Republicans finally got the Roe v. Wade decision they wanted, and in public, they are delighted.
More quietly, however, according to interviews with more than a dozen Republican strategists and party officials, they just didn’t want it to come right now — not during a midterm election campaign in which nearly everything had been going right for the GOP.
But it’s a victory that will almost certainly come at a cost. In Republican circles, a consensus has been forming for weeks that the court’s overturning of a significant — and highly popular — precedent on a deeply felt issue will be a liability for the party in the midterms and beyond, undercutting Republicans to at least some degree with moderates and suburban women.
The whole thing makes no sense unless you look at the Justices like you do at the Gedolim - high level scholars concerned with pure law and totally uninterested in the consequences of their rulings.
ReplyDeleteEven the holy RBG acknowledged that RvW was a bad decision and that she voted for it because she was pro-choice. Ideology over intelligence. So now along comes a conservative panel and shows that, according to the strict understanding of the Constitution, RvW is indeed a bad decision and cannot stand. They did their job but now there are consequences.
There are two ironies here
1) By being good conservatives, the SCOTUS has harmed the conservative political side in the upcoming elections
2) It once again exposes liberal hypocrisy. Liberals have never hesitated to use courts to overturn democratic laws they don't like but know they can't win if it comes to a free vote. Thank Heaven for independent courts not subject to political whims! Suddenly the court overturns a law they do like and now those same courts are a danger to society.
In other words you agree that the conservative judges lied about their view of Roe in order to be confirmed
ReplyDeleteNo, he was just agreeing with RBG
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html#:~:text=Ruth%20Bader%20Ginsburg%20wasn%E2%80%99t%20really%20fond%20of%20Roe,abortion.%20She%20didn%E2%80%99t%20like%20how%20it%20was%20structured.
Nope ! where does he mention her?
ReplyDeleteTorah thought daf hayomi Yevamot 111b
ReplyDelete“If a woman vowed to have no benefit from her brother-in-law, the latter is compelled to submit to her halizah, [if her vow was made] during the lifetime of her husband [When she is not likely to have had in her mind the possibility of ever marrying the levir. The vow is, therefore, presumed to have been due to some quarrel or misunderstanding between her and the levir and to be in no way due to a desire on her part to evade the precept of the levirate marriage.]. But if after the death of her husband [when her intention may have been to avoid marrying the levir], the levlr may only be requested [but may not be compelled] to submit to her halizah. If this [avoidance of the levirate marriage], however, was in her mind [even if her vow was made] during the lifetime of her husband, the levir may only be requested to submit to her halizah [And if he refuses, the widow, who is alone to blame for the fact that the levirate marriage cannot be contracted with her, is forbidden to marry again; nor is she entitled to her kethubah.].”
משנה מסכת יבמות פרק יג משנה יג
הנודרת הנאה מיבמה בחיי בעלה כופין אותו שיחלוץ לה לאחר מיתת בעלה מבקשין הימנו שיחלוץ לה ואם נתכוונת לכך אפילו בחיי בעלה מבקשין הימנו שיחלוץ לה:
רמב"ם על משנה מסכת יבמות פרק יג משנה יג
כל מקום שאמר כופין, כלומר ותטול כתובתה. ומן הכללים הנכונים שתסמוך עליהם שכותבין אגרת מרד על היבמה. ואם מרדה ובקשה את החליצה תצא בלא כתובה הלכה למעשה בכל בתי דיני ישראל.
My theory. Two brothers A and B married to two women X and Y. A dies childless Deuteronomy 25: 7-16 applies. Interesting, if X vows no benefit from B after A is dead, the Sages rule X rebellious woman (loses her ketubah from A) who cannot remarry without chalitzah from B and the Sages do not compel B chalitzah to X. This sounds like a wife wants a divorce and the husband refuses. She cannot remarry (unlike Tamar in the garbage K-G heter who did remarry without a get). If X vows no benefit from B while A is alive---that vow means nothing. She is not a rebellious woman. She does not lose her ketubah.
The Sages then do compel B chalitzah to X to free her, to allow X to remarry. Beautiful. Why? Then X is not aiming to uproot Deuteronomy 25: 7-16.
If X vows no benefit from B while A if alive---that vow means nothing. X maybe, hates B. Why? Maybe B touches X and makes passes at X though B is married to Y. If A dies (childless) B must do either marry X or do chalitzah to X as the Torah requires in Deuteronomy 25: 7-16. A true chalitzah when yeebom was possible the Sages will compel B chalitzah to X. SCOTUS now compels pregnant woman to carry full term and deliver their babies: wonderful.
Follow KA, IR, and Garnel? Moral; women don’t make stupid vows to block a yeebom. The Torah commands yeebom.
No, RBG said it was a bad legal decision. The current judges thought it was a bag legal decision.
ReplyDelete