Jill Filipovic is full of shit as usual

As of 24 June 2022, the US supreme court should officially be understood as an illegitimate institution – a tool of minority rule over the majority, and as part of a far-right ideological and authoritarian takeover that must be snuffed out if we want American democracy to survive.

The decision actually was “Nowt to do with us, Love. The politicians get to sort it out now.”

Sending a decision off to be decided by legislatures can be many things but undemocratic it ain’t.

34 thoughts on “Jill Filipovic is full of shit as usual”

  1. “Sending a decision off to be decided by legislatures can be many things by undemocratic it ain’t.”

    Spot on

    The lady doth project too much

  2. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    The wailing butt hurt because a leftist dominated court is now a rightist dominated court is almost as hilarious as the British media’s misunderstanding of what the decision actually means. See also the 2nd amendment.

  3. A classic example of why the fair sex shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The Supreme Court’s job is to decide whether or not something is constitutional. There is no way in a pigs ear abortion falls under the constitution, as the court has quite rightly said. Now do Griggs v. Duke Power.

  4. “Sending a decision off to be decided by legislatures can be many things but undemocratic it ain’t.”
    You so sure of this? The States can pass what laws they like. But implementing them is going to end up in the courts, isn’t it? Just at State rather than Federal level. So the same cabal of arts graduates referred to in my earlier post. Do you really think the outcome will be democratic

  5. “Do you really think the outcome will be democratic?”

    Possibly not. But lawyers in all 50 states will definitely get enriched.

  6. No doubt Tres Professori will be boarding the outrage bus along with the rest of the lunatics.

  7. Lets face it, her real problem is that she can no longer use the Federal hammer to force abortion onto those states that reject Democratic rule.

    She absolutely hates that a lot of states will introduce laws restricting abortion far more than Roe v Wade and Casey did. Some will have minor restrictions, some major and in others it will be effectively illegal.

    Buses, trains, planes and vehicular transport between states remain unaffected by this decision, so those wishing an abortion in a state which doesn’t support it are free to go somewhere that does.

    Hell, given all the fuss, I’m sure that they can Go Fund Me every abortion from now ’til eternity, should they so wish.

    But this ain’t really about that. It’s about losing the right to force their Canaanite practices on those who would rather not murder the unborn.

    Moloch can go phuq himself.

  8. Al-Jabeeba this morning was full of whining about the SC ‘removing a constitutional right’. Pure propaganda….

  9. “Jill Filipovic Is Full Of Shit As Usual”

    Surely it’s her right to go to a special clinic and have the shit chopped up inside her and aspirated from her body?

  10. John, where is anyone trying to “force their Canaanite practices on those who would rather not murder the unborn”?
    As far as I can see, if someone doesn’t want an abortion they are not forced to have one (outside the incapable, after due legal process).

  11. @Addolff. That would be the classic liberal position. But classical liberalism is a crock of shit. People do not function as individuals. They are social animals & function as part of societies. And societies have to have some sort of consensus about what is acceptable & what isn’t. The essential problem with Roe-Wade. There’s never been a consensus about it. On the other hand, doubt if there will be consensus at State level. Progressives have been intent on destroying consenting society & imposing consensus for decades.

  12. First, the Constitution protects the right to travel, which necessarily includes the right to interstate travel. This is a fundamental constitutional right that has been repeatedly recognized by the courts. During the debates over the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the right to travel was invoked as one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship that the amendment was designed to protect from state infringement. For a state to prohibit (or even penalize) the act of leaving that state and doing something perfectly lawful in another state would violate this constitutional safeguard.

    Second, an anti-abortion interstate travel ban would run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause, a legal doctrine which holds that the Commerce Clause, in addition to authorizing congressional regulation of economic activity that occurs between the states, also forbids the states from enacting their own interstate economic barriers.

    https://reason.com/2022/05/13/what-happens-if-states-ban-out-of-state-travel-for-abortion/

  13. “Abortion would count as an economic activity for Dormant Commerce Clause purposes”

    Now that’s a giant assumption if ever I saw one.

  14. bloke in spain,

    “The essential problem with Roe-Wade. There’s never been a consensus about it. On the other hand, doubt if there will be consensus at State level. Progressives have been intent on destroying consenting society & imposing consensus for decades.”

