is against their individual freedom TO wear the mask? Or, people are saying it IS their individual freedom not to wear a mask. Please ignore this if it's totally off the mark, but the rest of the letter is so powerful that I just wanted to check.
Oops, Double negative confusion... I think you're absolutely right. And, I just sent the letter this morning. Well, I'm sure they'll get the idea. Shows you that it is always good to have a second set of eyes to look things over. Thank you!
I'm sure they will! You got a lot of responses from folks who didn't mention it. I am always surprised by simple errors that I just don't catch when I'm checking my own work! But sometimes, time and/or available person don't allow for that, so we do the best we can. And your letter was superb!!!
Beautifully written! That should open some eyes, hopefully Alito’s! I can not understand why anyone would force a girl or women to go through an unwanted pregnancy. If a man had to do it, humans would have disappeared from the earth centuries ago.
I was fortunate to have been able to have planned my three pregnancies. After the birth of our third daughter, my late husband decided to have a vasectomy. I told him that my doctor would not tie my tubes because I was too young at 24, just one month from my 25th birthday. My husband was 30. His doctor had me come in and give my approval. I told him that I did want another child, but it was my husband’s body and he had the right to make that choice.
I like what Barbara Bush said. I believe it, too. I have two grandchildren in heaven because of miscarriages, two because of abortions, and one great grandchild because of miscarriage. One day I will be able to meet all five of them.
Being an unwanted child would be a horrible thing to grow up knowing.
A great share. Thank you, Virginia.
Cathy, let me know if you'd like me to ask my editors at DemCast if we can publish your letter. Here is a link to the site, https://demcastusa.com/.
Hi Joanne, Just received word that the Washington Post is not going to use this letter as an op ed so feel free to see if DemCast would like to publish it. I would be honored if they did. Thank you!
Joanne, Let's wait a day or two to see if the WaPo wants to print it. Then you have my permission to see if the DemCast editors want to print it. This is the version with very small edits that was actually sent. Please use this one. I so appreciate your kind words and wanting the letter to have a broader audience. We need action!
The Honorable Justice Samuel A. Alito May 8, 2022
The Supreme Court of the United States Mother's Day 2022
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Justice Alito,
Respectfully, I'd like to correct your view that abortion is "not deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." In fact, abortion before "quickening", the first movements of the baby at around the beginning of the third trimester, has been the practice of women for millenia going far back to pre-Christian times. This is deeply, deeply rooted in the world's history and the history of women. And, yes, deeply rooted in this Nation's history if you will but look beyond a naïve, male patriarchal perspective. Child-birth was dangerous in colonial and pre-colonial times. If a woman already had several children she might chose abortion, usually through herbal knowledge, rather than risk death in childbirth that would leave the rest of her children orphaned without a mother and their means of support. The family would struggle to survive! Pregnancy and child-birth still lead to many more deaths, about fifteen to one, than abortion.
People saying it is against their individual freedom to wear a simple mask that could save lives in their communities are talking about anarchy not democracy where rights come with the responsibility in protecting the rights for all. Forced pregnancy and regulating womens' bodies is not the Blessing of Liberty that the Constitution seeks to achieve. Having the government make the most intimate of decisions in a woman's life is the antithesis of those fundamental freedoms. Handing this over to predominately male, minority ruled, state legislatures who are no longer using a republican form of government is, bluntly stated, cruel and does not return the decision to their citizens.
Democracy is difficult. If one person's freedom puts another person's life at risk, there must be a balance found. With rights come responsibilities to protect those rights for all. Putting the right to life of a fetus that cannot yet live outside the womb over the right to life of a woman with or without exceptions does not meet the deeply rooted "principle of responsibility" inherent in democracy.
So, respectfully, Roe v. Wade, whether it makes reasonable arguments or not, basically gets the deeply rooted history of abortion at the right balance at quickening.
Please look deep into your soul and support the deep principle of quickening as the balance between what is the right of abortion and what is an act of murder. Support the will of the majority of the people of our Nation who feel Roe v Wade got it right. I personally like Former First Lady Barbara Bush's answer on abortion that God will take care of that little soul no matter what happens.
