May 13, 2009

Americans don't give a damn whether the next Supreme Court appointment goes to a woman/black/Hispanic.

A Gallup poll.

ADDED: Rick Hansen predicts that Obama will pick 7th Circuit judge Diane Wood. Read his 5-point analysis at the link. Read the whole thing, but here's #5:
The president is likely to resist the temptation to go bold. Going bold is choosing someone like Pam Karlan, who is brilliant and outspoken. Pam hasn't trimmed her sails in what she's said, and there would be plenty of those YouTube moments to be dissected by 24-hour cable news and a Senate Judiciary minority led by Senator Sessions. As with Sotomayor, Karlan likely could be confirmed to the Court with a big push by the President. This would be the nomination progressives would love. But my thinking is the president wants to preserve some of his capital for everything else, and with Wood he gets an excellent choice at very little cost.
Hansen links to this YouTube clip of Karlan, which I think deserves any effort it might take to vigorously defend:

105 comments:

Synova said...

I'm shocked.

Really.

m00se said...

Yes, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what the people who actually get to choose think.

And they don't really give a damn about what WE think...

Bruce Hayden said...

Moose has it right. Most Americans don't give a hoot. But those running the country, esp. the quota junkies on the left, sure do.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

Here's a minor correction: "Americans don't give a dam whether ..."

As in "don't give a tinker's dam," which was a small and inconsequential containment berm for molten tin. Made of sand, it was fragile, small, and very temporary.

John Stodder said...

Well, it's probably not going to be considered a very impressive point that the majority doesn't think there's anything special about adding members of the minority to the court. I can just see the Nation's headline on this poll: "Whites: Black, Hispanic Judges Need Not Apply."

The fact that a majority of women don't care if the next appointee is a woman will be news to some, but I've rarely seen evidence that women think of themselves as a "class" the way feminists theorists think they should, except with regard to a few specific issues.

m00se said...

Re: the Karlan clip.

Scalia is better (and funnier) at vitriol.

Joseph Hovsep said...

I think he's probably right. She has the record and is very well respected by her colleagues. Her only "problem" is being a bit older than might be preferred.

rhhardin said...

Re clip, it's a fine argument but not a constitutional argument.

Why is this argument in Federal courts at all.

Kansas City said...

Karlan comes across as quite an annoying person.

However, she is honest about declaring Stevens, Bryer, Ginsburg and Souter as liberals. From the pro-abortion perspective, her arguments about langauge (and even evidence - but the Supreme Court is largely an evidence free zone in lots of cases) are valid, i.e., she does not consider the fetus to be a baby or the woman seeking an abortion to be a mother. But those criticisms as as an abortion advocate - she wants to the court to use words that her side uses for advocacy purposed.

sean said...

Karlan's rhetoric is surely no more overheated than that of the dissent in Casey, which spoke of the majority's "Nietzschean vision." I don't have a problem with that level of invective, though maybe some people do.

I would have to re-read the case she is discussing to see if she is being unfair. Was the part about some women regretting their choice really a major part of the opinion? I wonder if Prof. Althouse thinks that Prof. Karlan's analysis is fair.

For myself, I don't much like (i) abortion, (ii) pro-lifers, (iii) far left feminists or (iv) law professors, except Prof. Althouse. So I'm thinking, "Go cat, go dog" on this issue.

EnigmatiCore said...

Let's play "who knows our President?"

The author said "The president is likely to resist the temptation to go bold."

I say that it is almost certain he will go bold. I would need someone from the conservatives here to provide a list of "five most egregious potential nominees" (made seriously, please; no Ayers or Rev. Wright on the list, please), and I bet that the nominee will come off of that list, so long as it was culled from current Circuit Court judges, Senators, Governors, and/or other reasonable places.

It is his right to do so, he has the votes to get whoever he wants confirmed, the opposition party made a big deal over giving pretty much any nominee an up-or-down vote, he has a press that will not portray his choice as an extremist, and this seat will not change the balance on the court.

He's going to go bold. The only question is over how bold he will go.

Anyone else want to play? Let's find out who has President Obama figured out best.

SteveR said...

She sounds like the pro-abortion person in a debate at my high school. 1974 or 1975.

EnigmatiCore said...

I hope it was obvious from the context, but I meant 'most egregious to conservatives' in my last post.

John Lynch said...

He's not choosing a justice for Americans as a whole.

It's for certain groups that care very much, not for the large group that cares little.

EnigmatiCore said...

As for the videoclip and this line, "I think deserves any effort it might take to vigorously defend", then defend it!

The only real beef I have with it is I hope that her disdain for the idea of protecting people from making choices they may come to regret carries over to things such as economics and controlled substances. I suspect, however, it only goes as far as the things she (Karlan) believes are the right choices in most cases.

John said...

There is nothing shocking about it. Only people in the victim trade and the hate studies departments care about such things. Most of America, black, white, brown, and beige, really aren't the race obsessed victimites our political class thinks they are.

AJ Lynch said...

Ecore:

Obama does not do bold except when he is redistributing wealth to his constituencies.

Anything else does not warrant his close attention or energy. For example, he can't be bothered with greeting protocols for foreign rulers or knowing what language is spoken in a country where he is giving a speech, or understanding that $100 Million is a trifling amount.

