Dada is the sun, Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police.


Stop it. Just stop it.

Why are supposed 'progressives' and 'liberals' helping the GOP spread their lies? This is really starting to piss me off.

Matt Ygelsias:

DO THE MATH. Before anyone else talks about how Sandra Day O'Connor's "replacement will likely oveturn not just Roe but Griswold, et al." I would encourage everyone to actually count the votes on the relevant case, Casey v. Planned Parenthood. You'll see that Anthony Kennedy voted with the pro-choice majority there. O'Connor could be replaced by Tony Perkins himself and the core of abortion rights would still be in place... really, really, really, really doesn't make sense for Democrats to decide to put this issue front and center. Much better cases where O'Connor was the swing vote include Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, which is about whether the EPA can step in when state environmental agencies don't do their jobs; Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, about HMOs that screw over their clients; or Tennessee v. Lane about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And lying liar Asheesh Siddique, who blogs for Princeton Progressive Review, spews similar nonsense here:

...the abortion-rights folks are undermining what the real issue here is- the possibility that we'll get an anti-regulatory nominee. The single-minded emphasis on Roe, Roe, Roe- even though Roe is really not the big issue at stake here- is providing an excuse for the right to distract from the real economic jurisprudential issues at stake here.

and here:

...appointing Focus on the Family's James Dobson to the Court would have a negligible effect on abortion rights.

and here:

NARAL just keeps peddling the myth that Roe is fundamentally in jeopardy now. Wrong, wrong, wrong, as Matt noted, and I have been trying to explain. The core of abortion rights is safe because Casey isn't in any danger. Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens will uphold the right to privacy. Bush can appoint James Dobson to the Court and it won't make any difference.

The regulatory state is at stake here, not abortion in itself, and we can't let those we'd normally ally with distort this fundamental fact.

and here:

This Is The Reason Why We're Going to Lose

It's the predominance of this type of thinking that is precisely why we're going to fight the new nominee ineffectively. Roe literally is not an issue here ... Anthony Kennedy voted with the four liberals in Casey to uphold choice. Without O'Connor, we still have four liberals: Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter. Plus Kennedy, that's a pro-Roe majority.

NARAL and NOW are going to go crazy talking about abortion, abortion, abortion. What they don't realize is that the worst thing that could happen is a pro-choice nominee who is a strict adherent to the Constitution-in-Exile anti-regulatory philosophy which threatens the legal foundation of all environmental protection, consumer protection, and, indeed, the welfare state itself.

This is so fucking stupid, for so many reasons. First of all, Siddique and Ygelsias's entire argument rests on a single unproven assumption - that Kennedy can be counted on to uphold Roe. They are foolishly (or disingenuously) basing this assumption on the fact that Kennedy voted with the majority in Casey. I've already explained why this doesn't follow.

Plus, even if it were the case that Kennedy was reliably pro-Roe, making the current tally 6-3 in favor, it by no means follows from this that Roe "is not an issue here," to repeat Siddique's deceitful claim. The Court has nine members; every vote counts. Do Ygelsias and Siddique think that this is the last change we're going to see on the Court? Do they think that another anti-Roe judge can't be appointed after this one? If they're right about the 6-3 count, that means the anti-choicers need two more justices on their side. But guess what - they have to get them one at a time. Replacing O'Connor gets them halfway to overturning Roe.

This is like a football coach who, with his team up 14-0, lets the other team score a touchdown, because hey, we're winning by two touchdowns! Letting them score just once won't cost us the victory! - Yeah, but the one after that will, you stupid asshole. Just because you're up by more than one doesn't mean you can start giving away points.

Plus, could Siddique and Yglesias be any less politically astute? The only chance we would stand to defeat an unacceptable Bush nominee is if there is enough public pressure on enough Senators to vote against Bush's choice. Now, tell me which seems more likely to generate such pressure: abortion rights, or the Americans with Disabilities Act? A woman's fundamental autonomy, or environmental protection? You've got to be out of your fucking mind to think that a debate about a nominee's "anti-regulatory philosophy" will whip up the outrage necessary to prevent his or her confirmation by the Senate.

This nomination is about Roe; it is about abortion. Republicans, assisted by useful idiots on the other side of the aisle, will try to mislead the public into thinking otherwise. They cannot be allowed to succeed.

Blogarama - The Blog Directory Sanity is not statistical.