Respectfully,
Deeply-rooted-tradition: Separation between church and state.
If “procreation” is the real purpose of marriage, would Alito like to invalidate the marriages of childless couples, or force them to adopt?
Some had better quake in their booties. Alito aspires to be our Hitler. His reference to Sir Matthew Hale is all the evidence we need.
Hmmmm….but they only want you to adopt if you’re a white “Christian”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/22/tennessee-jewish-couple-sues-state-christian-adoption-agency-denies-them-services
So, the effect of Alito's logic is "If you didn't have rights long ago because of white male Christian oppression, you still don't." So there is no progress to be had according to Alito.
That is a good summary of originalism and textualism. If it isn't in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.
Yes, Robert, but we lawyers know that the question of what is "in" the Constitution is not clear--indeed, that's the basis for the whole field of constitutional law. (We both know that I'm being unfair: I believe that what you mean was apparent on the surface or a literal reading of the words.) But Alito's repeated reference to something being "deeply rooted" is a tell that he does not really believe that. Originalism and textualism, when they become doctrines and not just aids to interpretation, are simply new ways of achieving desired results.
Jon, what frightens me the most the probability that, in fact, Alito and his crew do "really believe" textualism and originalism are the approach to the constitution with the most integrity and, even more likely (almost certain) that they believe without reservations that their stand on abortion is the only moral choice. As WaPo pointed out, they have stayed focused and entirely committed to getting rid of Roe for 49 years!!
None of this is intended to disagree with one more overriding fact here. The grab for power is absolute. A cold hunger for power coupled with the zeal of the True Believer is a deadly partnership.
Yes, they are true believers. Except when they aren't. For instance, they are prepared to forget that the Ninth Amendment (as original as the Second, of which they are so enamored) speaks clearly of unenumerated rights. Which ought to suggest that there have been rights that are understood, but were not stated specifically in the Constitution. And if you look--I confess I haven't, but I'm sure they are there--you'll find decisions written by Alito, or at least joined in by him, that do not employ Originalism or Textualism, but some other way of reaching the result.
Next question-will SCOTUS deem that slavery's OK? Very possibly-the 13th and 14th Amendments are being IGNORED by SCOTUS as is the Constitution's Federal Supremacy clause.
Oh my God! I do not believe that the people who wrote and signed the Constitution over 200 years ago expected people in our time to go by it literally. Shall we outlaw everything that has been invented since 1776? Shall we live exactly like they did back in those times? That would be ridiculous, just as saying that something not rooted in the Constitution can’t be a Constitutional law!
According to him we are stuck in 1787, like Groundhog Day. One thing he misses (more likely avoids, as it would be inconvenient) is that the Founders claimed no omniscience. They knew that their draft was imperfect, and never pretended otherwise. And they knew that ideas change—they had all lived through the immense changes from 1775 to 1787. And they weren’t Originalists, either. If they had been, they would have given us a monarchy. The famous question to Franklin, “What have you given us?” (to which the reputed reply was, “A republic, if you can keep it”) shows that the structure of the national government was not pre-determined.
He is the epitome of all Dems abhor. Or at least this Dem... Smart and beyond redemption. Thomas is just beyond redemption.
Well, again you've made my evening with the closing line. And I agree with you about Alito.
I’m from that generation that protested the war in Vietnam and our activism was disruptive and it got the attention of the politicians and the President and the war we could not win was ended. An entire generation was involved in part because we had the most to lose which of course was our lives. The dismantling of Roe and the potential threat to our freedoms is in part a war against our freedoms and the battlefield is not Washington but our local elections and state wide offices. Those elected officials determine who can and cannot get abortions, who can vote, what children can read and if wearing a mask will be mandatory. These are the races we need to win and the candidate’s we need to support. Two important questions we need to ask each candidate “ do you believe Trump won the election in 2020 and do you believe Roe vs Wade should be abolished”? The answers alone will tell you all you need to know.
Sadly, many in my red area will fail such a simple test.