So Obama will pick a run of the mill liberal.

EnigmatiCore said...

"For example, he can't be bothered with greeting protocols for foreign rulers"

You are assuming these were 'mistakes'.

former law student said...

Karlan comes across as quite an annoying person.

Nah, she comes across as a law professor. Not during class, but outside, speaking to a group of students.

Are law professors annoying? You have to toughen your skin.

David said...

Obama wants a Justice with "empathy" and is going to choose this person? She resonates a sense of superiority, not empathy. She is so cock sure, so obviously contemptuous of the majority's view in the case. An empathetic person generally has some understanding of the possible validity of an opposing viewpoint. This woman is an absolutist. You will see no shades of grey in her jurisprudence.

Cedarford said...

Pamela S Karlan may not be a great pick. Part of the problem in filling out affirmative action bonus points is you may end up with an end product so unlike a typical person in the respective "bonus point groups" that even they do not empathize with her.

Obama wants empathy? Then he also realizes, I hope, it's a 2-way street. That people must empathize with his pick somehow, at least a large number - who think that the pick can understand them and their needs.

I wouldn't go with Karlan, who is an Elite who has never worked a day of her life outside an Elite position in academia or at NGOs. She is a lesbian, with a likely complete unfamiliarity with most "woman's issues" related to regular relationships, woman balancing family and the workplace, motherhood and childrens legal issues...
She is also to the Left of 95% of Americans and Jewish (which would put 3 progressive Jews on the Court).

elHombre said...

"... vigorously defend" Karlan's comments on the tape? Okay.

The SCOTUS simply can't justify referring to pregnant women as "mothers." They should select neutral language like "carriers" or "repositories."

And, and, how dare the Court call doctors who do abortions "abortionists?" (I'm having trouble with this one. "Physician" seems to sweep a little broadly and doesn't quite capture the flavor of what abortion-performing doctors do. That's it! How about "abortion-performing doctors?" Oh, maybe not.)

Also, the use of the term "unborn child" clearly implies bias from Karlan's perspective and so should be discarded (no pun intended). How about we call it "refuse" instead? Sort of a double whammy. The verb describes the repository's reaction to the pregnancy and the noun depicts the result.

I'm sure that if the Court, the parties, etc., can just get the acceptable vernacular down pat, Karlan can be a fine,unbiased Justice on these and other issues close to her lefty heart.

How's that?

Kansas City said...

Empathy is an inappropriate criteria for a judge because it conflicts with objectivity. However, it also is meaningless blabber. Obama will try to pick someone who will vote liberal in 100% of significant cases, and he likely will succeed.

He can pick anyone he wants and I assume he will pick someone he knows and likes. The republicans did not even signficantly oppose a left wing zealot like Ginsburg when they had the power to do so.

Jeremy said...

Kansas City said..."Karlan comes across as quite an annoying person."

That's what you got out of the clip?

SteveR said..."She sounds like the pro-abortion person in a debate at my high school. 1974 or 1975."

It's "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion."

Kansas City said..." Obama will try to pick someone who will vote liberal in 100% of significant cases, and he likely will succeed."

Kind of like Scalia, Thomas and Alito voting 95-100% conservative?

elHombre - They are "women" not "mothers.

And they are "physicians" not "abortionists."

*If you were critically injured in a car accident and one of these "abortionists" as you call them happened by...would you send them on their way? Doubt it.

And as for being "the unborn" versus "fetus" that is a matter of belief.

Palladian said...

"The president is likely to resist the temptation to go bold."

Thus far he hasn't resisted the temptation to go italic. And he certainly has no compunction using the asterisk a lot.

Kansas City said...

Jeremy:

You seem to only see things your way.

Everyone knows that advocates for the right to abort babies as a PR move labled themselves "pro-choice." You apparently take comfort in the PR move, but the "choice" is to have an abortion.

Sure, Bush tried to pick justices who would vote 100% conservative. He had a bigger challenge than Obama in succeeding, which he managed to do.

You want to give the abortionist the honor of being called physician. But the issue in the case is not his title, but his act - committing an abortion.

To me, it shows the fragility of the pro-abortion rights argument when you are so concerned about words that accurately the parties -- mother, baby, abortionist, pro-abortion, etc.

As to whether Karlan is "annoying" on the video, that is purely subjective, although I think you were the first person to dispute it.

If Obama knows and likes her, I think he might get a kick out of picking the first gay for the court, which will quiet down his far left critics and cause no lasting negative effect on how most of the electorate views him.

former law student said...

Empathy is an inappropriate criteria for a judge because it conflicts with objectivityObjectivity goes only so far before it needs to be supplemented with a coinflip.

We'll replace empathy with "ties go to the baserunner."

Palladian said...

"It's "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion."

"Pro-abortion" is much more descriptive than "pro-choice" and is thus the choice of a better writer. "Choice" is ambiguous, euphemistic nonsense, and it was supposed to be. "Choice" is supposed to make you think of women sitting in overstuffed chairs drinking Sleepytime tea, shot in soft focus. Anything is preferable to making you think of abortion, which is the issue.

Lem said...

I like the way Pam Karlan sounds. She talks like she is not intimidated, with command of technical legal details.

