We are only at the End of the Beginning

The decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation is a necessary victory on the path to eradicating the wrong of abortion. Few would have believed it possible, let alone see it realized in their lifetimes, yet here we are. We have the tireless work of an anti-abortion movement to thank for this, which spent the last several decades since Roe make the argument against abortion and for life. The decisions of Roe and Casey were wrong and depended upon the most tenuous and tendentious arguments. In the end, the appeal was largely to inertia; that is, having made a terrible decision and enabled the practice to generate a unjust social order, stare decisis remained the only legal bulwark protecting it from being struck down. Finally, owing to the choices of Trump, three new justices, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett, when given the opportunity, joined Alito, Roberts and Thomas in a stunning 6-3 decision in the most extraordinary of circumstances reversing Roe and Casey.

However, as much as we may rejoice in this decision, it is palpably only the end of the beginning. In order to eradicate the wrong of abortion, we had to reverse the lie that there is any fundamental human right to kill the child in utero (let alone that this right could ever be reserved to the mother (and father)). And I dare say that none within the anti-abortion movement is satisfied with the decision about whether such a right or privilege exists being left to the states. Even before Dobbs, minds had already considered the grounds for a federal ban on abortion based on the 14th amendment. The impetus for this will only intensify as states that permit abortion promote interstate travel, often paid for by employers, so residents where abortion is prohibited or strictly regulated can travel out-of-state to one where an abortion can be procured.

To paraphrase Lincoln in his House Divided Speech:

“A house divided against itself, cannot stand.”
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half pro-abortion and half anti-abortion.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of abortion will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.

Jun 25, 2022 4:11 PM

dover0beach

Uncategorized

150 responses to “We are only at the End of the Beginning”

1 2

Rex Anger

Jun 28, 2022 2:12 PM

“logic”

Never your lot’s strong suit, m0nty…
dover0beach

Jun 28, 2022 2:23 PM

Dover: you can apologise any time

Sorry, but a link accompanying would have been useful, though it is on its face a very weird argument.

1
dover0beach

Jun 28, 2022 2:26 PM

The “logic” used to justify Dobbs can also apply equally to Loving.

You could try but it wouldn’t be as convincing. And I say that as someone that isn’t an originalist.

1
m0nty

Jun 28, 2022 4:27 PM

You could try but it wouldn’t be as convincing. And I say that as someone that isn’t an originalist.

The five in the majority don’t care about being convincing. They have the power, they don’t need to care about the quality of their argument. There is no “try” with a possibility of failure. Their word is law.

There is a long list of personal rights that the five are going to strike down. Clarence Thomas set out some of them in his ruling. Short of stacking the court, how can they be stopped? They are a law unto themselves. As the Federalist Society planned all along.
Boambee John

Jun 28, 2022 4:57 PM

The five in the majority don’t care about being convincing. They have the power, they don’t need to care about the quality of their argument.

m0nty-fa

Did they learn that attitude from watching the “liberal” justices when they had the majority? When USSC observers would routinely (and accurately) predict the reactions of the “liberal” justices even before evidence was taken? Or is it different when your side does it?

Don’t forget that even a “liberal” icon like RBG thought that the reasoning in Roe was inadequate.

1
Boambee John

Jun 28, 2022 5:00 PM

m0nty-fa

Short of stacking the court, how can they be stopped? They are a law unto themselves. As the Federalist Society planned all along.

Let me correct that.

Short of stacking the court, how could they be stopped? They were a law unto themselves. As the DemonRat Party planned all along.

The DemonRats and the rest of the so-called “progressive” left in the US set up a system that would produce results that they wanted, dreaming that no-one else would copy their actions. They made the bed, now they must lie in it.

1
Trained Observer

Jun 28, 2022 5:03 PM

Dover: no problem, you can apologise later when the analysis becomes reality.
Rex Anger

Jun 28, 2022 5:40 PM

you can apologise later when the analysis becomes reality

Wot? A leftist frothing in rage at one of their sacred cows being tipped, is now passively-aggressively threatening societal catastrophe?

A very Trained response from a genuinely un-Observant person…

1
Hubris

Jun 28, 2022 6:52 PM

Rex: used to be that conservatives promoted individual rights. Now they are leftists in your book. Yet it’s your approach that imposes the State on people’s liberties.
Seems to me a lot you here are more like the rancid communists of the 1950s in your approach to dogma.
TE makes a valid point and one that already resonates. Decision on Utahs abortion ban will be the start of the process in testing exactly who is oppressing who.