Unfortunately, the same is true for my area.
As an OLD Dem, I still try to do my bit. But the options are fewer, and the resources limited, but I do what I can. I will limp to any protest, donate to any hope, and vote by whatever means.
I bring my Rollator walker to rallies-gives me a place to sit! I also do postcards to voters and plan to be the driver for my Town Democratic Committee co-chairperson for door knocking (She knows many many folks in town and knows all the back roads in my semi-rural town.) If you have the finances, Vote Forward does postcards.
Good for you. I have a rollator walker, too. I still can’t walk very far, but I can sit. Do they have sit-ins anymore?
I am a new Dem, but an old one. Like you, I will do what I can with a body crippled by arthritis and an income shrunken by retirement.
Before we start talking about expanding the Supreme Court, we need to remember the filibuster in the Senate. The Democrats can do nothing while that's in place. So, the first thing we need to do is elect more Democrats to the Senate in November. Full Stop.
Democrats can create a carve-out for the filibuster with their current majority. The problem is Manchin and Sinema. If they would agree, we could do it now. (It doesn't take 60 votes to amend the filibuster, only 50+1.) But as a practical matter, we do need at least a 52 vote majority plus the V.P.
Let’s keep in mind that the filibuster carve-out already exists for confirming Supreme Court nominations. So only 51 votes are needed. I strongly support Biden immediately nominating 2 new SCOTUS justices, and the Dems make strong arguments for a solid month that this is a) Constitutional and b) the only reasonable and fair response to the 2 seats stolen by the GOP in ‘16 & ‘20. Then make Sinema and Manchin vote.
If Sinema and Manchin do not vote, when they have to run again, REAL Democrats should be found to run against them in the primaries!
And I think Manchin and Sinema are having too much fun being the center of attention.
Changing subjects: David Leonhardt writes that bragging about killing Russian generals is folly on our part. I agree. Loose lips do sink ships. But Leonhardt also loves a good journalist leak story. We create our own hole if we brag about our success in Putin's War. Add to the story later with how we did things but not during the fight, she said to journalists.
The members of the administration who talked should be fired. But WaPo, the NYTimes, and other outlets are complicit. They are not compelled to publish every fact they learn from irresponsible members of the administration. I heard one reporter for WaPo claim that is was necessary to publish the information for "transparency." So, if the reporter learns when and where the next US arms shipment to Ukraine will be delivered, will it be necessary for "transparency" to publish that information--and thereby risk a Russian missile strike on the shipment? Whether the readers of the Post, NYTimes etc need to know something should be balanced against the costs of publishing that information. The unfortunate headlines mis-state the substance of the story, so Russia reasonably believes that the US is targeting Russian generals. A speaker in the Duma claims that the US has become a combatant. Thanks, WaPo, NYTimes and anonymous sources.
Thanks, Robert, and there they go again. It's why you find me agitating in your space these days. It's almost pathetic to say but I think it really is all about money. Sensational headlines and bad news sell more subscriptions. Joe Biden is in his office doing his job. Nobody wants to read about that. We require a great deal of noise to even get our attention these days. We are so easily distracted that war and atrocity and crimes against humanity will also lose us without daily headlines and photos. See a few glazed eyes in response to dead children? Crank it up. And, truly, I hope I'm not alone in my barf-y face reaction to the word "transparency."
No, you are not alone because I am right beside you!
Good morning, Virginia. Transparency is on my list of words that mean absolutely nothing specific. It's a list that includes, at the top, dysfunctional family and reached out. Did the father in that family have sex with the goats or just wake up on Thursdays and kick the kids? Did the person reaching out call, text, email, knock on my front door? Who knows? And that, my friend, is my way of reaching out--a rant about dysfunctional families. Once I actually find a pulse, I might add to the list. There are, of course, grammar issues like lie/lay.
I had to go back to the beginning to catch up! I don’t think that news people should tell our military secrets until the war is over. Anything else is fair game.
I would not forget about the war, no matter what. I have had to stop watching so much because all of the death and destruction is really getting to me. Of course, that is what war is, isn’t it?
I am also sick of the daily hyped up announcements about how much groceries and gas have gone up. I know about the groceries. Gas, not so much because the only places I am going these days is to doctors’ appointments.
Well, the news people. Sigh. Don't you wish we were still referring to Walter Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkly. Thirty minutes at the end of the day. Of course, that was the beginning--war, in real time, right there on the television. I don't actually think there was any chance of going back from that, nor do I believe anyone could have imagined how that technology would take root and grow and one day control us all. It's only now that a few mindful people--not the majority by any means--have begun to get a glimmer of how total that control is. But, as you know, I gave up television news (and mostly television period) many years ago. It wasn't a deliberate decision. I honestly just found the noise too much. My impression is that I know as much or more than the 24-hour news cycle watchers. Could be wrong but I'm informed enough to satisfy my personal need to know and my standard of how much to call myself an informed citizen. A lot of those images are what I would almost call War Porn. What purpose do they serve except to pump up ratings and fuel online subscriptions? In short, they make $$$$$$$
I trust our administration, so I also fully agree that they need privacy and secretive behaviors at this point. If it were an administration I didn't trust, I would be very upset. Where is the balance? I mean that as a good conversation for us to have.
Thanks for the subject, Deborah. I think this whole idea of transparency and the rights of all citizens to know the details of all the work of an administration is a dangerous one. The most important work of any administration is done in conferences, negotiations, discussions that happen quietly behind closed doors. There are some decisions that aren't open to the public because the public (that would be me) isn't qualified to consider them. I vote for people I basically am willing to trust and then I do trust them to do their jobs. My job is to be an informed citizen and to vote with intelligence. So that's my two cents worth.
Well, I agree. I am concerned, as I indicated, about how we can get information when the elected people aren't representing us or may be doing something criminal or unethical. How do we deal with that part of things? I know we have a freedom of information act, and perhaps the next step is to work with journalists to value carefully when it makes good sense to release the information they find and when it makes better sense to wait. It's a truly rife topic, ins't it?
I wonder if I just posted that half a reply or if I sent it off into space. Anyway, here I go again. Do we decide on a law or tradition then stick to it, even if people come along and abuse it and corrupt it or do we make exceptions in certain cases? At the last gasp, I think I would have to say stick with whatever the law or policy is. All that however assumes an informed citizenry who have made intelligent decisions in the first place. There is a scene in Robert Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons," in which Thomas More's son-in-law declares that he would cut down every law in England to get to the Devil and More's response is, "And where would you hide then, the laws all being flat?" It's a thought.
Actually I've just remembered that's not the whole line. It's "And when the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide the laws all being flat?" Important thing to have left out.
My thoughts exactly! Even though we are not fighting in this war, we are an integral ally to Ukraine’s fight.
Am I right that if the draft SCOTUS opinion prevails, states will have substantially greater freedom to enact laws restricting more than abortion? For example, would Virginia's (or 2 dozen other states') reactionary GOP be able to reverse the famous Loving v. Virginia case in which the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race?
Yes. you are right, although the draft disclaims any intent to allow states to restrict other rights. But as my discussion of Alito's dissent in Obergefell shows, he claimed that states have the right to abolish same-sex marriages.
I certainly hope not. I am waiting to see if Governor Youngkin is ignorant enough to follow DeSantis and the rest and try to pass an abortion law in Virginia. I will have my daughters and granddaughters go with me to Richmond to protest if he does.
I am an eternal optimist, so take this with a few grains of salt, but I think the release of the draft opinion has been—or can be—a watershed, shifting the outline for the fall elections, and thus the future of this country and even the world in a markedly more favorable direction than they seemed to be a week ago. (The preceding is a sentence the governor should commute, but I’m going to leave it as it is.).
Maybe we could list all the things we cherish that are not protected because they are NOT "deeply rooted in the Constitution".
1. women (no mention) 2. women voting 3. women owning property OK. Go on.
Women holding public office, women working, women owning corporations, women as judges.
