Trump's Dobbs Strategy

I'd say it's the right one.  You are free to differ.

Related:

Abortion and the Wages of Concupiscence Unrestrained

and

Slavery, Abortion, and 'Skin in the Game'

 

Comments

[Joe Odegaard]

Trump is a man. The ladies who need to change won't listen to men on this issue. Trump is being wise, and it is our holy sisters who need to preach.

[BV]

Arguments don't have testicles!

[Joe Odegaard]

Yes arguments don't, but tell that to the ladies, and see how far you get. Their vehement resistance is formidable.

[BV]

In a fight between reason and concupiscence, the smart money is on the latter.

[BV]

Joe,

I know you love Amanda Marcotte. Check this one out: https://www.salon.com/2024/04/08/men-punching-random-women-in-nyc-a-desperate-last-gasp-of-the-male-rage-fueling-maga/

and this one: https://www.salon.com/2024/04/09/evangelicals-wont-be-bothered-by-abortion-gambit--they-know-hes-lying/

Now enough of this Dementocratic shit: It's a beatiful Spring day in the Sonora desert. I shall the mountain bike and head out for a hard ride. Later!

[Anthony Flood]

Bill, I exercised my freedom to differ here:
https://anthonygflood.com/2024/04/at-the-end-of-the-day-trumps-compromise/
Compromise is inevitable, and I'll vote for Trump, but his "I'm for whatever the states decide" posture will exact a price we cannot now calculate (although reaction to the AZ Supreme Court's decision to ban all abortions may speed the day we learn what that price is).

[BV]

Tony,

You say the context is not eschatology, and then you bring in eschatology. I honestly don't know what you are driving at.

[Vito B. Caiati]

Is it not unreasonable to expect that a politician, especially one seeking the highest elected office of a nation in an advanced state of moral degeneration, act as a prophet who, in upholding the honor of God, leads himself and his party to defeat? I, who detest the killing of the unborn, wish that this was not the case, that the reasoning of Machiavelli and others was false, that what is good and true always guided political action, but sadly none of this is the case.

[BV]

Vito,

Quoting from the article to which I linked:

>>Mr. Trump said as much on Monday, declaring that the “states will determine by vote, or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case, the law of the state.” That can hardly be improved upon as a lesson in what Chief Justice Rehnquist called “our federalism.” Mr. Trump adds that “Many states will be different … at the end of the day it is all about the will of the people.” <<

The Dobbs decision ends thusly:

>>We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.<<

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392

If I understand this -- and I may be missing something! -- the decision is that the making of laws re: abortion is an affair of the individual states only. There is no Constitutional right to an abortion, but also, the federal government has no power to makes laws regulating abortion. For, acc. to the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to United States [the fed. gov't] by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people [of those States].

Now Vito, is that the way you understand the Dobbs decision?

You and I agree about the grave immorality of abortion. I have in these pages given many rigorous arguments against the morality of abortion.

My position is that a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the preservation of our republic is a return to federalism. This implies, given our overall moral decadence, that many states will legally permit the slaughter of innocent human beings from conception on for any reason or for no reason. This is a morally repugnant consequence we have to accept if the republic is to continue. In any case, abortion cannot be stopped by federal legislation, as should be perfectly obvious.

If you disagree with my position, tell me exactly why.

[Vito B. Caiati]

“[A] necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the preservation of our republic is a return to federalism. This implies, given our overall moral decadence, that many states will legally permit the slaughter of innocent human beings from conception on for any reason or for no reason. This is a morally repugnant consequence we have to accept if the republic is to continue. In any case, abortion cannot be stopped by federal legislation, as should be perfectly obvious.”

I intended my comment to indicate my agreement with you on this matter, but it was perhaps too brief and general. If the nation, which is so divided by ideology and values is to survive, the embrace of federalism is essential.

With regard to “abortion cannot be stopped by federal legislation,” on which we also agree, I commented on this point, if you recall, in August of last year:

“[I]n the Dobbs Case, … the majority held: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives” (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf). [Some wish] to interpret the phrase “returned to the people and their elected representatives” as one that permits the federal legislature, the Congress, to establish a national [policy on abortion].... However, … such an interpretation contradicts the Tenth Amendment, which decrees that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Of the enumerated or expressed powers granted to the United States, i.e., the federal government, none include that of regulating abortion, nor is such regulation proscribed to the states; therefore, such power resides with the latter” (https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2023/08/abortion-and-last-nights-gop-debate.html).

[Vito B. Caiati]

I should have mentioned that the return to federalism will occasion the vociferous, unrelenting opposition of the Left, which, through its dominance of the federal state, important sectors of it that have already been weaponized, and so much of civil society, seeks to impose its will on every part of the nation, as well as abroad. It is in the nature of its ideology that on one can be left in peace to follow an alternative path. The Left's unhinged reaction to Dobbs or to Texas' desire to protect its border illustrate what awaits any federalist revival. If it succeeds in gaining mastery over more of the federal courts and--its ultimate objective--the Supreme Court, then it would kill any federalist project by further ignoring and mangling the Constitution.

[BV]

Vito,

Thank you for the clarification, and especially for digging up your comment from last August. I am happy that we agree on this. But there are people -- my friend Brian Bosse is one -- who disagree. And then there is Mike Pence who, although a wimp and a milquetoast, is not stupid and -- I should think --knows more about the Constitution and the law than I do. When I write about a topic like this one I write as an educated layman.

As for your second comment, I fear that you are right. This is why Trump is our last chance.

The upside of all this is that you and I are old men, not long for this insane world. The downside is that we take good care of ourselves. Imagine living til 90! I want to die in my bed reading the Phaedo and the Gospel of John, not on a barricade with my AR-15.

[Joe Odegaard]

I want to die standing up.

St. Benedict of Norcia died standing up.

But there are many ways to die standing up.

[BV]

Better than on your knees -- unless you are praying.