From “The Ends Justifies The Means” Files: Senator Feinstein’s Ugly Hybrid, And An Ethics Test For Democrats

The test is simple: how unethical are Democrats willing to be, and how flagrantly, as they desperately try to derail President Trump’s nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, when the right to fill such a vacancy is one of the President’s unquestioned powers, as long as his choice meets basic minimum qualification standards?

Based on the recent tweets from superannuated California Senator Feinstein, fighting for her professional life and apparently pandering to the extreme Left as a result, the answer is “Very unethical, unfortunately.”  The Senator tweeted,

“Two-thirds of Americans don’t want women’s access to reproductive health care restricted. President Trump’s SCOTUS nominee could do just that by overturning Roe v. Wade and setting off at least 20 states’ “trigger laws” restricting abortions.


“Overturning Roe v. Wade would take us back to the days of women being severely injured and dying because they can’t get basic medical care. We’ve come too far to go back to those days.

These are both ugly hybrids designed with malign intent, kind of like the Indoraptor in “Jurassic Park II,” except the components of the vile mutation in this instance aren’t a T-Rex and a Velociraptor, but misrepresentation and fear-mongering.

1. President Trump’s (at this point) un-named nominee can’t “overturn” anything; only the full court can do that. He or see could  ride in the Kentucky Derby, I suppose. Any of Obama’s appointees “could” also “overturn” Roe, if enough Justices went along with them. In a case presenting that possibility. Of which there are none currently before the Court. And which may not get before the Court.

Ethics offense: Deliberately making the public more ignorant. And fear-mongering.

2. Feinstein is falsely using “reproductive health care” as a substitute for “abortion.” They are not the same thing.  I don’t know what polling results the Senator is referring to, but if it involved “reproductive health care,” it wasn’t about abortion specifically. Pew, which is the closest thing we have to a fair and non-partisan survey organization, found only 25% of the public wants abortion to be legal in all cases, which is what no restrictions on access to abortion means, assuming Feinstein’s ” “reproductive health care” is the deceptive code it appears to be. (If she really means “reproductive health care,” she’s nuts. Who has ever stated an opposition to “women’s access to reproductive health care”?)

Ethics offense: Dishonesty. Deceit. Obfuscation. Misuse of statistics to confuse rather than clarify.

And fear-mongering.

3. The second tweet is irresponsible and flat-out false. Overturning Roe-–in that yet to be identified future case that has gone through the lower courts and poses the issue in a way that a majority of the Court deems appropriate for review, with the result accomplished by the presumed vote of the unidentified Justice who, like the rest of the yet to be assembled Court majority, will determine the case without regard for the facts or established law, stare decisus or the outcome of oral arguments—would not do anything but return the determinations of policies regarding what restrictions, if any, will be placed on abortion to the states, and to the voters in those states, with the results very much in doubt.

Ethics offense: Deliberately making the public more ignorant. Dishonesty. Deceit. Obfuscation.

And fear-mongering.

No elected official who deliberately engages in dishonest tactics like this can or should be trusted by the public with power or influence. We should all keep close watch on how much lower abortion advocates are willing to go. For the ends do not justify the means, and politicians, parties, and party leaders who signal otherwise are a menace to democracy, no matter what the issue may be.


50 thoughts on “From “The Ends Justifies The Means” Files: Senator Feinstein’s Ugly Hybrid, And An Ethics Test For Democrats

  1. This woman has built her career on playing these cards, of falsehoods and political pandering, ask any gay man who lived through her betrayals of The community during the aids crisis, After they helped get her elected. You will hear stories, she claimed back then to be a centrist, her liberal card is now fully punched. But she will stab you in the back if it helps her politicaly

  2. Face it Jack, California Senator Feinstein is just another Progressive liar that’s using her Progressive (or more accurately regressive) Rhetorical ABC’s to scare the hell out of women and Democrats. Another ignoramus Progressive hill to die on.