Not to mention shes better looking than that other lesbo Sotomayor ;)

Put me in the Pam camp.

traditionalguy said...

Americans had better get some leadership that has the courage to give a damn about a future beyond serfdom.

Pastafarian said...

Jeremy -- let's try for quality of comments over quantity in this thread, okay? Just relax, breathe in, breathe out...Namaste, as TitusPinchesLoaves might say...and try to avoid a spittle-flinging conniption fit of invective-laced comments.

Jeremy said...

Pastafarian - How's the ugly wife?

Jeremy said...

Palladian - "Choice" is ambiguous, euphemistic nonsense..."

Not if you're a woman.

If men had to carry and deliver there would be no debate.

Kirk Parker said...

Oh, come on. Bold would be Janice Rogers Brown.

Palladian said...

"Not if you're a woman."

Are you a woman?

Jeremy said...

Kansas City said..."Jeremy: You seem to only see things your way."

Opposed to 95% of the people here?

"Everyone knows that advocates for the right to abort babies as a PR move labled themselves "pro-choice."

No, it's a term that relates to what it is: A woman's "choice" because it's her body.

As I said before: If men carried and delivered there would be no debate.

Or do you actually believe, that if men carried and delivered...they would allow others to tell them what to do?

Sure.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I wonder if surgeons likewise object to being called surgeons rather than physicians.

Karlan would be in a better position to make the usual lame complaints about framing if she didn't then turn around and talk as if the justices were themselves banning abortions, rather than recognizing the authority of the political branches to ban them if they choose to.

TitusNamasteandBePresent said...

I don't want a fucking dyke on the court.

Her breath will smell like anchovies.

Jeremy said...

Palladian - No, I'm not a woman, but I certainly understand their desire to have a say in what they do or do not do with their own bodies.

There are many reasons why a woman would elect to have an abortion, and in my experience with friends and partners, it's not an easy decision to make.

You trivialize the situation by demonizing the women.

TitusNamasteandBePresent said...

Someone's radio outside is playing an extended version of Born To Be Alive. It's going Born, Born, Born, Born To Be Alive.

Who sang that?

Was that Tavares?

I love Tavares.

TitusNamasteandBePresent said...

Tavares sang Don't Take Away the Music. Love that song.

TitusNamasteandBePresent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
lyssalovelyredhead said...

Jeremy (re: pro-abortion/choice)

I vehemently disagree there, and as a woman, find the term "pro-choice" to be insulting and infantilizing. Barring rape, which is a completely different issue, the actions that lead to a pregnancy are completely within my powers, that is, my choices. I choose whether or not to have sex; I choose who to do it with; I choose what precautions I will take, and whether they are worth the risks.

The entire abortion rhetoric ("choice," "my body" etc.) implies that I had no choices at all in whether or not I get pregnant, and that I am incapable of making the choices or taking the responsibility of controlling my sexuality. I wholeheartedly reject that implication.

Palladian said...

"No, it's a term that relates to what it is: A woman's "choice" because it's her body."

Yes, but who's body is it inside of her body? Doesn't that body have a "choice" too?

And what's with the "demonizing the women" bullshit? Are women too delicate to face the reality of their "choices"? Why didn't they make the right "choices" before they went and got knocked up? Birth control is readily available. But because they made stupid choices, someone else must pay for those with its life.

Wait, why am I actually trying to talk to you in a serious manner? You're not interested in a discussion. You're here to plow salt in the fields and make sure nothing can grow besides your own foul, bitter crop.

TitusNamasteandBePresent said...

Hi Palladian. I think we kind of bonded the other day over liking Perrier water.

Special Hugs directed your way.

Palladian said...

"The entire abortion rhetoric ("choice," "my body" etc.) implies that I had no choices at all in whether or not I get pregnant, and that I am incapable of making the choices or taking the responsibility of controlling my sexuality. I wholeheartedly reject that implication."

Democrats think that the pregnancy fairy just randomly taps women on the uterus and makes them pregnant.

Or, more insultingly, it admits that women are powerless to resist the offer of a fuck, or so enchanted by the masculine power of their partner that they're unable to make the correct decision to use birth control or prophylaxis. How insultingly infantalizing. Actually I'd better not use words like "infantalizing" because that reminds women of infants, the kind that they've made the choice to kill, and women are much too sensitive to deal with such harsh realities.

Jeremy said...

lyssalovelyredhead - To each their own.

I understand your points, but as you and everybody here knows, many pregnancies are the result of very young people doing very stupid things.

If you believe a 15-16-17 year old has the maturity to understand the consequences, that's your opinion.

I don't.

Personally I think a woman has a choice, based on it being her own body, her own right as a human being, and that a fetus is not a human being.

I also find it rather strange that I hear nothing here relating to the 100's of 1,000's of what you call the "unborn" being flushed away via fertility clinics.

TitusNamasteandBePresent said...

I am having a red delicious apple.

It is delicious.

The skin is very good for you too.

Hee hee.

Jeremy said...

Palladian said..."Democrats think that the pregnancy fairy just randomly taps women on the uterus and makes them pregnant."

Really?

And you come to this conclusion how?

You actually think the millions of Democrats as an example, that are Catholics...all agree with this inane premise?

And that when women get pregnant they just jump in the car and run down for an abortion without any deliberation?

