Off Narrative

Despite my reservations about judicial over-reach, the political response is certainly worth noting. This would be sure to drive the GOP-haters and the Trump-demonizers up the wall, if they bothered to consider it:

3 Comments for “Off Narrative”

  1. posted by Kosh III on

    Changed? Proved it by fixing the 2020 Platform to remove the hate and discrimination. and undo the hurt done by the Grand Old Posterior. Otherwise the GOP can continue to frak off.

  2. posted by Jorge on

    I’m still thinking about the critique that “constitutional textualism” is a sad disappointment for conservative voters.

    It is not simply because it is open to interpretation. That’s too easy. The problem with “constitutional textualism” or “strict constructionism” or “calling balls and strikes” is quite simply this: it is a conservative judicial philosophy.

    Somewhere along the way, the Republican party’s priority in judicial nominations shifted from overturning Roe v. Wade to preventing the next Roe v. Wade from ever happening. The first goal never had any hope of happening under a philosophy that respects precedent and looks to the law as it was written, when it was written. The second was far too modest, allowing a whole bunch of baby Roes accumulate over time.

    What I say next is mainly about Christian conservatives; if there’s a way to separate them from the conservatives who are upset about this ruling I don’t yet know it.

    The fact of the matter, no matter how much apocalyptic Christians try to delude themselves, is that it is not possible for the country to be both apocalyptic Christian and a pluralistic, Democratic society that demands equal weight to all… voters. It is not possible to be part of a religion that says such things as, “Do the hard thing, not the popular thing!” and “Count on most people you know and love to be doomed!”, and expect the supremacy of that religion’s policies in public opinion. Religious reactionaries have no future in this country.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The Republican response has been varied, ranging from

    (a) unhinged fury from conservative Christians who make up about 40% of the Republican base and the Republican politicians who have made a career of whipping them up (e.g. Senator Hawley) to

    (b) acceptance (as distinct from endorsement) coupled with relief that the decision takes the issue off the table from establishment Republican politicians like Chuck Grassley (“It’s the law of the land. And it probably makes uniform what a lot of states have already done. And probably negates Congress’s necessity for acting.”)), to

    (c) embrace (e.g. Senator Fischer: It’s important that we recognize that all Americans have equal rights under our Constitution. I’m fine with it.“).

    My own read is that the Republican establishment politicians like Senator Grassley are doing an unspoken straddle, reserving a “while I disagree with the decision” (judicial overreach or whatever) defense to blunt the fury of conservative Christians, while taking into consideration that 80-85% of Americans favor employment equality and trying to avoid alienating them in a tough election cycle.

    That makes sense.

    Maintaining employment inequality is a voting issue for many conservative Christians, but in a general election, attacking the decision too strongly may well alienate more normal voters. And, of course, attacking Justice Gorsuch too strongly casts doubt on President Trump’s (and in the case of the Senate, their own) judgement during the nomination/consent battle, which is something few Republican politicians are willing to suggest/endorse.

    Mostly, though, I suspect that Republican politicians are relieved that Bostock takes the issue off the table this election cycle.

    As a side note, I think that Stephen’s rhetoric (“ …GOP-haters and the Trump-demonizers…“) is a bit over-the-top, albeit carefully in line with embittered Republican “politics-of-division” messaging in the Trump Era.

Comments are closed.