#impeach sam alito | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ramrodd · 3 months

Video

youtube

These Gospels CONTRAST with Paul! Dr. Bart D Ehrman

COMMENTARY:

Giggles, every time I hear you bobbing and weaving around the historicity of Jesus, I am reminded of John Kegan's observation that historians cannot establish any effect Aristotle had on Alexander the Great. It makes me wonder what effect you hope to have on your fan club. All you male refugees from the Boomer food fight of the 60s who avoided military service by becoming permanent students as tenured professors have created a Plato's Cave characterized by toxic paternalism, In the 1969 school year at Indiana University, a black sociologist presented a paper "Woman as Nigger" that described the basis of the complain of feminism, that the executive levels of the anti-war movement were men and women were relegated to cookie sales and upping the body count at protest marches. Someone like Joan Baez was able to get past the glass ceiling by public demand and the marketing of the anei-war/civil rights movement and that toxic paternalism persist in the History community of the America academe, And that toxic paternalism is sustained by the limitations of the Post Modern Historic Deconstruction market place of ideas relative to the infinite horizons of Hegel's Historic Gestalt of dialectical synthesis. The limitations of the Post Modern Historic Deconstruction, which rejects Hegel, allows Sam Aliton to get away with his Dobbs decision and still call himself a Christian as it violates Jesus's precept that the law is made for mana and not Man for the Law. This is Truth in the critical literary analysis of dialectical synthesis, This is the essence of the Christian Nationalism and MAGA Jesus Freaks like Speaker Johnson, the David Koresh of Congress. This is the nature of Fascist sophistry in the case of Alito's reasoning, which is to say, the Law has a life and breath of its own, Alito's reasoning is an example of the snake eating its own tail, a self contained circular argument, It is sort of the Black Hole of Hegelian paradox, a sort of intellectual anti-matter. It is thinking like this that encouraged Southern slave owners to attempt to renege on the sacred oath of the Declaration of Independence. Alito's bump stock decision is identical in format to Heller, Citizens Untied, Dobbs in that they are crafted to achieve a political objective of the John Birch Society, going back to William F. Buckley and the Sharon Statement. Buckley is the master mind of what has become the January 6 criminal enterprise organized to achieve the hostile takeover of America in a Fortune 500 kind of way, This is Public Choice Fresh Water economics for the University of Chicago and Yale. Yale is the Cathedral of William F. Buckley's Nazification Agenda of the Movement Conservatives. In other words, Alito was flying Old Glory up-side down during his confirmation and we now know why he perjured himself and how impeachment works for SCOTUS, If he resigns now, he can keep his pension, The fraud of your Mark is a derivative of the Epistles becomes starkly transparent. This is the battle sustaining the toxic paternalism of the History Department as Plato's Cave, Without Hegel, there is not escape, But with Hegel, the epistemology of Christianity runs straight as a laser from the Talking Cross to the Apostle's Creed by way of the triangulation of the Gospels and the Epistles with Hebrews and Act being the narrative bridge. Pilate's lost euangelion anchors the salvation of the Liberation Gospel of N.T. Wright's interpretation of Pauline Theology, Sam Alito's bump stock theory violates Pauline Theology, which posits an ethic base on the precept that the Law is made for Mana and NOT man for the Law. And, in terms of Hegelian Historic gestalt, taht's the TRUTH, You can take it to the bank.

#youtube

0 notes

cyarskj1899 · 2 years

Text

POLITICS

Pro-Choice Susan Collins Put a Stake in the Heart of Roe

Why is she pretending to be shocked at its demise?

MAY 4 2022 4:12 PM

Nearly four years ago, against the wishes of the majority of her constituents, Sen. Susan Collins cast a critical vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

In a lengthy speech explaining her decision, the Republican from Maine brushed off concerns that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Even among Supreme Court nominees, Collins said, Kavanaugh’s respect for precedent was exceptionally solid.

“In his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as a precedent,” she said. “When I asked him, ‘Would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided?’ he emphatically said, ‘No.’ ”

Of course, the leaked draft of Justice Sam Alito’s majority Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe bears out what political observers on both the left and right have known for years: Kavanaugh was lying through his teeth.

When Donald Trump nominated him to the court, Kavanaugh already had a record of flouting precedent. (He had also written, as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court, that the government’s interest in “favoring fetal life” justified the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent an undocumented minor from terminating her pregnancy.) Collins supported him anyway. She had the same guileless faith—or performance of guileless faith—in Neil Gorsuch, whom she voted to confirm in 2017. When asked the following year whether Gorsuch, a demonstrably precedent-overruling justice, would try to overturn Roe, Collins objected. “He pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent,” she said.