You continue to trivialize the situation by framing it as some kind of political decision.

TitusNamasteandBePresent said...

I am heading out to Ab Class now but I just want to say, let's all get along.

You are all special and I love you all.

thank you.

John Stodder said...

It's "pro-choice" not "pro-abortion."Really? Have we reached the point where the euphemism is insisted upon by language fascists like Jeremy?

I have no problem defining my position as pro-abortion, if abortion is what we're talking about.

The euphemism "pro-choice" is meaningless, because we make hundreds of choices every day. The absurdity of this blatantly manipulative euphemism is more demonstrable if you parse its opposite, "anti-choice." That's also used all the time, and it is utterly absurd unless you're talking about a prisoner at Supermax.

"Pro-abortion" is perfectly acceptable in describing someone who believes abortion should be legally available to women. You can even be pro-abortion if you think there should be some restrictions on it, as I do.

We who are against prohibition should be perfectly willing to let people call us, and to call ourselves "pro-abortion" or "pro-drug" or "pro-gay marriage." It has done these positions no good politically to try to soften their edges.

TMink said...

"If you believe a 15-16-17 year old has the maturity to understand the consequences, that's your opinion.

I don't."

So you don't think they are mature enough to understand the consequences of sex, but you think that one of them is mature enough to understand the consequences of killing the life inside them.

Twisted.

But not in a good way.

Trey

elHombre said...

Jeremy, et al., wrote: "They are 'women' not 'mothers'.

And they are 'physicians' not 'abortionists.' ...

And as for being 'the unborn' versus 'fetus' that is a matter of belief."
------------------

"Women" is a generic term describing all adult female persons who may or may not be expectant mothers.

"Physician" is a generic term describing all persons who are legally qualified to practice medicine, the overwhelming majority of whom will not perform elective abortions.

Neither of the terms is precise and the suggested use of either in this context is a matter of promoting abstruseness to further political correctness, not sound linguistic practice.

From the perspective of human embryology either "unborn child" or "fetus" is accurate. Beliefs have nothing to do with it.

BTW, "pro-choice" is a marketing device the purpose of which is to obscure the moral implications of the debate. It's kind of like using "man-caused disasters" to obscure the nature of terrorism.

former law student said...

Barring rape, which is a completely different issue, Why would it be? Surely rape babies are as innocent as any other fetuses. Do not visit the sins of the father upon the children.

the actions that lead to a pregnancy are completely within my powers

Really? Even Mary had help.

But realize that every method of birth control -- even sterilization -- has a failure rate:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

Generally women either want to have a child or they do not want to have a child. I've never heard a woman say, "I want to have a 1 in 50 chance of having a child."

Jeremy said...

TMink said..."So you don't think they are mature enough to understand the consequences of sex, but you think that one of them is mature enough to understand the consequences of killing the life inside them."

Some do, some don't.

And I don't think they're "killing the life inside them."

That's the far Christian right's take on it. There are many people in the medical industry that refute that claim.

My suggestion is this: Don't get or help anybody get an abortion, but get your nose out of other people's business...because it's really not your right to tell others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

I keep hearing many here bitch and whine about "socialism" yet they apparently feel they have the right to interfere in other people's personal lives whenever they don't like what they see.

That's pure hypocrisy.

former law student said...

Neither of the terms is precise and the suggested use of either in this context is a matter of promoting abstruseness to further political correctness, not sound linguistic practice.

If precision is the goal, one can hardly describe a pregnant woman seeking an abortion as an "expectant mother." She is neither a mother nor expecting to become one.

The word "abortionist" covers many non-physicians as well -- before Roe v. Wade abortions were performed by midwives, chiropractors, med students, "wise women," and people with no medical training or experience at all.

ricpic said...

Karlan understands that it's all about who controls the language. If you can just misrepresent everything (e.g. don't ever call an abortionist an abortionist, call him, oh...a care giver) you win -- that is if you're a liberal.

Pastafarian said...

Jeremy, 5:50PM: "If you believe a 15-16-17 year old has the maturity to understand the consequences, that's your opinion."

Sorry, are you arguing that they don't have the maturity to understand the consequences of sex, but they DO have the maturity to understand the consequences of abortion?

Palladian said...

"because it's really not your right to tell others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies."


I ask you again, Gene, whose right is it to say what can be done with the body inside these mothers' bodies? Why do you give the mother the right to make this "choice" of life or death for her child?

Because you're playing politics. And you're doing it, like so many other political people, using others as your pawns.

Pastafarian said...

Jeremy, 5:28PM: "Pastafarian - How's the ugly wife?"

Jeremy, is there a reason that you keep repeating this?

My profile photo comes from Fail Blog -- it's "Militia Fail", and it's how I think you see all Republicans. It's not my wife. It's a dude. A male.

My wife, in contrast, is female, and much prettier than I deserve.

As a psychologist, Jeremy, perhaps you can analyze yourself and come up with a reason for this strange fascination that you have with my wife. I'll assume that those two rare clumbers in your profile photo are the closest thing that there is to a Mrs. Jeremy. Am I right?

And please remember my advice -- quality of comment over quantity. I'm trying to help you, Jeremy.

elHombre said...