    I’ve got Liberal friends that have completely lost their damn minds over this Supreme Court pick and immigration, they are currently irretrievably broken with reality. I got unfriended and publicly smeared by a long time Liberal friend that wrote something that was verifiably wrong and I very nicely explained why what he wrote was false and I provided proof to support my side. Believe it or not I didn’t even disagree with the point he was trying to make and I stated that up front, I just disagreed with something that he used to support his position that was a verifiably false. The first in his long line of hateful replies was, “I can believe whatever the fuck I want to believe and anyone who says I’m wrong is no longer my friend.” It went downhill really, really fast from there. Unless this guy permanently withdraws from the thing that I regularly see him at, I’m really wondering what our next face-to-face will be like. His anger was the worst I’ve ever seen and I’ve known this guy for a long time.

    A rare prediction from me: I think after Trump’s Supreme Court nominee gets approved there will be a wide spread smear campaign with all kinds of claims about the Supreme Court being nothing but a tool of President Trump. They are in the process of building up their hill to die on, ginning up massive faux outrage from ignorant fools.

    • Why are we seeing such an explosion of non-critical emotional based thinking? Think about what happens on Twitter and Facebook…

      Emotional Training Determines Thinking (ETDT) is the direct and indirect emotional training individuals receive that determine the way they think. ETDT is a necessary precursor to Emotion Trumps Critical Thinking.

      The like button in Facebook is an great example of Emotional Training Determines Thinking (ETDT); the user gets emotional “likes” that subconsciously train the individual to think similar thoughts to get similar “likes” and enables the individual to easily set aside critical thinking in favor of getting “likes”. Similarly, Twitter retweets are an emotional training apparatus that will determine thinking.

      Pavlov trained dogs.

      • “Many observe that we are in the middle of a revolutionary change in the patterns and the processes of human behavior.” “Paradigm Change: More Magic than Logic” by John C. Hillary

        “The objective of education is to measure and diagnose the child in order to prescribe a program to develop his feelings and emotions, values and loyalties toward predetermined behavioral objectives. Drawing it right down to basics, we are talking about conditioned response in human terms. Pavlov trained dogs.” Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt 1972

        I found the following as a reference this morning in “the deliberate dumbing down of america”.

        Cognitive Dissonance: Disorganization of thoughts, mental confusion, and emotional tension caused by behavior modification which conflicts with one’s values. Such manipulation causes many to rethink and modify their values in order to conform to expected behavior.

  3. Had a conservation with a guy in my neighborhood who has a Black Lives Matters sign in his yard (and an Audi in his driveway in a nice part of town) if he would go so far as to give up his house to pay reparations for slavery. He said no because he gives thousands every year to Planned Parenthood.

    I mentioned that 70% of PP’s are in primarily black and Hispanic low income neighborhoods, and the abortion rates for blacks is highest. He said “but they provide health services!”

    Right…health services (I didn’t have the heart to mention how Margaret Sanger said directly that her goal was to exterminate the Negro race).

    Then he said, but I’d give my house to a Native American family. I said I’d be by next week for the keys and winked.

  4. I made the point in an earlier comment that if people are worried about losing abortion rights they should mount an effort within their own state to have their state constitution amended to permit abortion.

    Unless and until the court determines life begins at fertilization I doubt that the SCOTUS would rule that a blastocyst or undifferentiated mass of cells is a human being entitled to 14th amendment protections.

    Jack, you made the point days ago that at some point in time medical science may be able to ensure much earlier viabiity outside the womb. It is equally likely that the health risks associated with giving birth become less than those associated with induced terminations. It was for that reason Roe prevailed. The court ruled that the differential risk was such that the state had no compelling interest early in the pregnancy when the minimal risk of abortion was outweighed by the the higher risk to the woman who carried the child to term. I expect that medical advances will accelerate the covergence of earlier viability and lower risks of gestation.

    When this happens, the issues upon which Roe was decided will no longer be a legitimate argument and the only rational left will be the economic interests of the woman an not the health.