1
Trained Observer

Jun 28, 2022 9:06 PM

Rex: you clearly aren’t up on the reading. My point is that this decision is going to unravel in the States and then roll back up to the Supremes in a quite different barrel. I think the biblical meme is: as ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Happily, people in Australia seem to have completely gotten over the religious influence in politics.
Rex Anger

Jun 28, 2022 10:10 PM

Hello, leftwits.

I know who you are, and the bankruptcy of the muh rightses! arguments you’re trying to spruik.

I also know that most actual conservative (and even non-activist liberal) folk tend to not need the State’s permission or threat of coercive action like you do in order to treat folks with decency and compassion. Or at least civility.

So while you two may be frothing furiously about mixed race marriages and homosexual relationships and how removing bad case law that invented a federalised constitutional right to infanticide is somehow going to be The End Of All Life As We Know It, the rest of the world will be getting on with more important things. Like life. And living.

See the pair of you and your derivative, scripted bullshit next week, when West Virginia v. EPA drops. 🙂

1
dover0beach

Jun 29, 2022 12:19 PM

The five in the majority don’t care about being convincing. They have the power, they don’t need to care about the quality of their argument. There is no “try” with a possibility of failure. Their word is law.

And yet the argument they provide is very convincing on the history and traditions re abortion, and effectively undermines the claim in Roe. And that was the problem with Roe, which is why you and others have had to try and hang your hats on stare decisis and precedent in between pounding the desk.

There is a long list of personal rights that the five are going to strike down. Clarence Thomas set out some of them in his ruling. Short of stacking the court, how can they be stopped?

I certainly hope so with Obergefell. I’ve said since Dobbs that the attempts to foreclose that possibility were not only largely politically motivated, a salve if you will, but unnecessary as well as being counterproductive, both in terms of the development of Dobbs re abortion, but further a field.
How do you stop them? You could have stopped Dobbs simply by not contesting the Mississippi law that limited abortions to 15 weeks. The only way Obergefell is likely to get reversed is if a state enacts a law against polyamorous ‘marriage’ or some such and this is contested by some Drag Queen Empire public interest group/ law firm. Otherwise, if no case comes to court they can’t do jack.

BTW, I’m curious about this shift to talking about personal rights as opposed to individual rights all of a sudden.

1
dover0beach

Jun 29, 2022 12:22 PM

you clearly aren’t up on the reading. My point is that this decision is going to unravel in the States and then roll back up to the Supremes in a quite different barrel. I think the biblical meme is: as ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Already happened: Roe -> Dobbs.

1
Boambee John

Jun 29, 2022 1:12 PM

Dover

From the Open Thread.

Kneel

It’s not the case that “conservative” judges “removed” a right, it’s that “progressive” judges created one that they shouldn’t have – they had faulty reasoning, SCOTUS has now decided (which aligns with the view of many legal scholars both before and after this ruling – even “progressive” ones).

I wonder what the reaction would be of so-called “progressives”, if they were to be asked whether “stare decisis” should apply to Dred Scott?

Oh, hang on, they were mad keen on the decision at the time. Forget my question.

1
Trained Observer

Jun 29, 2022 3:11 PM

Rex etc: Much as you do go on about murder etc, you ignore the real world questions about the decision to abort. Women have to face great difficulty with pregnancy (that much should not be a controversy) and they face huge risks with both giving birth and choosing abortion (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/).
The idea that a bunch of public servants, police or whatever may intrude on that situation in any way is obscene. This is not a party political question. It’s not a partisan question. Though it may be a case where religion of sorts is imposed by law (even though no prominent religious text refers at all to abortion).
Rex Anger

Jun 29, 2022 3:28 PM

Much as you do go on about murder etc.

You have reached a point of agreement about what abortion practically is in 90+ per cent of all cases worldwide. There is hope for you yet… 🙂

The idea that a bunch of public servants, police or whatever may intrude on that situation in any way is obscene

But it was all perfectly OK for them to do so when Roe was decided back in 1973, eh?

Women have to face great difficulty with pregnancy (that much should not be a controversy) and they face huge risks with both giving birth and choosing abortion.