FLS wrote: If precision is the goal, one can hardly describe a pregnant woman seeking an abortion as an "expectant mother."...

The word "abortionist" covers many non-physicians as well....

"Expectant mother" is an idiom that is not dependent upon the state of mind of the woman.

The term "abortionist" would include all physicians who perform legal abortions, now wouldn't it? Do you suppose the Court was talking about anybody else?

You still haven't read "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric," have you?

daredevil-66 said...

oh jebus, Obama's ass licker jeremy's back. Here is another thread I have to skip through to get to the adult conversation. Aren't there some bicycle seats you can sniff down at the Y?

Dale said...

ALERT, ALERT, ALERRT!

And we have a WINNER!

Here is the MOST STUPID writing by a NY Times reporter yet this year! Look at this:

The 13th Amendment, which barred slavery, the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment were the first to give the federal government new powers. The nation had a large problem, eradicating the vestiges of slavery and racial inequality, and it knew that Congress needed potent tools to get the job done.`

When the framers drafted these amendments, they were worried that Congress would have too little power to get the job done, not too much.`

The FRAMERS? The FOUNDING FATHERS lived long enough into the last half of the 1800's to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments!?

Either Adam Cohen is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his readers or he is just incredibly stupid.

Again, we have a WINNER!

onparkstreet said...

One of the hospitals where I worked used the term "ASAP" on requisitions that came with aborted fetuses to the lab. Acute Situational Anxiety Of Pregnancy. That's all the req would say.

In my Camille Paglia dissident feminist alternative reality, MS magazine would have prominent and vigorous discussions between feminist scientists about the science of 'life', all aspects of it, about the pregnant woman, about the fetus, about cognition and pain. Or, has that happened already? Never read MS, so don't know why I am picking on it. Does it even exist anymore?

former law student said...

You still haven't read "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric," have you?

If you're an example of one who has, I think I'll save my money.

"Expectant mother" is an idiom that is not dependent upon the state of mind of the woman.

I'm dying to see a reference to that. Every resource I could find for the expectant mother includes preparation for childbirth and the baby's homecoming.

The term "abortionist" would include all physicians who perform legal abortions, now wouldn't it? Do you suppose the Court was talking about anybody else?

In California, only surgical abortions have to be performed by physicians.

SteveR said...

Jeremy, in your haste to be a smart ass, you missed something quite obvious. When I used the term "pro-abortion' I was talking about something that actually happened 35 years ago and that's what it was called, "pro-abortion" vs "anti-abortion".

Like many guys in high school at that time I was pro-abortion, took a lot of pressure off the dynamics, not that you would understand that.

EnigmatiCore said...

Oh, good. An abortion debate. Maybe *this* time will be the one where someone, somewhere, changes their mind.

Anonymous Blogger said...

Pam Karlan is very polarizing. She gives my pole a rise.

former law student said...

The FRAMERS? The FOUNDING FATHERS lived long enough into the last half of the 1800's to pass the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments!?

Either Adam Cohen is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of his readers or he is just incredibly stupid.

Or, he could just be using the correct term. Yes, even amendments have their framers. For example, Berkeley Professor and torture expert John Yoo also refers to the Framers of the Reconstruction Amendments:

As historical evidence shows, the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment saw the Ninth as a clause that could affirmatively protect unenumerated individual rights from government interference.

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/yooj/articles/emory.html

Jason (the commenter) said...

I think people are forgetting the history. People associate coat hangers and abortions. The coat hangers weren't used to perform an abortion. The coat hangers would be taken apart and one end of the wire put inside the woman in an attempt to scratch the side of her uterus. If she had bleeding she could then go to a doctor and the doctor would then perform an abortion.

But the wall of the uterus is very thin and the coat hanger could very easily go through. Women would bleed to death this way. I have seen pictures of dead women with coat hangers sticking out of their vagina.

This assumes you knew what you were doing, plenty of women died in other ways. Doing these things to themselves.

Just something to think about. All the horror isn't on one side.

EnigmatiCore said...

"I have seen pictures of dead women with coat hangers sticking out of their vagina. "

I am calling you a liar. Either that or an incredibly gullible dupe.

If one were to use a coat hanger in the method you described, and the hanger 'went through', and the woman bled to death, it would not be so fast that she just sat there with a coat hanger in her hoo-ha.

And if one did, there is about a zero percent chance that there would be photos out and about.

And you are claiming more than one.

Not credible, at all.

Why do people think lying helps their arguments?

AJ Lynch said...

Btw "American people don't care what race, or color...judge is".

Good For Us!

Revenant said...

I have seen pictures of dead women with coat hangers sticking out of their vagina.

I've seen pictures of the Death Star exploding. What's your point?

Jason (the commenter) said...

EnigmatiCore, If you don't believe me you can watch Lake of Fire. It was a horrible movie to sit through, I didn't like the people it interviewed, but it showed you ALL the pictures each side had.

1jpb said...

After watching that clip I now know that the conservatives on the court have a ton of EMPATHY for women who may come to regret their choices.

It sounds like that decision was based on EMPATHY.

