All Quarked Up

 I finally realized what the false equivalence is that makes for mutual incomprehension across the Left - Right divide There are two questions you have to answer in a "Constitutional Rights" case in order to find something protected by the US Constitution 1: Is this a right protected by the US Constitution?  If not, you stop here 2: How should this right be implemented in the modern world Do you have a right to keep the government out of your person and property absent a legitimate court order?  Yes Then the gov't putting a GPS tracker on your car w/o a warrant is a violation of the 4th Amendment Do you have a right to freedom of speech and writing?  Yes So the gov't can't censor you on Twitter  Do you have a right to keep and bear arms?  Yes So the gov't can't stop you from owning an AR-15 or a Glock 17 Do you have a right to have an abortion? No The right did not exist when the Constitution was ratified.  It did not exist when the 14th Amendment was ...

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1535733409083011073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1535733409083011073%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Falthouse.blogspot.com%2F " We are simultaneously being told that gender differences do not exist and that genders are so profoundly different that irreversible surgery is the only option. Perhaps someone wiser than me can explain this dichotomy. " Althouse replies <I>"But who is "wiser" than Elon Musk? If the answer is no one, he's nailed down his position while performing open-mindedness. That's wisdom for you."</I> I reply: If the answer is that YOU are wiser, than Musk, and disagree with his position, then he's invited you to use your wisdom to explain why he's wrong. If you can't use your wisdom to explain why he's wrong, then clearly you are not wiser than him.  No? Please allow me to expand his statement for you: 1: "A trans woman is...

 <I>And you might not feel like you’re a boy or a girl, but you’re a little bit of both.</I> There is an image I wish to make. All three panels of the meme hold two equal bell curves, offset from each other.  One is labeled Male, the other Female.  The center point of each curve is roughly 3 sd from the other curve First panel "The Bigoted Bad Old Days" Put Women on the left, Men on the right.  Draw a line in the Women curve 1 sd to the right.  Everything to the left of that line is labeled "real women" Draw a line in the Men curve 1 sd to the left.  Everything to the right of that line is labeled "real men" Everything in between those lines is labeled "not real women" / "not real men" Second Panel "The Open Minded Days" Everything's the same as the first, but there's no barrier lines. Everyone in the Women curve is a real woman, same for the men. Third Panel "The Trans Enlightened Days" Repeat th...

 effinayright said... <I>John henry said... Elon Musk is already generating solar power in space and beaming it to earth to point of use. He didn't invent the technology, Telstar was doing it 60 years ago. ***************** OK, I'll bite: Please explain how Musk's satellites, which are very small, do that. </I> My guess is that the satellites have solar power panels that they use to run themselves. Raido waves are energy. Now, an actual SPS (Solar Power Satellite) system requires satellites with much bigger panels. More importantly, it requires targets on the ground that can take the high energy beams, and distribute them to the electric grid. But I've been reading about the potential of those for the last 40+ years. One of the challenges / dangers of them is that they can also be used to power orbital weapons.  Which means they could quickly become targets.  People tend not to want to build expensive targets. Some numbers: 11 pounds to low earth orbit gets ...

 Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins. Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus. Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'. Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape. Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg. Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop. Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming. Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming. Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear. Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup. Weeks 10 and 11: The baby ...

Comment on this: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=1466464481462984940&page=1&token=1652203381874 Robert Cook said ... <I>Their lives have nothing to do with yours. Live and let live.</I> We tried that. With gays, we were told before same sex "marriage" became the law of the land "if you don't want to have a same sex marriage, just down't have one!" Now that it is the law of the land, we're told "you can not be in the wedding business unless you do same sex marriages, bigot!" As for trans, if they kept it to themselves,<b> then</b> their lives have nothing to do with ours. But instead they become teachers and force it on their students, their "allies" force it on their students (who are<b> our</b> kids), they demand that men with penises be allowed to dominate "women's" sports and invade women's private places (like spas). Completely terminate the ...

