Leave The Room....

The entire "Meet the Press" panel laughed out loud at Peggy Noonan today when she said the GOP "should become a party that helps women" after its abortion "victory." pic.twitter.com/uSth0nkutC

— David Edwards (@DavidEdwards) June 26, 2022

...miss the best moment of the show in years!

Ah, well, it wasn't that good a moment.  Still, you can see the little birds tweeting about Peggy's head, poor dear.  And this after AOC pointed out to Chuck Todd that too many Democratic office holders still think they can recover the GOP under LBJ or Nixon, when cooperation was actually possible.  Were these guys just in a cocoon for the Gingrich years?

Dear America -- Stop voting for dumbshits.
Sincerely, The Rest Of Us https://t.co/Av9J6IsgOX

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 26, 2022

Well, as long as we're on the subject....

And what's with all this "safety of the womb" all the sudden?  Freud would definitely diagnose infantilization, coupled with rapid regression.

We finish with another example of time as a flat circle:

The legislative record of the 1931 attempt to change Connecticut's birth control ban has some real hot takes. pic.twitter.com/0yYmmwBjOT

— Adam S. Rust (@ASRust) June 26, 2022

Griwsold v Connecticut was decided 34 years later. And contrary to lay interpretations:

Can folks please stop referring to the Griswold decision as having been "about contraception." Griswold confirmed the existence of a right to privacy within the Constitution. That's everything. /1

— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) June 26, 2022

...it WAS about birth control. The Griswolds were married, but still not allowed to use the birth control of their choice in Connecticut. Rather like the Lovings, who couldn't be married in Virginia (despite the fact they were married in a state that DID allow mixed-race marriages. States' rights, y'all!).  I resist this urge to reduce legal cases to doctrines and principles and ignore the facts the bring a case to court.  Because courts don't make advisory opinions and don't rule on the controversy du jour.  They rule on facts involving parties (persons, businesses, states) and apply the applicable law to the facts presented.

One of the major problems with Dobbs, IMHLO, is that it abandons facts for fancy (the footnote about adoptions, the idea that "abortion is different" because it presents moral questions which, what, 5 conservative Catholics must decide for the rest of us?  How would we feel if 5 Jews decided law based on their morality?  5 Buddhists?  5 Muslims?  Anyway....), and supplants judicial doctrine with ideology.  Thomas' concurring opinion is solely about that.  He doesn't like "substantive due process," so let's wipe it from the books soonest, damn the consequences and the parties!  

Indeed, no one seems to have noticed Thomas is INVITING states to pass laws challenging Griswold and Obergefell and Lawrence (but don't you dare touch Loving!  Right, Clarence?).  Is that how we expect our Justices to act?  I guess it is, nobody seems too upset by that thought.  Overton legal window, bay-bee.....