[Or, at least these men think they can empathize with women making this choice, it is possible that they don't actually share the same (presumably complex and contradicting) feelings of women making this choice. But, maybe they can sympathize. Does BHO accept sympathy, or does he need to go all the way to empathy? Or, maybe much of the court's empathy and/or sympathy is not for the woman but rather it is for the baby from God (aka fetus). It's hard to know where the bulk of their empathy/sympathy lies. In the decision it sounds like they say they empathize w/ the patient (aka mother). Is that true?]

Jason (the commenter) said...

I've seen pictures of the Death Star exploding. What's your point?

Arguing over the names "pro-abortion" or "pro-choice" seems immoral to me, because it's too big of an issue to be worrying about words. Most people wont even look at one side, let alone both sides because it is impossible for them to even think about.

I think abortions are horrible, but what happens when abortions are illegal is horrible too.

I don't think there's any right policy decision. How can you even say you know what's right when you don't even want to think about what is involved on both (or even one) side?

Perhaps this is where religion is appropriate to deal with things. But I don't know.

That's my position: I don't know. And I have no idea how anyone else can say they do.

Dale said...

fls,

While there is little doubt that one can take refuge in your explanation re: Adam Cohen - and thank you for that explanation, by the way - it is surely way too "inside" and Adam Cohen must be stupid if he thought the average non-lawyer reading the Times would get it.

`

Please google "the framers" and see what the first page of responses is. That is what the vast majority of Americans think of when reading the term in relation to any discussion of the Constitution. It seems that Adam Cohen was therefore being either disingenuous in using it, or incredibly naive and out of touch with the average reader. Which basically should disqualify him -at least eventually - as a journalist writing to a general, non-specialized audience.

`

But I think he was trying to be clever.

Pogo said...

Well I for one dearly hope the next SCOTUS is a black female hispanic lesbian, 1/4th Cherokee, with a dash of Thai, just for fun.

EnigmatiCore said...

Jason-

You are even lying about having watched "Lake of Fire".

There are not pictures of "women" with coat hangers hanging out of their vaginas, dead, in it.

onparkstreet said...

"That's my position: I don't know"

Yeah, I trend prolife, but I hear you. The problem is, there has to be some policy, even if that policy is: do whatever you want. Which kind of freaks me out. Ugh. Glad it really is above my paygrade.

Sorry.

(Also, off-topic and possibly in poor taste given the seriousness of the thread, but great music selections on your profile, Jason(commenter). NPR had something on St. Vincent yesterday.)

TMink said...

"As a psychologist, Jeremy,"

Oh, no, he is not a psychologist is he? That is truly frightening.

Trey - who has never caused an abortion, but helped several men and women grieve theirs

Skyler said...

Just as B. Hussein, the marxist, has proven by his election that whites aren't generally racist but blacks are, so this woman shows that most people are not sexists but democrats and journalists are.

One more point. On the video, Karlin says that the woman chooses not to be a mother "now." It's a shame she couldn't make that decision before she opened her legs. It's not like birth control isn't available. Oh, wait, abortion is just birth control for the irresponsible. I forgot.

elHombre said...

FLS wrote: I'm dying to see a reference to that. ("Expectant mother" as idiom). Every resource I could find for the expectant mother includes preparation for childbirth and the baby's homecoming.
In California, only surgical abortions have to be performed by physicians.

So your contention is what? That your inability to research effectively (try Googling "expectant mother idiom") means expectant mother is not an idiom. Ridiculous!

And your California bit? Does that purport to answer my question: "Do you suppose the Court was talking about anybody else?" Not quite.

Evidently, you would rather occur as a dimwit than concede a point to someone who does not share your ideology. Fair enough!

Bruce Hayden said...

EnigmatiCore

One of the more disturbing pictures I have seen was in (I think) Life magazine, probably from some time in the 1960s, of a woman on her hands and knees, who had bled out. Apparently, her boyfriend had tried to do the abortion, and it had gone horribly wrong. I think he then panicked and fled.

Obviously, the photo in such a family setting was making a strong pro-legalized abortion statement, at a time where it was illegal throughout most of the country.

Nevertheless, what must also be taken into account here was that at that time, pregnancy out of wedlock was still a major embarrassment for both the female and her family. Today, that is no longer the case, as evidenced by all of the celebrities who do it regularly, and the lack of reaction on the right when Sarah Palin's unmarried daughter was pregnant (the left, of course, screamed hypocrisy over this, despite the fact that they wouldn't have been the least bit upset if it had been a Biden daughter instead).

William said...

I think the phrase pro choice came into common parlance as a way of including in the same camp those who were personally against abortion but believed that abortion should be legal....Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the greatest leap of faith a man can make is to believe that he is not God. Karlan should attempt this jump. She ridicules the male judge for indicating that women may come to regret their decision....I submit these facts: in China and India women are aborting their female foeti. There is a huge imbalance between the numbers of male and female children. This is a decision that women are making and inflicting on females. One is reminded that the practice of foot binding in China was invented by a woman and imposed by women on their little girls to make them respectable members of society. Women, including Karlan, should welcome a little disinterested advice from an outsider. No man ever forced a woman to wear a whale bone corset. Women have an infinite capacity for making bad decisions on behalf of maintaining respectability and/or sex appeal....I support a woman's right to have an abortion and to have a unicorn tattooed on her ass. I think there's a good chance she may come to reconsider the decision at a later point in her life.

Job said...