From the document (does anyone have an OCR'd version?): Although a pre-quickening abortion was not itself considered homicide, it does not follow that abortion was permissible  at common law--much less that abortion was a legal right.  Quite to the contrary, in the 1732 case mentioned above, the judge said of the charge of abortion (with no mention of quickening) that he had "never met with a case so barbarous and unnatural."  Similarly, an indictment from 1602, which did not distinguish between a pre-quickening a post-quickening abortion , described abortion as "pernicious" and "against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity." That the common law did not condone even pre-quickening abortions is confirmed by what one might call a proto-felony-murder rule.   Hale and Blackstone described a way in which a pre-quickening abortion could rise to the level of a homicide .  Hale wrote that if a physician gave a woman "with child" a ...

Responding to this: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=5328064934398201987&page=1&token=1651949795408 <I>"Some Republican leaders are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women. How dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body? How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future? How dare they try to deny women their rights and their freedoms?" </I> Biden Administration Covid mandates forcing military and health care workers to be fired if they refuse to follow a government order to have a potentially dangerous substance injected into their bodies against their wills State "vaccine passport" requirements blocking people from going out and having a life unless they do the same. "My body, my choice" is dead.  It was killed by Democrat gov't officials at the State and Federal level, and by a US Supreme Court where the 3 solid Roe and Casey supporters wer...

A response to this: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=1295844844726123216&page=1&token=1651949387841 <I>Thomas worried about the "different attitude of the young" and how they bully the Court when they don't get the outcome they want, but how deferential to authority should young people be? </I> It's not about being deferential to authority. It's about thinking, rather than emoting and bullying. <I>When you impugn stare decisis as a "mantra," you call for more analysis and criticism and less passive obeisance to authority. I would say that's inconsistent with a demand that we accept the outcomes handed down by the Court from on high. That too is obeisance.</I> That's not what he's doing.  he's saying "stop throwing temper tantrums when you don't get your way, and engage rationally with the opposition." So, You've got the Alito draft.  Have you engaged with it as a...

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/05/06/cnn-scotus-draft-decision-hasnt-changed-the-midterm-landscape-n467616 Has numbers from an AP poll earlier this year (as a graphic, no link to the poll :-( ) Trimester Legal in all cases Legal in most cases Illegal in most cases Illegal in all cases 1st 38% 23% 22% 16% 2nd 15% 19% 30% 35% 3rd 8% 11% 26% 54% Trimester Mostly legal Mostly illegal 1st 61% 38% 2nd 34% 65% 3rd 19% 80% That's not Roe, that's not Casey, and by the time November rolls around 60%+ of American voters will find that repealing Roe left them either where they want the law to be, or the law still TOO pro abortion

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/ You have to go down a long way to get to the important numbers When, exactly, during a pregnancy should abortion be legal, and at what point should it become illegal? To help answer this question, the survey posed follow-up queries about three periods: six weeks (when cardiac activity – sometimes called a fetal heartbeat – can be detected), 14 weeks (roughly the end of the first trimester), and 24 weeks (near the end of the second trimester). The survey data shows that as pregnancy progresses, opposition to legal abortion grows and support for legal abortion declines. Americans are about twice as likely to say abortion should be legal at six weeks than to say it should be illegal at this stage of a pregnancy: 44% of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal at six weeks (including those who say it should be legal in all cases without exception), 21% say it should be illegal at six weeks (including those wh...

https://draft.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=6714197015890663710 <I>"Leaks can serve a really important role in helping to correct government malfeasance</I> 5 SCOTUS justices voting in a way you don't like is not "government malfeasance" <I>to encourage government to be careful about what it does in secret</I> The end result of this is a public release, the diametric opposite of "what [the government] does in secret" <I> to preserve democratic processes</I>." Roe and Casey were assaults on the democratic process, whereas this is a restoration of them So none of these apply to the leak <I>“ This was a document whose final version was intended to be public within a couple months. This isn’t revealing any type of internal secret or misbehavior.” Do you think the leaker agrees? I would guess that the leaker thinks either: 1. The destruction of a treasured right is misbehavior, or 2. Throwing away ...

  Really? How about all the power CA brings in from out of State? https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation Net imports increased by about 6 percent (4,435 GWh) in 2020 to 81,663 GWh. Total renewable energy reached 33 percent, 90,2080 GWh in 2020, up 2.5 percent from 2019 levels.