So, if we take her at her word, Collins was the only person in the world who was surprised to learn on Monday that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch voted to overturn Roe. “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” she said on Tuesday.

Collins is no dummy. It seems unlikely that the veteran politician was duped by some slick misdirection from two consecutive Supreme Court nominees. The reality of her situation, now, is clear: She never much cared about Roe to begin with.

It’s classic her: Collins’ record in the Senate is speckled with ostensibly bold moves that, upon closer examination, function more like feints. She helped save the Affordable Care Act by casting a decisive vote against the Republican Party’s attempted repeal, then turned around and voted to repeal the individual mandate. She voted against Betsy DeVos for Trump’s secretary of education—but only after voting to greenlight the nomination in committee and send it to a full vote. She made a strong defense of Planned Parenthood when she voted against the ACA repeal, then defamed Planned Parenthood in her support of Kavanaugh, erroneously accusing the group of mounting knee-jerk, partisan campaigns against previous justices.

She has taken some seemingly principled steps to protect the country from the worst of her own party, but only once her ineffectuality was guaranteed. Her vote to convict Trump after his second impeachment trial came with the knowledge that the Senate would not meet the two-thirds threshold required to convict. Ditto the bill she introduced in February with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, which would codify the protections of Roe in U.S. law. The Senate does not have a filibuster-proof supermajority in favor of abortion rights, so the bill is going nowhere. Collins knows that—and she only proposed the bill in response to a more progressive, comprehensive abortion rights bill introduced by Democrats.

In other words, Collins is much more invested in her own thinly sourced image as a plainspoken, even-handed political moderate than she is in any particular policy outcome. Her reasons for this, I imagine, are both personal and political: She likes to think of herself as an independent thinker who stands apart from her peers, and she must studiously calibrate her politics to the peculiar wavelength of the voting public in Maine.

As her party has moved further right and endorsed increasingly authoritarian politics, Collins’ veneer of contemplative moderation has approached the absurd. She publicly announced that she would not vote for Trump in 2016, writing that he “does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country.” Four years later, when Trump ran for reelection, she refused to say whether or not she’d vote to keep him in office. What changed? Had he proved her wrong, and shown himself to be an inclusive, healing leader? Or was it simply that Collins herself was up for reelection in 2020, and wary of alienating members of her own party?

And who can forget her famous claim, stretching all reasonable bounds of credulity, that she believed Trump had learned a “pretty big lesson” from the impeachment process in 2020—mere months before he would attempt to overturn an election and incite a violent coup—such that there was no need to convict him?

This has long been the Collins M.O.: Purport to expect the best from fellow conservatives who have already shown their worst, then act bemused and disappointed when they behave exactly as they’ve demonstrated they would. Collins’ definition of political moderation is participating in the dismantling of democratic norms and the infrastructure of human rights, then performing mild displeasure when they proceed to fall apart.

For years, this mismatch of action and rhetoric has allowed Collins to have it both ways: to keep her party in power—and the GOP money flowing her way—while keeping her hands relatively clean enough to maintain the support from independents that Maine’s elected officials require.

But what does it say about her position on abortion? Collins appears to be somebody who believes abortion should be legal and would prefer Roe remain intact, but doesn’t think it important enough to warrant the risk of—well, anything. Not the support of her GOP allies, not the possibility of a primary challenger from the right, and certainly not her seat in the Senate. To Collins, the dissolution of the precedent that has saved countless lives and allowed generations of women to pursue lives, careers, and parenthood on their own terms was never going to be an urgent human rights crisis, a worst-case scenario worth setting aside one’s personal interests to avoid. It will be, for her, a fleeting disappointment. Or at least the affectation of one.

The case of Susan Collins should be a warning for political activists in thrall to fair-weather allies. It is now clearer than ever that Collins’ putative support for abortion rights did a lot more for her than she ever did for it. (Planned Parenthood should soak in its regret for the years it spent promoting Collins, sometimes at the expense of Democratic challengers.) The imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade proves that there is no middle ground between authoritarian, patriarchal, white-supremacist rule and the alternative. If a supporter of abortion rights will not stick her neck out in the final, desperate hour, she never supported abortion rights at all.

0 notes