"*If you were critically injured in a car accident and one of these "abortionists" as you call them happened by...would you send them on their way? Doubt it."

And if Josef Mengele happened to be walking by, I would accept treatment from him too. He is still an abortionist.

"If men had to carry and deliver there would be no debate."

You get this one right. But not the way you think. If men had to carry and deliver the pro-aborts couldn't claim this was a woman's issue and abortion would be mostly illegal.

The only reason that society accepts this monstrous practice is that it comes wrapped up as a civil rights issue.

jdeeripper said...

....choosing someone like Pam Karlan..In other words someone Jewish.

That would be five Catholics, three Jews and one 89 year old Protestant on the US Supreme Court.

Not exactly representative of America.

jdeeripper said...

Bruce Hayden said...Moose has it right. Most Americans don't give a hoot.Right, because most Americans are intellectually lazy, ignorant and couldn't name more than one person on the Supreme court.

hdhouse said...

Frankly she states things clearly, seems to be nobody's fool, and if this is his choice, so be it.

besides, having a few conservatives here fling themselves on the funeral pyre in their grief would be just that added benefit to the nomination.

hdhouse said...

Palladian said...
"Pro-abortion" is much more descriptive than "pro-choice" and is thus the choice of a better writer."

More Palladian utter bullshit. "Better writer" my ass. How about letting that old bias just creep into everything you write...oooops....you already do.

ya'betcha!

weffiewonj said...

Kennedy in Carhart refers to doctors performing abortions as "abortion doctors," not abortionists, so it's a bit hard to defend Karlan on the merits on that aspect of her claim.
She also says that women having abortions have decided not to be mothers "now," which may or may not be true. They have decided not to be mothers of this particular being, but we can't say whether that woman has other children.
Kennedy's Carhart opinion makes frequent use of the word "fetus," using the phrase "unborn chlid" in other instances," but not all.
Kennedy had more than "no stinkin evidence" when he said some women will regret their abortion decision. He cited an amicus brief that had attached affidavits. Now, that is not reliable statistical evidence, but it is evidence of what Kenendy purports is true: that some women regret their decision.
These errors should not preclude her nomination, but her comments are not the hallmark of a careful speaker.

Jordan said...

She quotes Kennedy?

That's like quoting someone with bi-polar disorder on their long term view of their emotional health.

Iapetus said...

I was really taken by Karlan's lead-in, "...and I am going to probably regret this in a moment that I say this..." It reminds me of the gal who is about to agree to a one-night stand of torrid sex and is thinking, What the hell, I'm probably going to regret doing this, but there's always abortion. At that juncture, dear woman, you need to have a dialog with your vagina and ask it whether the two of you are on the verge of making the wrong choice.

m00se said...

Said it before, and I'll say it again: women are insane.

The same gender that says "touch my child and I'll claw out your eyes" will also passionately defend aborting a child.

For this reason, you'll never be able to get them to stop. It's an irrational act, for the most part, and you can't argue with emotion. Also for that reason, you need to make sure abortion is safe and available.

This being said, there is no reason that you cannot judge them for their actions. We can, as a society empower and facilitate their choices, but we can also, as a society, judge them.

While I might support the legality and availability of abortion to women, but I don't have to admire them, support them, or defend their decisions. Personally, I think that any woman that has an abortion for anything else other than extreme medical reasons is a coward and deserving of my contempt. End of story.

Aborting a child because its your body and your body alone - bullshit. You shouldn't have fucked the guy, then should you?

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Responding to FLS:
"Barring rape, which is a completely different issue, Why would it be? Surely rape babies are as innocent as any other fetuses. Do not visit the sins of the father upon the children."

Your point is valid, but completely off-topic. My response was only to the question of whether or not the "choice" term was appropriate. Whether or not there is a life, and what rights that life has, is another aspect of the discussion.

"the actions that lead to a pregnancy are completely within my powers" - "Really? Even Mary had help."

OK, barring rape or divine intervention? Doesn't seem to be much of a point there.


"But realize that every method of birth control -- even sterilization -- has a failure rate"

No kidding? Really, even in a hick town in East Tennessee, we learned that when I was 10. You may have noticed the part of my original post where I stated that a woman can choose the precautions and the risks that she takes. No sex, no risk; condoms, less (but some significant) risk; pills, even less risk; sterilization, even less. It is not difficult.

BTW, I agree with you that "expectant mother" is not necessarily appropriate, but understand that some people (particularly those of SCOTUS justice age, who grew up in a time that "pregnant" was considered an indelicate word) just habitually use the phrase.

Jason said...

It's "pro-abortion," not "pro-choice," for the same reason we say "pro-gay marriage," not "pro-choice."

Clear thinkers always prefer the specific to the general, and the clear to the vague.

This, of course, rules out muddle-headed libtards, by definition.

It's "abortionist," not "doctor," because in the court decisions, we are referring to one who performs abortions. The fact that he or she may happen to be an MD is wholly incidental, and would not be relevant for the sake of precedent.

It's "mother," not "woman," because the abortionist may be a woman, and this keeps the language clear.

It's "unborn child," not "fetus," because this language reflects the reality that abortion is morally problematic.

How do we know? Because even a drooling simian like Jeremy realizes, in his own words, that "it's not an easy decision."