Sorry Comrade, but we’ve already had m0nty run through this entire dishonest and dissembling script from its feigned concern about risks to women at the top, to its collapse at but muh rightses! 3-4 days ago. It’s all upthread here and throughout last Weekend’s Open Thread.

That you feel the need to start it all again from Square One, suggests that:
A) You are not a Trained Observer at all, and

B) You lot really don’t have anything to argue with on Roe’s behalf at all, and never had in the first place.
Rex Anger

Jun 29, 2022 3:32 PM

Though it may be a case where religion of sorts is imposed by law

Ermagerd. Overturning Roe and Dobbs = The imposition of debbil-debbil Christianist theocracy (though we can’t tell you exactly what that looks like cos we have no idea what our script actually means.l). A brand new Dark Age is upon us, I tells ya!

You people lack imagination and creativity. No wonder the world you lot have conjured is so awfully beige…
Boambee John

Jun 29, 2022 3:37 PM

[Un]Trained Observer

and they face huge risks with both giving birth and choosing abortion

Define “huge”, with respect to the maternal death rate in advanced western nations. Ditto re the death rate during abortions in the same nations.

1
Boambee John

Jun 29, 2022 3:38 PM

[Un]Trained Observer

(even though no prominent religious text refers at all to abortion).

“Thou shalt do no murder” is not prominent enough for you?

1
Lee

Jun 29, 2022 3:55 PM

The idea that a bunch of public servants, police or whatever may intrude on that situation in any way is obscene.

What I find truly “obscene” is dismembering and killing babies.

2
m0nty

Jun 29, 2022 3:55 PM

And yet the argument they provide is very convincing on the history and traditions re abortion

The new legal doctrine that Alito has plucked out of thin air for Dobbs is based on a patently wrong summation of history. No, there was not an “unbroken tradition” in America of criminalising abortion. Actual historians – you know, ones who studied history, not law – disagree with the lawyers on this one.

Alito’s doctrine that you can’t declare a right unless it has an “unbroken tradition” since the founding of the USA centuries ago is insultingly ridiculous. It is the bare assertion of a partisan reactionary, manufactured to prevent progress.

BTW, I’m curious about this shift to talking about personal rights as opposed to individual rights all of a sudden.

I was using them interchangeably, didn’t mean anything by it.
m0nty

Jun 29, 2022 3:59 PM

Question for Cats: do you agree that a right to privacy exists in America, even though one was not laid out in the Constitution explicitly? How do you think a right to privacy should be cast in the law, given the situation we have now where SCOTUS seems determined to remove it?
Rex Anger

Jun 29, 2022 4:09 PM

Question for Cats: do you agree that a right to privacy exists in America, even though one was not laid out in the Constitution explicitly? How do you think a right to privacy should be cast in the law, given the situation we have now where SCOTUS seems determined to remove it?

Are Roe and Dobbs matters of individual privacy now, eh?

Give it up, Fat Man. The Left as you knew it is dead. You lot are just too caught up in its corpse’s intertia to see it.

1
Rex Anger

Jun 29, 2022 4:10 PM

I was using them interchangeably, didn’t mean anything by it

You flap that arm anyharder Benito M0ntylini, and you’ll tear your flipper off with it…
m0nty

Jun 29, 2022 4:14 PM

Are Roe and Dobbs matters of individual privacy now, eh?

The decisions were based on a right to privacy, yes.

Rex, you really need to get more knowledgeable about these things if you don’t want to look like a goose while talking about them.
Boambee John

Jun 29, 2022 4:30 PM

m0nty-fa

No, there was not an “unbroken tradition” in America of criminalising abortion.

Neither was there ‘an “unbroken tradition” in America of legalising abortion’, so Roe must have been wrong from the beginning.

You are getting desperate now.

1
Rex Anger

Jun 29, 2022 4:33 PM

Rex, you really need to get more knowledgeable about these things if you don’t want to look like a goose while talking about them

Poor Benito M0ntylini.

Let’s just say that your scripts are so predictable and your lack of understanding of the talking points you spout are so blatant, that I need only say ‘No’ to whatever your ambit is, and I already understand far more on the topic than you.