    The problem with Roe-Wade is that it killed the process of debate around the subject. Once it was passed, no-one had to reach out to the people who thought that legalised abortion was a bad thing and try to convince them otherwise. It left this issue kicking around for decades.

    In Europe, people had to make the argument, stand on a platform of supporting it, or at least, risking being kicked out of office after doing so. They had to do that, and then for some time face opposition. But when was the last time that you heard a political party with any muscle talking about abortion in Europe, except in Ireland?

    That’s what is going to happen in the USA now. My guess is that 45 states will have it legalised within 2 years. In a decade, there might be 2 or 3 left. And people will just drive the two hours from Arkansas to a neighbouring state in the same way that Irish women have been catching cheap flights to the UK for years. In 10 years, no-one is going to care about abortion in US politics.

  15. Matthew L
    Abortion is certainly an economic activity for the abortionist.
    That’s a fact, not a giant assumption.

  16. Matthew L: Why not? Everything else does.

    If you look at what the courts have decided is economic activity falling under the Commerce clause you will find an enormous variety of things that most would not call economic, e.g., not growing crops counts.

    So for a transaction where money does change hands to not count, the judge would have to use contorted reasoning at least on the same level as the original Roe vs. Wade decision…

    Oh. I see.

  17. Matthew L: Whether you like it or not, abortion is both a medical procedure and a service, for recompense in some form.

    You really should explain how that is not an economic activity, especially since your particular definition would impact the status of every medical procedure/service that peeps would get across state lines for Reasons…

  18. John Galt, interesting post; thank you. Could a state criminalise a woman for having been pregnant, now no longer being so without having given birth? ie “what have you done with the baby?”

    I ask this as a legal question, not as a pov about abortion.

  19. John Galt calls it right.

    It’s like a curse has been lifted from America. God bless Justice Clarence Thomas, the greatest living American jurist.

  20. Nautical: The US constitution forbids states from prosecuting somebody for engaging in legal activity in another state where the activity is legal is that other state. So a state that bans abortion cannot prosecute somebody who had a legal abortion in a state where abortion is legal.

    Boring nerd that I am, I spent yesterday afternoon reading through the 212 pages of the SCOTUS report.

  21. I’ve never been against abortion as such, don’t really care one way or another but I have to admit I have been enjoying the tears of the liberal proggressives. Some very entertaining conservative youtube videos on the matter. Added bonus, NYC gun law supreme court ruling.

    It’s been a great weekend so far.

  22. Do states still have those laws quoted in filme noire about crossing state lines with a lady for immoral purposes ?

  23. It’s never been with “a lady”. It has been “underage bird for” though. Yes, think the Mann Act is still on the books

  24. ‘The US constitution forbids states from prosecuting somebody for engaging in legal activity in another state where the activity is legal in that other state.’

    Thank you jgh. I did wonder about that point.

  25. Trudeau called the decision ‘horrific’ sadly I doubt any reporter will point out to him that when the same question came to the Canadian Supreme Court they ruled abortion wasn’t a right and it was for the politicians to sort it out, which they did.
    So basically the same ruling as in the US.
    Once again he’ll take any bandwagon and jump on it regardless

  26. That”s it the Mann Act of 1910. Ta muchly.

    Not just shagging minors, but for prostitution, bigamy and in that boxer’s case for interracial activity. I remember reading about the Jack Johnson case. Trump pardoned him in 2018. Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial was one huge Mann Act conviction, which I didn’t realise.

    Now I’d have thought that prostitution counted as economic activity, but of course in Cagney and Lacey the girls were sent out to entrap punters. Which I used to think was a bit harsh, I mean I think Tyne Daly is a great actress, but I’m not sure that I would have etc etc

  27. Kinda hard to call the Supreme Court illegitimate without calling Congress and the president illegitimate as well.

    It’s almost like she didn’t take more than two seconds to think through her idea. She actually just agreed with the general sentiment of the January 6 Capitol protesters, even if for different reasons.

  28. She could be right. Maybe it is an illegitimate body.

    In which case the Roe vs Wade decision was made by an illegitimate body…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *