Four Things

Scott Lemieux has a few items to keep in mind "As an antidote against the inevitable chorus of fake moderates arguing that today's abortion case is no big deal."

4/18/07 10:06PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Yes, well, it was a regrettable decision, but I'm more upset by Cleveland getting the 2nd seed and Washington getting the 7th seed. That's like the worst possible set of outcomes for a Pistons fan.

Posted by: Steve on April 18, 2007 10:28 PM

Completely unrelated. But boy does it feel sweet to get this off the chest.

Cavs win. Bulls lose.

You know what that means?

for i = 1 to 4 // the no of games cavs take to beat the heck out of wizards

{
ha ha ha ha // me laughing out loud

cout

}

Take a bow matty. 24 points , 9 assts, 5 rebounds. Just prepping for the playoffs.

The bulls never win big games and they showed that tonight.

Sorry for being mean, but you have baited the cavs for so long.

Posted by: kc on April 18, 2007 10:36 PM

after cout its "we are all witnesses"

code got ripped in the last comment. wonder why.

but whetavh

Posted by: kc on April 18, 2007 10:38 PM

Would someone be a bad person for thinking it wouldn't be so awful if some bling bling guido came out of one of those bars off the turnpike and happened to chance across this monstrous little shit just when he felt like kicking someone's ass?

Naturally that isn't me.

Posted by: Linus on April 18, 2007 10:50 PM

It's going to make a small number of abortions look prettier and be more dangerous, but politically this strikes me as an extremely Pyhrric victory, since "partial birth" abortion is so unpopular compared to abortion in general, which they'll have to try to outlaw next.

Posted by: aleks on April 18, 2007 11:20 PM

People don't get to disagree (rightly or wrongly, informedly or uninformedly) without being fakes?

Posted by: rilkefan on April 18, 2007 11:41 PM

rilkefan: We have to take people who have proven to be intellectually dishonest at their word every time the trot out a new piece of "advice" on how abandoning our values is really a victory?

Posted by: Sam L. on April 18, 2007 11:53 PM

The claim is that many of those who disagree will be fakes.

Posted by: Matt Weiner on April 18, 2007 11:58 PM

I'm not so sure about his calling BS on the "abortion returned to the states" line. Thomas' concurrence in this case indicates he doesn't think the ban is permitted by the Commerce Clause, but this wasn't raised as an issue in this case. The pro-choice side doesn't want to make that argument because, on balance, it would undermine federal pro-choice protections more than restrictions, but if Roe were to be overturned, we would likely see a very different set of arguments before the court. My guess is that federal abortion bans (including this one) would not hold up in that case.

Posted by: right on April 19, 2007 01:08 AM

I'm not so sure about his calling BS on the "abortion returned to the states" line.

It was BS long before this decision. There is nothing close to a majority for the proposition that regulating abortion is beyond Congress' constitutional power.

Posted by: Steve on April 19, 2007 01:20 AM

If the position is bogus, then show it to be such independent of whether it's advanced by "fake moderates" or not. I've read (smart, lawyerly) non-fake-moderates arguing this isn't a big deal; I'd guess they'd find the linked insinuation a slur (direct or by association).

Posted by: rilkefan on April 19, 2007 01:37 AM

It was BS long before this decision. There is nothing close to a majority for the proposition that regulating abortion is beyond Congress' constitutional power.

Well that's because the pro-abortion justices want to protect the pro-abortion laws that have been passed by Congress. If the opposite were the case, and on balance federal law was more restrictive than state law, I have a feeling Ginsburg, Stevens and the others (or their ideological successors) would come around.

Posted by: right on April 19, 2007 01:39 AM

Another thing to keep in mind: Fix the link to Lindsay Beyerstein on your blogroll already!

Posted by: BP on April 19, 2007 02:09 AM

wait... the Warriors are 3-0 against the Mavs this season? How did I not know this until now?

Posted by: right on April 19, 2007 06:51 AM

I'd guess they'd find the linked insinuation a slur (direct or by association).

And you would be right.

My problem may just be that I'm not a joiner, so when the tom-tom beat of "abortion is about to be banned! time to donate to NARAL" begins, I instinctively step back and say "really?"

Which makes me politically ineffective, I guess, as one would expect of a proud member of the irony-based community.

(The other part of my problem is, Kennedy wrote a typically bullshit Kennedy opinion to get his desired result, and it makes no g.d. sense, and yet everyone's parsing it like crazy. Like Kennedy won't feel free to ignore every word the next abortion case that comes around? Please, people.)

Posted by: Anderson on April 19, 2007 09:56 AM

Well that's because the pro-abortion justices want to protect the pro-abortion laws that have been passed by Congress.

What pro-abortion laws have been passed by Congress?

Posted by: Rambuncle on April 19, 2007 09:56 AM

Anderson, I actually had you in mind...

Posted by: rilkefan on April 19, 2007 06:18 PM

mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar