But the world is ending. Just thought you should know.
Seriously, my uterus and I bid you a fond farewell, and if you should happen to see either of the remaining two horsemen of the apocalypse, tell them they're fucking late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd love to make a joke, but since I can't I'll make assumptions. If the new chief justice rides in on a white horse, and Katrina brought the black, then these must be the red and the pale.
ReplyDeleteI don't have anything interesting to say. I just wanted to say hi.
ReplyDeleteHi Jennie.
I'm done now.
Interesting how an entire branch of the American goverment's primary purpose (to many) is keeping the Roe v. Wade torch lit. The framers of Constutution Article III (the establishment of the judicial court) are probably rolling in graves. Someone needs to sponsor a bill making abortion offically legal (like Europe or Canada) so that court nominations can be for good judges instead of a political stadium for the stupid Liberals v. Christians football game.
ReplyDeleteKid Bro: Hello! Hi hi hi hi hi hi hi.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Here's what I want you to do. I want you to go into the bathroom, and take off your pants. Get a hand mirror, or, if you don't have one of those, a compact. Take the mirror, and stick it between your legs. See that little brown hole? OK. Your head is in there. Your mission? Extract it.
Wow, what a mature response. Pardon me if I missinterpreted what appeared to be the boring old knee-jerk association between uteri rights and fresh judicial vacancies. Now that I've cleared the poopie from my spectacles I can see you're correct: all they do up there in the court is dictate reproductive ethics...
ReplyDeleteReally? I can't wait to see what happens. This is going to be some good drama, even better than that Lewinsky stuff.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, it's very unlikely that your uterus has to worry. Roe v. Wade was decided; it's precedent; in the world of conservative legal scholars, it's not going anywhere. And anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a bad nominee, because that means he/she is going to try to legislate from the bench.
Oh, good! I'm glad your glasses are clear. BTW, if you want to have a real debate, my email is iscribblez@yahoo.com. Or, alternatively, you could sack up and post your name.
ReplyDeleteno real debate to be had, I couldn't have said it more eloquently than Italian-American Princess just did. Maybe shelve the "three horsemen of the Apocalypse" analogy for a legitimately more dire News Item and return to the musing about back-hair, rats and other urban sundries?
ReplyDeleteTo the other anonymous poster - if you find what is said here to be so upsetting, why are you reading it? I am probably old enough to be Jennie's mother, but I enjoy checking in and seeing what she is up to and has to say. And as far as judges not legislating from the bench - honey, I remember the days BEFORE Roe v Wade and have watched in horror as state legislators and judges have tried to push forward their own agendas and add ridiculous restrictions. Never say never, kid. Who would have thought that this yahoo in the White House would actually be able to nominate 2 judges to the high court? I am holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason, oh Anonymous poster number 1 (a.k.a. Troll), why some people, mostly the ladies are interested in this issue. Firstly, Roe v. Wade impacts them and their freedom directly. Next, it was decided little more than 30 years ago. Think about that for a moment. Thirty-two-some-odd years ago the dames didn't control their bodies, the state did. This is recent memory for many, many people. It remains one of the most controversial decisions in Surprme Court history and there is a cottage industry of fairly unenlightened people wholly dedicated to getting this decision overturned.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the decision stated that laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy-- that's what Roe v. Wade is based on. This is one of the reasons the decision is seen as weak by the opposition. It didn't say outright that abortion is OK, it said that laws against it violate our rights to privacy. And guess what? The Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to privacy.
Considering the erosion of privacy rights since September 11 (PATRIOT Act anyone?) I would think you’d understand why all this makes people a bit nervous.
As far as a law explicitly legalizing abortion, hey, great idea! Who do you think in our long line of courageous Senators would risk their asses on that? Yeah. Not one.
So, a little less thoughtless snark regarding fully half of the population and a little more reasoned circumspection might serve you well in the future.
Anonymous, you ignorant slut:
ReplyDeletePro-choice supporters of Roe v. Wade are not all liberals. The majority of people in this country are pro-choice, the vast majority of them are Christians, and the vast majority of those do not consider themselves liberal. It just looks that way from the perspective on your self-righteous pinacle of ignorance.
Here's why all this is important, bubby: Judges interpret the law, laws are the rules of the body politic, thus all Judges, and hence the choice of judges, are political. Only supporters of a nomination ever cry, "Take politics and single issues out of the process!" It won't ever happen; it should not ever happen.
A "good judge" to you, me, and everyone else, is one who's politics are consistent with our own.
For example, our recently departed Chief Justice may, or may not, have been a nice man (I never met him.) But remember that he worked for Barry Goldwater and Curtis Lemay, was appointed by Nixon, elevated by Regan, and was, lucky for us, in the minority for 94% of the major decisions in which he participated, consistently supporting priviledge over the people, medievil mis-translations of scripture over science, and intolerance over choice. That made him a profoundly immoral justice, one who is, unfortunately, sure to be replaced by one who is at least as dangerous to our republic.
Anyone who is not alarmed at this prospect does, in fact, have their head where the sun never shines.
all that anonymous seemed to be saying is that there are PLENTY of other issues at stake now that there are two vacancies in the supreme court. however, whenever vacancies are discussed, the immediate reaction from liberals (like myself)is fear about roe v. wade. and that's it. dont get me wrong, i know that roe v wade is incredibly important and hangs in the balance, but with the two new vacancies many other things ALSO concern me: the death penalty, lesbian/gay rights, religious freedoms, rights of those accused of crimes, education, the list goes on. dare i say that people effected by these issues have more to worry about than pro choice women (like myself) do. to say someone has their head up their ass because they know that there is much more at stake than roe v wade with the two vacancies makes it seem that you have your head up your ass.
ReplyDeleteOh, let's all put our heads up our asses! What do you say? It will be fun!
ReplyDelete