First they came for women's rights, then they came for LQBTQ rights, then they came for interracial marriage, then they came for you.
Except for beer and the Catholic Church, most of what we call civilization hasn't been around "for millennia." So you'll be ok, Brett! There is the matter of The Supreme Court., though. That wasn't around either. But look at it this way: unemployed, you'll have that much more time to drink beer!
😂
Happy to provoke a '😂'!
There is an excellent letter to the editor of the Minneapolis Star Tribune this morning regarding Alito’s comment that any right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” to be protected. The only people allowed to root anything in our Constitution in the 1700’s were white men who owned property. No one else. So, white men who owned property in the 1700’s are still calling the shots in 2022.
Robert, the Obergefell decision was decided under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment rather than the due process clause as was the case with Roe. This distinction is laid out well in an essay by Jill Lepore in 2015 on the eve of the Obergefell decision. While it may not escape the breadth of Alito's reasoning it does create a futher obstacle to reversal.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/to-have-and-to-hold?utm_source=onsite-share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=the-new-yorker
HI, Thomas. Thanks, for the link to the article. It certainly caused me to think more about Obergefell, and I went back and re-read the opinion in light of the article.
The author (writing before the decision in Obergefell) is arguing about how Obergefell SHOULD be decided (on equal protection grounds) rather than due process grounds. She, of course, did not have the benefit of the actual opinion. We do. Given the actual language of the opinion, I don't think it is right to say that Obergefell was decided only under the Equal Protection clause.
The Court discusses two issues--liberty (due process) and equality (equal protection). Before deciding whether same sex marriage (a liberty) was entitled to equal protection, the court had to decide if same sex marriage is a liberty protected by the Due Process clause. So, both clauses come into play--and both are necessary to the holding in Obergefell. Alito et al could simply claim that Obergefell erred in finding that same-sex marriage is a liberty protected by the Due process clause, at which point the equal protection argument is irrelevant. That is why Alito dissents in Obergefell only on the question of whether the right exists. Here is the relevant language from the majority opinion in Obergefell:
"The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying interests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect.
"The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.
"[T]he right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, 381 U. S., at 485, and was acknowledged in Turner, supra, at 95. Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association, a right extending beyond mere freedom from laws making same-sex intimacy a criminal offense. See Lawrence, supra, at 567.
"These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."
Thank you for such a complete response, however I continue to believe that within his dissent his concession that Griswold protects intimate associations creates an impediment if he attempts to striking down Obergefell should a test case be brought. He knows he can't ban contraceptives but he also is willing to give employers passes in supplying them if they have religious objections. See, Hobby Lobby, which I believe was wrongly decided.
Ah, Thomas! I agree with your logic and belief in the binding nature of precedent. But I don't think Alito would be bothered by either. He is on a religious mission--it's not more complicated than that. I certainly understand that he might be dissuaded from going further to avoid damaging the fabric of the nation, but he is willing to go far down that path in Dobbs. I hope you are right, but I fear that you are wrong.
You wrote: "And some Democrats are finally talking about expanding the Court as a way to deal with a reactionary majority that has jettisoned precedent and the Constitution in their effort to impose conservative Christian ideology on all Americans."
I hope it's more than "some Democrats." Here's the religious skinny on the STENCH BENCH:
John Roberts - Catholicism
Clarence Thomas - Catholicism
Stephen Breyer - Judaism
Samuel Alito - Catholicism
Sonia Sotomayor - Catholicism
Elena Kagan - Judaism
Neil Gorsuch - Anglicanism/Catholicism
Brett Kavanaugh - Catholicism
Amy Coney Barrett - Catholicism
My view is that their Catholic catechism (ideology) is what is being imposed on this entire country. I would not call these extremist individuals "Christians" by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I consider their theocratic behavior "conservative." My view is that they are religious zealots who are trying to change the very nature of this country from what is a fragile democracy into a full-blown theocracy. They have conveniently forgotten that there once was a concept of "separation of Church and State" and to my limited knowledge, I think it still exists in the First Amendment.
Sorry for the rant.