 <I>At USA Today, there's "People of color, the poor and other marginalized people to bear the brunt if Roe v. Wade is overturned" by Nada Hassanein.</I> So, we would honestly rewrite that as "fewer black and brown babies will be aborted if Dobbs goes through"? Or do they really want to avoid being honest about the situation? Besides, who thinks DC is going to outlaw abortion? Seriously, the decision says "we are returning this to the States and the political process", not "abortion is now illegal everywhere".  How is it that these people keep on claiming that the decision will block people in DC from getting abortions?

 <I>In the ’80s, a bunch of costume professionals came together to state a resolution that historic costume should not be worn. So my worry is that colleagues in historic costume collections are now going to be pressured by important people to let them wear garments.</I> Wow, talk about your Iran Iraq War analogues. 1: "bunch of costume professionals came together".  So what?  Who elected you God?  Do you personally own the item?  no?  Then you need to STFU 2: "now going to be pressured by important people"?  In what way will those people be "important"?  Because they're publicity hounds? Both sides here suck

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=8694076780561047436&page=1&token=1651762407075 rhhardin said... <I>It was going to be that all of the right and half of the left would vote for republicans in November; now it half of the right and all of the left voting against republicans in November, thanks to this dem trick and rampant republican "Now let's ban abortion!" stupidity that they counted on.</I> 1: The decision was going to come down by July, well before the November elections 2: Tim Ryan, fresh off winning the Dem nomination for US Senator in Ohio, just announced he things there should be absolutely NO limits on abortion, that a woman should be able to get one any time before birth. At least 80% of Americans oppose this position.  But it's what will be demanded by the people who control the Democrats' "mindspace", for lack of a better term. Unless the Dems can shut up their Left end, and that hasn't happe...

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=5365302666446596623&page=1&token=1651762058879  <I>"Elizabeth Warren is one of the only national Democrats I've seen even come close to channeling the rage so so so so many are feeling."</I> Well, when your illegitimate power is about to be legitimately ripped away, rage is what you feel. Of course, you don't have any actual thoughts and legal arguments to offer.  That's why it's all "rage" Next  jim5301 said... <I>However, it was the action of one 25-year-old employee of the federal government. Not an elected official. Not a political appointee. In my view a footnote to the decision itself. Not sure why the Republicans want to distance themselves from the words of the Justice. Can you explain it?</I> Well, since we're not doing that, there's nothing to explain. The words of the draft speak for themselves.  Now, if you Lefties actually had ANY attack o...

 gadfly said... https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=8694076780561047436&page=1&token=1651761874848 <I> Asked about abortion, he’s clear. “I’m very pro-choice,” Trump says. “I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice.”</I> And he still did more for the pro-life movement than any other President in history. Because it's what you do, not what you say you believe, that matters. Now, he's also done a lot for sane and honest members of the "pro-choice" / pro-abortion side, too. because now you can stop lying about Roe / Casey, and engage in honest discussion. And now that you have to actually convince your neighbors, rather than rely on SCTUS to bully them into irrelevance, you have a chance to start talking and acting in a sane and honest manner. 65% of Americans believe that States should be able to ou...

 A response to this: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6329595&postID=8694076780561047436 <I>The substantive problem is the idea itself, that it is preferable to fight in court. The pro-abortion side has experienced a devastating loss in court — though perhaps the appearance of loss is a phantom. Maybe the Court will reject the draft. But the fighting in court over this case is over, and the street protests might still affect the Justices. All you need is one person in the draft majority to shift</I> 1: Roe was an invention of the Courts.  Your "devastating loss in court" is that your illegitimate victory has been cancelled 2: If "street protests affect the Justices", and cause one to go away from the obviously correct decision, you will not like the result. Kylie Rittenhouse was all alone, mobbed by multiple left wing attackers.  He killed two, injured one, and the rest ran away so he could go on his way (whereupon he tried to turn himself in...

A comment on this  "Only a move as extraordinary as eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century" One of the things that sort of blows my mind is how utterly clueless Roe supporters are. What's  Adam Liptak  said here?  He's said "the 7 member invented a right to abortion that had never before existed". Which is to say, he's saying here "Alito is entirely correct when he says that Roe had no basis in anything other than the personal desires of the people who voted for it." Which is really an amazing slam dunk for my side