    My question is if a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy because it will interfere with career goals, impose costs that are currently unwanted or may impose hardships on existing children wouldn’t the 14th amendment also allow the paternal side to elect to opt out of the financial and emotional requirements of fatherhood irrespective of whether or not the woman chooses to carry the child to term?

    • In answer to your question… I’m pretty sure that makes no sense, because your prior assumptions are so far off. Specifically, while the health risks associated with giving birth might become less than those involved in terminations, but as some who’s been pregnant in the past four years, I can assure you that the health risks associated with carrying a pregnancy to term, and giving birth are still hefty, and the former hasn’t budged significantly in at least the 35 years since my mother was pregnant with me.

      Pregnancy is brutal on women. I’m not complaining about it, their bodies are literally building another human, and expecting that to be a simple, easy process would be disrespectful of the amazing thing that is a human baby. But people have to keep in mind that the health risks of pregnancy — both short term and potentially long term– aren’t limited to giving birth. Muscle and nerve damage, massive hormonal changes, and organ damage are all possibilities for any woman who decides to manufacture another human in her body, and as far as I can the medical science is more or less “*shrug* We’ll see what we can do if it happens.”

      So, until we’re growing babies in tubes, the question for women is always going to be “Do I want my muscles, skeleton, organs, and hormones to rearrange themselves and put a sizable portion of my body’s resources towards growing another human, who will then interfere with my career goals and potentially impose hardships on my other children?” Which is a very different question from “do I want to take responsibility for another human, who will then interfere with my career goals and potentially impose hardships on my other children?”

      I promise that if pregnancy itself was easy you’d see a lot more adoptions already.

      • I am not disputing that pregnancy is tough on women. There are many recreational activities that can result in a severe physical strain on a body. I choose not to hang glide because if I crash the damage could be extensive. If the physical toll on the body is so well known why do so many put themselves at risk? The reason is that abortion mitigates the risk of recreational sexual activity. So lets not cloak the issue in health impact because abstinance would be more effective at birth control and less risky.

        But if you read the actual Roe decision the justices suggested that the crux of the issue was what I described. Furthermore they then discussed the economic consequences that would drive a woman to need to terminate. In the end even though Roe prevailed the court said that abortion was not an unlimited right and when the state could show compelling state interest it could ban or restrict abortion.

        Now, if the fourteenth amendment provides for equal protection then how can the state compel child support from the father when he did not get the same protection from the economic consequences of the pregnancy. I am not suggesting a father could or should be able to demand a pregnancy be terminated. But, what if the court agrees that a male can simply sign a paper in which he can avoid the financial consequences of the pregnancy to provide equal protection, then the state will be on the hook for the costs of that child if the mother cannot. That could be a compelling state interest.

        • If the physical toll on the body is so well known why do so many put themselves at risk?

          …a biological drive associated with pleasure intended to continue the human species and psychological drive for intimacy that our society expresses through sex? I mean, if you don’t get why people have sex in spite of the risks (and have been well before birth control and abortion were legal and when childbirth was far more deadly; illegitimate children, adoption, and abortion are nothing new, not to mention “the first one doesn’t always take nine months” weddings) you need to start figuring from there.

          What mitigated the risk before wasn’t abortion, it was religion, and the cultural imperative to get married if an accident happened.

          • Rather, nothing mitigated the physical risk. People just have sex. The physical risks were all there in marriage and we can agree that they’ve never stopped married people.

            But since people took the risk anyway, and always have, what mitigated the resulting burdens were the things I mentioned.

      • Emily which assumptions are implausible or so far off.

        Paragraph 1. Is it implausible to get a statewide constitutional amendment passed?

        Paragraph 2
        Why is it implausible to assume the court will Not recognize a blastocyst or undifferentiated cell mass a human being ? That is occuring now.

        Paragraph 3.
        Why is it implausible to believe that extrauternine pregnancy is far fetched. We can now deliver not fully developed fetuses 16 weeks prior to full gestation and they live and grow into children. Keep in mind 16 weeks is in the second trimester. I spoke of convergence over time anyway. Neither of us can rule out any advancements.

        Finally, my question had to do with equal protection should the mother choose to carry the child to term. Nowhere in that question did I suggest that either A) a woman had to carry to term or B) a man could demand a woman to undergo an vacuum evacuation or dilation and evacuation.

        The entire premise was developed because of issues I saw with the original ruling.

        • Paragraph one and two are both totally plausible.

          Paragraph three is still in the realm of science fiction; plausable, but not something close to happening. Note that even the lower bar of viability we have now is extremely shaky, most babys born there don’t survive. I’m optimistic about the future, but it’s important to not conflate what’s possible in optimal circumstances with what’s a logical thing to plan on now.

          But there are two matters that go towards your original question. The one I originally pointed out, and noted again above, that until we get far into your theoretical future, taking responsibility for a pregnancy is a really different decision for men and women. The second is that because women have a very different decision there, they can currently opt to terminate the pregnancy, resulting in zero financial burden for anyone. Once there’s a live birth, men and women have the same rights and responsibilities to the child and the same weight in decisions (misandry of the courts nonwithstanding.)

          That said, I wouldn’t argue if someone proposed that fathers be allowed to renounce paternity so long as it’s done with fair time for a woman to have an abortion (and therefore opt out herself. (No exceptions for if the man didn’t know; sometimes women don’t know they’re pregnant, and the answer to that is “sucks to be them.” )

          • You completely misunderstood my question.

            What if the compelling state interest is to MANDATE abortion if the state is required to bear the financial burden. Currently, the state can recover child welfare costs from the father. They can take tax refunds, garnish wages, and attach assets. If the court rules that both males and females have the right to choose because the choice is based on economic reasons then what?

            • …then men and women can make that choice, so long as the men have the same limits the women do so that women can make that choice knowing what they’re getting into.

              I don’t generally care about compelling state interest. I’m an individual liberties girl through-and-through. I think as long as abortion is legal, women should be able to choose whether to do it or not with as clear an understanding as possible of what risks they’re taking on both by having an abortion and by carrying a baby to term, which includes financial risks (that is, whether they have a father on board or not.)

      • Emily see paragraph 1. Have you and others that wish to protect abortion rights attempted to get your state’s constitution amended to preserve such rights.

        The original post was about the ethics of creating fear among the masses..
        My post was designed to offer a solution to calm those fears. The SCOTUS cannot legislate away abortion; only Congress or a state legislature can do that. It is absolutely improbable that bans on all abortions could get past the Senate let alone out of the House.

        Roe was a challenge to state law. There has never been a federal proscription against abortion to my knowledge. Getting a change to a state constitution is far easier than getting the Supremes to hear your appeal.

        • …you seem to assume I’m pro-choice here. I kind of am, but I can totally see the pro-life argument and wouldn’t complain too loudly if abortion was illegal. I err on the side of choice because it leaves the decision to individual women (while totally understanding why pro-life folks find that unacceptable.) I honestly think it’s the one political issue that will never be truly settled.

          That said, I 100% believe abortion is a state issue, and that Roe v. Wade was a stupid case. But your hypothetical about a future where the health burden to women was no longer relevant seemed to be making a lot of assumptions about pregnancy and the trajectory of medical science that, in my experience and understanding, isn’t at all likely in the next hundred years or so. That was all I was taking issue with.

  5. I think abortion embodies some of the very worst aspects of “medical care.” Hip and knee replacements are slightly less brutal.

    But, if Roe v. Wade is reversed tomorrow, I am fairly confident that absolutely nothing will change in my state on Wednesday. My state has already said it protects abortion rights more than the federal constitution does. I understand this, but many who are freaking out do not understand the real consequences of a change in the law.


  6. People just couldn’t wait to jump all over Trump’s pick-!

    ‘In response to Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court, The Women’s March released the following statement,” the email begins.’

