Prelude: Why is the President of the United States attacking the Supreme Court in Madrid? His comments about a judicial body deliberating on the Constitution is not only wildly inappropriate for a President speaking abroad, his words were either calculated to make ignorant Americans even more ignorant about what the Court is, or show that he doesn’t understand himself (or no longer does). Biden called the Dobbs decision “outrageous behavior.” A SCOTUS ruling isn’t “behavior”; even Dred Scott wasn’t “behavior.” These are scholarly judicial analyses. Then he accused the Court of being “the one thing that has been destabilizing” to the nation. The Supreme Court? Upholding the Constitution is maintaining the foundation of the democracy: how is that destabilizing? Holding political show trials to try to find something that the previous President can be jailed for is destabilizing. Threatening parents who challenge indoctrinating school boards is destabilizing. Not enforcing U.S. laws at the border is destabilizing. Attacking the Supreme Court is destabilizing.
Then Biden said that Dobbs was “essentially challenging the right to privacy.” No it wasn’t, but let’s reflect back on an earlier incoherent and dim-witted statement Biden made about abortion after the Alito opinion leaked:
“I mean, so the idea that we’re going to make a judgment that is going to say no one can make a judgment to choose to abort a child based upon a decision by the Supreme Courts, I think goes way overboard.
Of course, the decision didn’t say, in May or now, that “no one can make a judgement to have an abortion.” I think Biden was and is shooting off his mouth without reading the opinion. But never mind that: he said “abort a child.” Not only does he approve of abortion, but regards it as killing a child, and must think that “privacy” includes virtual infanticide. Oh, I know, he doesn’t know what he thinks: he used to claim that there was no right to abortion. But if he’s that muddled on the issue, and he is, what business does he have impugning the decision of SCOTUS justices wrestling with difficult topic—in Spain—at all?
1. Oh, why not? Here are some more Dobbs freakouts:
- “I’m not going to have kids in a country where they have less rights than their parents did and they aren’t safe in their schools or community,” tweeted David Hogg, has-been Parkland activist. What is that, a threat? It’s a wonderfully weird one: he can still abort his children, though they have more of a right to life now than they would have had a month ago. And what is it that he thinks would make his children “more safe,” other than not going to school in Uvalde under the watchful eye of its police department? This is why narcissists make lousy activists: it’s not all bout you, David.
- The Libs of TikTok found a day camp that had its campers protesting the Dobbs decision and chanting, “Bring Roe back!” That’s unethical in so many ways, I don’t even want to talk about it….
- Here is a rare responsible Dobbs freak-out: the Washington Post reports that doctors across the country are seeing a huge spike in requests for vasectomies. A Florida urologist told the Post that he’s seen vasectomy requests jump from four or five per day to 12 to 18 per day and that young men who do not have children are seeking vasectomies in far greater numbers than before.
Now that they can’t count on just killing the living results of their irresponsible sex habits, men are taking the precautions they should have taken anyway.
3. Related: Unethical attacks on Clarence Thomas (but he’s used to this by now.) Multiple factcheckers “pounced” on Justice Thomas’s statement in a dissent that “[Petitioners] object on religious grounds to all available COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.” Politico called this false, writing, “Clarence Thomas claimed in a dissenting opinion that Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of “aborted children.” No Covid vaccines in the U.S. contain the cells of aborted fetuses.”
Then the mainstream, Thomas-hating news media piled on:
- Axios: Clarence Thomas suggests COVID vaccines are made with “aborted children”
- NBC News: Justice Thomas cites debunked claim that Covid vaccines are made with cells from ‘aborted children’
- The Daily Mail: Clarence Thomas cites debunked claim that Covid vaccines are created with cells of ‘aborted children’ in dissent on SCOTUS decision upholding New York state’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers
- The Independent: Clarence Thomas wrongly suggests ‘aborted children’ cells are used in Covid vaccines
Sloppy, careless and false, every one. Thomas didn’t say what the factcheckers claim. He said that the litigants opposed a vaccine mandate “on religious grounds” to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.” That’s their argument, not his.
Politico took down its unchecked factually false factcheck, but many of those it triggered remain.
Bias makes you stupid. Have I ever mentioned that before?
4. Is this even too stupid to mention? Rex Chapman, a former NBA player who briefly had a show on the short-lived CNN+ streaming service, suggested that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a “black white supremacist” because of Dobbs ruling, and here was one of his “proofs”: “Why have you never seen Clarence Thomas at an NBA game? As in — ever?” You know, because everyone knows that real blacks love to go and watch the brothers slam dunks in the basket and trash-talk each other. What does it say about CNN that it thought this idiot was worthy of having his own show?