It’s a bit like you lot and the Florida ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill. It forbids the teaching of radical gender theory to Kindergarten and Primary School-grade children. But you lot can’t argue with that, so instead throw tantrums about how it allegedly means you can’t say ‘Gay’ in public. And the response has been to run around screaming the word GAAAAAAAAAAAY! in public as a distraction…
Trained Observer

Jun 29, 2022 4:57 PM

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

People seem to have not noted the link.

Nothing above leads me to think any of you have considered the reality you are promoting. Women will always be the ones who decide abortion. You can lawyer it any way you like. It will not change that fact. It is as it should be and always has been.
Rex Anger

Jun 29, 2022 5:09 PM

It is as it should be and always has been

Yes yes. It’s a woman’s right to commit infanticide because pregnancy is risky. A terribly dishonest ambit, since the vast majority of abortions are lifestyle choices.

Yet our proud defenders of those poor, oppressed wymminses like the [Un]trained [Non-]Oberver won’t ever talk at all about the health dangers to the woman who undergoes an abortion procedure. Such things just held up as gruesome, passive-aggressive threats towards all who might get between them and having their own way. A bit like John Malkovitch’s violent fruit-loop character in Con Air threatening to murder Bunny…

I hope the Trained Observer is actually a female in the meatspace. This whole “We are your champions and we know best cos we are your champions and we know best”act by almost exclusively male leftists is so patronising it’s puerile. And more than a little misogynistic…
Boambee John

Jun 29, 2022 5:54 PM

[Un]Trained Observer

It will not change that fact. It is as it should be and always has been.

If you are going to plagiarise, try not to alter the original, which is “As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end”.

1
m0nty

Jun 29, 2022 8:24 PM

Let’s just say that your scripts are so predictable and your lack of understanding of the talking points you spout are so blatant, that I need only say ‘No’ to whatever your ambit is, and I already understand far more on the topic than you.

You didn’t know that Roe and Dobbs revolve around an implied right to privacy, and yet you jumped in bum-first with your 100% wrong hot take.

Ignorance is no excuse when you’re talking about the law.

the vast majority of abortions are lifestyle choices

The choice is mostly about not being poor. This is particularly an issue in America where health care is so expensive. You lot talk about “lifestyle choices” as if it’s a frippery, but the choice is a very serious one made for serious reasons.

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

If the Republican Party offered a much better lifestyle to mothers, maybe many more of them would have these babies. As it is, mothers tend to have children up to the point where they can reasonably afford them, and not as much after. This is a perfectly reasonable system.

Forcing women to become poor is very much in the old Republican Establishment mould, where the rich capitalists are happy to create a permanent underclass to work at their factories for low wages in perpetuity. Where is db’s new Trump-era economic support for the herrenvolk to propagate? Nowhere to be found.
Boambee John

Jun 29, 2022 8:56 PM

m0nty-fa

Ignorance is no excuse when you’re talking about the law.

So what is your excuse for the gross ignorance you displayed (multiple times) in your commentary on the parallel 2nd Amendment case, and your silly comparison of it with Roe case?

If the Republican Party offered a much better lifestyle to mothers, maybe many more of them would have these babies.

Perhaps you can point us to the statistical data showing a significant drop in abortions when the DemonRats are in power? Or are you just making stuff up?

Forcing women to become poor is very much in the old Republican Establishment mould, where the rich capitalists are happy to create a permanent underclass to work at their factories for low wages in perpetuity.

Maybe the DemonRat administrations that presided over the export of many jobs to other nations should have thought their actions through?

1
dover0beach

Jun 30, 2022 11:44 AM

The new legal doctrine that Alito has plucked out of thin air for Dobbs is based on a patently wrong summation of history. No, there was not an “unbroken tradition” in America of criminalising abortion. Actual historians – you know, ones who studied history, not law – disagree with the lawyers on this one.

Oh, the historians disagree with the lawyers about what was criminal and what wasn’t? This should be good.

Alito’s doctrine that you can’t declare a right unless it has an “unbroken tradition” since the founding of the USA centuries ago is insultingly ridiculous. It is the bare assertion of a partisan reactionary, manufactured to prevent progress.

It’s hardly knew to Alito, and if it had no importance, why did the majority in Roe refer to the ‘history and tradition’ of abortion and the law even if it did this in a shambolic manner? Because it was relevant to any claim that there was an such federal right arising out of ’emanations forming a penumbra’.

