Please take those meds.
Rubin was literally driven mad by Donald Trump’s election, and she wasn’t a particularly enlightening Washington Post pundit before that, when she posed as a conservative. Now the NeverTrump hysteria has clearly infected her logic, her perception, everything. However, Rubin’s reactions to the Dobbs decision are right in line with those of the Left generally, which are characterized by insulting scaremongering, fury, emotional nonsense, legal fantasy, and an abandonment of all sense of proportion.
Again, GOOD. That’s who these people are, and we should all be grateful that the masks are off. There are many future citizens of this country who will owe their lives to their candor.
Back to Rubin: her disingenuous (or stunningly ignorant) conceit is that because the states now can regulate abortion, they now could choose to make abortion a capitol crime. They could also declare a state’s language to be Esperanto. When something isn’t going to happen it is unethical to claim it could happen, especially when it couldn’t. I am pretty certain that executing women who get abortions would be found to be a violation of the 8th Amendment, not to mention the fact that the public wouldn’t tolerate it.
Rubin’s Twitter feed is full of similarly ridiculous statements.
I’m going to do a full post on freakout highlights when I return from a meeting, but Rubin is special.
15 thoughts on “This Morning’s Featured Dobbs Ruling Freakout: WaPo Pundit Jennifer Rubin”
Again, GOOD. That’s who these people are, and we should all be grateful that the masks are off.
Ah, so true, Jack. Nothing is more tiresome than ankle-biting fake liberals or conservatives “tut-tutting” and “but-butting” everything, when what they really want to do is denounce it full-throat and make snarky, insane clown comments like Rubin.
Back to Rubin: her disingenuous (or stunningly ignorant) conceit is that because the states now can regulate abortion, they now could choose to make abortion a capitol crime.
When people either don’t read or don’t care about the Constitution, they can fabricate such nonsense. Those of us who both read and care have actually heard of things like “cruel and unusual punishment” found in, as you say, the Eighth Amendment.
Rubin is what some people like to call a “garbage person.” She’s entitled to her opinion, but the kind of opinions she writes are worse than flame-throwing, because they are contrived and intellectually bankrupt to a degree that would normally place them in the parody category.
I am reminded again of the apocryphal “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt,” and also of the words of the famous Constitutional scholar Buggs Bunny: “What a maroon!”
Jennifer Rubin stood up to be counted with those who wanted to start driving Trump supporters out of public life and even arresting them. Arguably she could be called a seditionist or even a traitor. However, I won’t advocate that, yet. That’s really a bad precedent to set.
It’s ok, she stands with Ukraine so her opinion must be founded in solid research and understanding of the subject.
She just proved herself a member of the “weaker” sex, failing critical thinking altogether.
Nature builds in natural consequences for certain behavior. If you drink 10 gallons of soda everyday, you will become diabetic. If you sleep with 500 people, you are going to have multiple STDs. If you aren’t careful with protection, you will get pregnant. Sex is first about pregnancy and second about companionship. People who are angry that sex leads to pregnancy are angry at God, or, if you aren’t religious, with reality. Much of the abortion debate is about the right to consequence free sex. That’s what a large part of the pro-choice side want.
Even if you make exceptions for the tiny number of women who end up pregnant by incest or rape, that wouldn’t cut down the number of abortions very far. A lot of them are either out of convenience or the family deciding they don’t want a disabled child. European countries are particularly awful about aborting kids with disabilities.
This is also a scare tactic. Most pro-lifers aren’t in favor of putting women who have abortions in prison. They definitely aren’t in favor of executing them. But, like you said, the Supreme Court would never uphold the death penalty in a case like this anyway.
Sooner – I am having this exact argument with my daughter who has given me two grandchildren and informed that if she were to get pregnant again would get an abortion. She firmly believes that she, as a woman, should be protected against her own biological reality.
I’m just sad I didn’t do a better job.
That is really sad to hear. Children used to be considered something positive rather than a burden. Parenthood was seen as a calling in and of itself. Your daughter has probably been exposed to a lot of secular ideology. The zeitgeist puts a lot of pressure on people, and it “feels reasonable” to follow it because of our herd instincts. That’s how otherwise good people an become corrupt. Saint Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:33 that bad company corrupts good character.
I think our secular society has warped a lot of values and is trying its hardest to push selfishness as a virtue. I don’t know if you’ve read different ethical theories, but egoism and hedonism seem to be the prevailing views of our time right now.
And nihilism, ironically enough, considering the quality of life we enjoy compared to any other period of time in history.
Can anyone tell me if a state makes something illegal, then the Supreme Court declares it legal such as abortion, then goes back and changes it’s mind, does the states law making it illegal automatically come back into force or does the state have to pass another law to make it illegal again?
it would be back in force.
Remind me again.
What was her take on requiring restaraunts and bars to exclude persons who do not show proof that they took a newly-developed vaccine?
Within hours of conception?
I would love to see the State try to prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt.
That just further highlights the stupidity of her comments.
She is evidently the sort of person who figures the accusation is sufficient — evidence or proof is unnecessary (believe all xxx).
I am obviously not a lawyer, but if a law is struct down, and then the Supremes change their mind, why would you not have to start from scratch? Unless, perhaps, you’d written a contingency law for this case — but would that really be valid?
If I were an abortion clinic, I’d certainly try to make the legislature pass a new law. And, in a lot of cases, wouldn’t that be quicker than litigating it?
As you might expect, the NYT is going full-blown crazy when it comes to reporting and OpEds regarding the Roe decision. Here’s an example from a ‘news’ article by Carl Hulse entitled “Kavanaugh Gave Private Assurances. Collins Says He ‘Misled’ Her.”
Here’s what the Justice stated this past Friday:
And here’s how Hulse characterizes that statement:
So, in this NYT ‘reporter’s’ opinion (wait, isn’t this a news article?), the Justice was in the wrong because he didn’t foot-stomp the possibility that, during deliberations of a future case, he might actually decide to overturn a previous decision? Oh, the horror!
With ‘reporting’ like this, it’s *almost* like the NYT is just one big OpEd.
On political matters, that’s exactly what it is. Of course, departed Times apologist “A Friend” would argue that readers’ occasional critical comments ameliorate that flaw.