It's not easy for a reason, Jeremy.

Ann Althouse said...

William: "She ridicules the male judge for indicating that women may come to regret their decision."

No, she expresses dismay that the judge's belief that she may regret her decision affects the scope of her freedom.

Would you generally accept the government's limiting your freedom based on an assumption that you may live to regret the way you used it?

Rich B said...

Ann-

Isn't that the motivating philosophy of the Obama administration? We know better than you do!

William said...

Well, there are laws against assisted suicide. Probably not the best example of living to regret your decision, but where human life is concerned logic should not be the paramount consideration.

John Clifford said...

The Karlan clip is an excellent example of how controlling the terms of the argument is a strategy to win an argument. However, Orwellian doublespeak is not a desirable quality for a Supreme Court judge, IMO.

Either abortion is morally wrong, or it isn't. The issue hinges on whether the fetus is human, and entitled to the rights we all have including the right to life, or it isn't.

If the fetus isn't human, then when does it magically transform to being human? Everyone agrees that killing a newborn baby is murder. Is it murder when the head pokes out? How about when the head is inside the vagina? How about when the head enters the cervix? How about 1 second before? 1 minute before? Etc? When do you draw the line?

Roe v Wade sez that abortions are legal up to the point of viability (the ability of the fetus to live outside the woman's body), codified as the third trimester. What happens when we are able to grow a fetus from fertilized egg to human child completely outside the body? (We are rapidly approaching that day.) Obviously, the child can live without a woman's body, and equally obviously a newborn child will die within hours if it is left without any care or feeding.

Just as there is implied consent when a person gets drunk and then drives, there is implied consent when a person has sex. In either situation, the person knows going in that something undesired may result. I have no problem holding an alcoholic responsible for drunk driving; why is it acceptable to not hold a person responsible for killing a fetus? Especially when, if the fetus was killed by, say, a gunshot, the perpetrator would be charged with murder?

Ann Althouse said...

It might help to know that Karlan is talking about the case that upheld the federal partial birth abortion law and was therefore talking about a situation in which there was no question that there would be an abortion. The unborn child would not survive. The question was whether the woman could be denied her choice between 2 methods of abortion, both of which were gruesome.

Ann Althouse said...

It might help to know that Karlan is talking about the case that upheld the federal partial birth abortion law and was therefore talking about a situation in which there was no question that there would be an abortion. The unborn child would not survive. The question was whether the woman could be denied her choice between 2 methods of abortion, both of which were gruesome.

Michael McNeil said...

When do you draw the line?

Many still living today will recall a time when one's heart stopping was regarded as the obvious and proper end of life — until it was realized with advancing medical know-how that calling people dead, and putting them in the morgue as dead, was exceedingly misguided when for minutes after death (longer in certain instances, such as being immersed and/or drowning in very cold water, triggering the so-called diving reflex) every cell in the brain is still alive, whilst the affected individual remains fully capable of complete revivial and recovery.

As a result of that insight, plus the fact that the human brain is the seat of everything (emotion, thought, memory, sensation, experience itself) that fundamentally makes us human and not animals, decades ago the decision was made by essentially all the legal codes in the country (are there any exceptions?) that brain death should henceforth be regarded as the bright dividing line signaling the end of human life.

In my view, this sensible and life-saving principle also ought to be applied in reverse — i.e., brain life (or brain existence) is the logical and proper start of human life.

(And one might as well dispense right now with the notion that modern science teaches that “life begins at conception.” This is quite wrong; rather what science informs us is that life never begins — or rather, life began, however it began, once, back in the mists of time of the early Earth billions of years ago — and all life since that time has continued as an unbroken chain, from generation unto generation, up to the present day. The father and mother are alive, their egg and sperm are alive, and the composite being that their union forms is no more or less alive.)

No, the beginning of human life in my humble opinion ought to be regarded as occurring during the moment or interval of time during which the brain and central nervous system first originate and come into being, commencing their long development — and it so happens that that point along the continuum of fetal development constitutes almost as bright and sharp a dividing line as conception itself.

The fact is that within the developing human embryo there is not the shadowiest trace of a brain and central nervous system until the beginning of the fourth week of gestation. Moreover, the first neurons — the cells that make up the nervous wiring of the brain and CNS — come into existence around to the start of the second month.

One could quibble, and argue that that the early brain and central nervous system at that point and for many weeks to follow remain exceedingly primitive — consisting for a long time of only the lower parts of the brain (the autonomic nervous system and the like, acting to keep the newly-formed heart beating but incapable of experiencing anything, much less emotions and “higher thought”), and that is so. However, if one is looking for a truly sharp, “magic” as well as sensible dividing line, one could hardly do better in my view than zero in on the initial stirrings of the brain itself.

Michael McNeil said...

I should say “heart stoppage” rather than “death” in my first paragraph above. Sorry for the confusion.

mc said...

Is it me or when Karlan mentions "suddenly we are back to the Declaration of Independence...'we hold these truths to be self evident'" something in her tone seems to be mocking both the conservative justices AND the Declaration itself with it's notion of inalienable rights. That a couple of these rights are of such simple common sense that only a moron or a sophist would argue the matter.


Or a law professor.

They may fall under the rubric of the latter, however...