Still, I don’t think the ‘history and tradition’ angle is necessarily exhaustive nor that it necessarily should be the predominant angle.

2
dover0beach

Jun 30, 2022 12:23 PM

Question for Cats: do you agree that a right to privacy exists in America, even though one was not laid out in the Constitution explicitly?

Really hard to know what you mean by ‘right to privacy’. Government can demand to know our vaccination status. It can look into our bank accounts for tax, or other legal (alimony) purposes. The other thing here is the intellectual and moral poverty of a position that relies on privacy to maintain the abortion license as if this were a matter of privacy. The problem with any such position is the difficulty of maintaining the private-public distinction, without also controlling the background principles necessary to sustain it, while also pretending that they are not necessary.

2
Rex Anger

Jun 30, 2022 1:56 PM

Ignorance is no excuse when you’re talking about the law.

I thought I heard another rhetorical rake cracking over the Fat Man’s forehead.

It’s got a beautiful, almost transcdenent quality to it. Not unlike the sound of a willow bat striking a leather cricket ball. Or the rattle of coal lumps and the metallic crunch and clang of a shovel biting into a coal pile, and how it rings when the coal is flung off it into a firebox…

#ASMR

#RightProper
Rex Anger

Jun 30, 2022 2:05 PM

The choice is mostly about not being poor.

The Fat Man argues abortion is something poor people do.

Okay, can the Fat Man explain why most of the Third World, which has long lived well below what the average Democrat activist (on several hundred thousand USD per year, before the trust fund kicks in) might deem a decent living wage, have such massive birth rates?

Could it be that the least well-off in America are still so rich, relative to the rest of the world, that this latest infanticide argument fails just as hard as the ones about muh privacy!, muh rights!, muh wymminses and muh racism! that came before? And when do we start the cycle, like some rotten sexual-Marxist lunar progression, again?

#Goalpost-ShiftingGangs,Assemble!

#YourMasterRequiresOfYou…
Rex Anger

Jun 30, 2022 2:08 PM

The Fat Man argues abortion is something poor people do.

This should read as: The Fat Man argues abortion is something poor people want to do, but can’t because evil Republicans make them poor.

What a swell and upstanding fellow the Fat Man is.

M0nty for Politburo Chairman. Forever…

1
dover0beach

Jun 30, 2022 4:54 PM

Forcing women to become poor is very much in the old Republican Establishment mould, where the rich capitalists are happy to create a permanent underclass to work at their factories for low wages in perpetuity. Where is db’s new Trump-era economic support for the herrenvolk to propagate? Nowhere to be found.

LOL, that must be why all the big corporates were falling over themselves to pay for out-of-states so their female wage-slaves could continue working without have to worry about maternity leave, etc.

1
m0nty

Jun 30, 2022 5:39 PM

The Fat Man argues abortion is something poor people do.

No, you idiot. I was saying it is something women do to avoid becoming poor.

You lack basic reading comprehension, Rex.

LOL, that must be why all the big corporates were falling over themselves to pay for out-of-states so their female wage-slaves could continue working without have to worry about maternity leave, etc.

Yes db, you prove my point. The corporates do this because Republican state governments do not. Because the Republican Party is still the party of rich capitalists, oppressing the poor. Trump economics is just Reagan economics: if you are poor, you get no help at all.

Next time you claim that Republicans are going to support family formation after birth, give yourself an uppercut.
Rex Anger

Jun 30, 2022 5:46 PM

No, you idiot. I was saying it is something women do to avoid becoming poor.

Wow. Certainly shows where you lot place your value, Fat Man.

You anti-human arse.
Rex Anger

Jun 30, 2022 5:48 PM

Because the Republican Party is still the party of rich capitalists, oppressing the poor

Ah. The The other side is evil! And if you point out our hypocrisy, yooz a bigot! fallacy.

After a week of utter failure, why not reinforce it with the oldest and laziest Leftist trope of them all…

1
Rex Anger

Jun 30, 2022 5:51 PM

The corporates do this because Republican state governments do not

Hmmm…. Who are the true parties of wage slavery, then?

The Republican State governments and corporations that allow and mandate parental leave?

Or the large, woke corporates who don’t?

Sometimes m0nty, it pays to keep your fat mouth shut.

