Tiger Beat on the Potomac (thanks Charlie!) morning email thingie tells us:
SETTING UP A ROE VOTE — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will file cloture tonight on legislation from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that would create a federal statute that assures health care providers have the right to provide abortions and patients have the right to receive them.
The move sets up a cloture vote Wednesday, but the votes to move forward aren’t there. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) voted against a nearly identical piece of legislation that failed in the Senate in February, meaning not even the whole Democratic caucus is united on the issue.
But Democrats aren’t backing away from this assured failure, hoping that making an ill-fated attempt and highlighting their disagreement with Republicans on abortion could help them in the midterms.
I guess this is for all those Susan Sarandon fans who say that the Dims are worse than the Republicans because they are not fighting. So here’s the fight, and it is likely doomed.
“If we are not successful, then we go to the ballot box,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “We march straight to the ballot box, and the women of this country and the men who stand with them will vote like they’ve never voted before.”
On the positive side, if they do a roll-call vote, everyone will be on record and that will make a nice moment for a 2022 campaign ad.
Where are the anti-abortionists dancing in the streets?? Why are they not celebrating? They’re acting as if they don’t know what to do with the gift they’ve been wanting for 50 fu(king years. Is their purpose in life completely over?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some of it’s that they’re the dog that just caught the UPS truck…now what?
Some of it’s they’re now off moving on to the next step to turn America into The Republic of Gilead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meanwhile in Okrahoma it sucks to be a woman…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Unfortunately,roket, they’re getting their second wind for birth control. And for the icing on the cake, don’t want to get bored, just change “FU Topics”, same sex marriages, mixed race marriages. Hell, why not get rid of the 19th Amendment, Bill of Rights, PERIOD.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just dropping Frank Wilhoit’s whole post here, rather than just the definition that people usually do, because it’s a powerful statement of liberalism.
Frank Wilhoit 03.22.18 at 12:09 am
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
BDR: or in the modern vernacular:
No Justice, No Peace.