    It was all written and ready to go, and just needed the name filled in. They didn’t need to know who it was because any Conservative choice would be wrong.

  7. Most, if not all, of these political issues are built of designed ignorance. The less people truly know as opposed to feel, the higher the flames of outrage can be fanned. The left has built a core constituency population ignorant of history, logic, and critical thought. This is the kindling for so much of what they do to achieve their authoritarian / totalitarian, ends.

    Z’s and Mrs. Q’s conversations on social media and in person are two anecdotal proofs of this self immolating ignorance. They are outraged, as commanded.

      • I’ve been saying since the election, that 80%+ of Americans had to have been asleep in civics class! I just had to explain again last week that one Supreme Court Justice, or all of them together even, cannot overturn past decisions on a whim. It’s the press that contributes to this, with all the ‘Roe is in danger!!!’ BS.

        • There are no civics or history classes, just social studies. This is a distinction with a crucial difference. And we are all suffering for it.

      • And here I thought that a quorum was 20 senators. Hmmm, don’t really feel like looking up the rules of the Senate just now.

        Thinking about what could happen if the Democrats really did boycott a confirmation vote leads to some interesting possibilities, though.

        Some votes must pass by a majority or two-thirds of the whole Senate, i.e. 51 or 67 votes. The constitution obviously doesn’t specify that in the case of confirmation votes. Therefore the Senate rules might (or might not) provide that the vote must be simply a majority of Senators present and voting.

        If it did, you could than potentially have the justice confirmed on, say, a 45-6 vote or 35-16 (or, of course, 51-0), or even 48-0 with 3 Senators abstaining. If that were the case then it would make the Republican’s job of confirming this nominee absurdly easy. Not to mention that any procedural or cloture votes would definitely be decided on the votes of those present.

        So……….that’s not going to happen. The Democrats aren’t that kind of stupid.

          • I stand corrected, I had totally forgotten that the constitution does in fact mandate that a quorum is a majority of its members. It also provides that a ‘smaller number’ can force absent members to attend. This has actually been done on occasion.

            Here are a couple of interesting scenarios: Suppose Senator McCain dies, reducing the membership to 99 senators. A majority is now 50, and it seems to me that the 50 remaining Republicans would constitute a legal quorum and could act on a nomination.

            Suppose McCain is still alive but at death’s door and cannot attend the Senate. Technically a quorum would still be 51, but a quorum is assumed unless someone questions it or there’s a roll call vote. If there were just 50 Republicans present, who would suggest there wasn’t a quorum? Can we imagine a Supreme Court nominee being confirmed on a voice vote?

            Does all this make your head hurt?

            • It does, big time. However, nearly all politicians think along these lines, so I’d suppose we should, as well. Unethical as it may be.

              • Well, as I said earlier, the Democrats (and hopefully the Republicans) aren’t stupid enough to boycott the Senate on something like this.

                By the way, here’s a real life example of a boycott that ended badly (well, depending on your point of view). When North Korea launched its invasion, the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council. Nationalist China still had its seat there as well, so when Truman asked the UN to condemn the invasion and intervene in Korea there was no one to veto it and it passed. The Soviets never boycotted the Security Council again.

              • However, nearly all politicians think along these lines…

                Not to pull a Chris, but I have a minor challenge to that statement.

                Can you prove there aren’t any politicians who think that way? My take is they are all crooks, to one degree or another.

                Of course, it is difficult to prove a negative 🙂

                • Of course I can’t. Most, if not all, do. I can’t think of a single instance, outside of fiction, in which a SINGLE politician answered a yes/no question with a yes or no. Don’t trust any of ’em. Would sooner trust a used car salesman.

    • Bingo! For years I basically just went off whatever the liberal news & my college professors said. I was lucky that my mom taught me critical thinking skills as a kid because eventually I began to question and most importantly think about multiple points of view. But ignorance & propaganda is absolutely necessary to keep a population confused and compliant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.