Because when you unmask, you are a truly awful human being. Bird-level appalling, even.

1
Boambee John

Jun 30, 2022 6:32 PM

Dover

LOL, that must be why all the big corporates were falling over themselves to pay for out-of-states so their female wage-slaves could continue working without have to worry about maternity leave, etc.

And are being cheered on by the oh-so-sensitive DemonRats for doing so. The DemonRats need plantations to lord over.

1
Boambee John

Jun 30, 2022 6:34 PM

Because the Republican Party is still the party of rich capitalists, oppressing the poor.

m0nty-fa really hasn’t looked at the two demographics that now form the core of the DemonRats – the ultra rich, and the poor who must be kept that way so that the DemonRats have serfs to lord over.

2
dover0beach

Jun 30, 2022 6:52 PM

Yes db, you prove my point. The corporates do this because Republican state governments do not. Because the Republican Party is still the party of rich capitalists, oppressing the poor. Trump economics is just Reagan economics: if you are poor, you get no help at all.

As Boambee John notes, the move is being cheered on by the laptop class. It’s clear that your excessive focus on Republicans is a cope for the tremendous overlap between establishment Republicans and Democrats on this issue, which you can’t admit, but which will become all the more stark as the American First movement changes the economic and social preferences of the Republicans, while the Dems become more and more the political wing of the corporate sector.

2
Boambee John

Jun 30, 2022 7:37 PM

m0nty-fa needs to look at some of the “grass roots” DemonRats.

Bill Gates? Unpopular in some parts of the world, because of his experiments with various vaccines, with less-than-successful results. He and his vaccines are Persona Non Grata in some places. Bezos? Fights tooth and nail against unionism, gives his delivery drivers such tight schedules that they have to carry a piss bottle in the truck. Zuck? A champion of free speech (not) at FarceChook. Soros? An actual tool of the Nazis, now funds every so-called “progressive” cause around. There is a link there.

All men of the people, m0nty-fa would have you believe.

1
m0nty

Jun 30, 2022 10:59 PM

It’s clear that your excessive focus on Republicans is a cope for the tremendous overlap between establishment Republicans and Democrats on this issue, which you can’t admit, but which will become all the more stark as the American First movement changes the economic and social preferences of the Republicans, while the Dems become more and more the political wing of the corporate sector.

So far the America First movement has been as successful as the Tea Party at changing the economic policy of the Republican Party. Which is to say, it has been a massive failure.

It’s been what, six years or so? And nothing. You talk a big game, but so far you have nothing to show for it.
dover0beach

Jun 30, 2022 11:39 PM

So far the America First movement has been as successful as the Tea Party at changing the economic policy of the Republican Party. Which is to say, it has been a massive failure.

It’s been what, six years or so? And nothing. You talk a big game, but so far you have nothing to show for it.

America First got us the scalp of Roe and three SCOTUS picks although they’re more Federalist/ Est. Repubs then America First. We’ve been fighting the establishment Republicans on the economics for 5, and we are getting better candidates that can push more and better economic and social policies through, like Kent and Vance. The next two years will be interesting.

Compare that to the Squad or Sanders that talk a big game but fold every damn time.

1
Boambee John

Jul 1, 2022 8:28 AM

Dover

m0nty-fa doesn’t see the multiple failures of the “Squad” as failures, merely as delayed successes.

BTW, whatever happened to the Green Nude Eel?

1
Rex Anger

Jul 1, 2022 12:19 PM

BTW, whatever happened to the Green Nude Eel?

SCOTUS just murdered it.

The attempts to do it via political process died publicly back in 2019. So the Democrats and all their Executive and corporate cronies and fellow travellers sought to impose it by stealth through authorities like the EPA.

Now, it’s only big corporations able to push it unaccountably. And I suspect that it’s now going to mean the risks that a big company working to decarbonise and force decarbonisation on everything and everyone below it is eventually going to make it unworkable.

They will take so many big hits to their bottom lines, that even the most woke corporates will give up before long. There’s no longer the political and bureaucratic impetus or cover (and taxpayer-gouged ‘compensation’) to protect them from the consequences of their economic choices.

1

Older Comments

1 2

New Catallaxy

We are only at the End of the Beginning

150 responses to “We are only at the End of the Beginning”

Leave a Reply