First, Gail Collins, in her column today, “The Supreme Court Takes Us Back…Way Back,” gives us some important, damning history I, for one, had not recalled, about abortions pre-Roe.
In one of her penultimate paragraphs comes this, an eye-opening reminder, and a punch in the stomach:
Obviously things are different now. Nevertheless, overturning Roe has pushed us back in time, and before we get shoved any further it’s a good idea to remember that control over reproduction is at the absolute center of the story of women in the modern world.
Then Ezra Klein.
I’ve lately had some problems with Klein who, in one recent column, “What America Needs Is A Liberalism That Builds,” talks to a guy who is not a liberal, but is a “libertarian.” Guy who tangles up his wicked Koch Bros politics in a criticism of government regulations on big construction projects.
Gee, this guy says, with the phony wide-eyed presentation all of his breed affect when they want to dismantle such regulations and the agencies that apply them — like the EPA — which evolved from catastrophic failures that killed people. Gee, how great would it be if we eliminated much of the regulatory process from our big building projects!!
My response to this nonsense? 20 Bruckner Blvd. Champlain Towers. And two oldies but horrendous baddies, the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire and Cocoanut Grove Night Club fire.
Okay, so now that I’ve once against slit the lying throat of “libertarianism,” here’s what Klein wrote today in, “Dobbs Is Not the Only Reason to Question the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court”:
The Supreme Court is a strange institution — the final word on the law, but with no way to enforce its decisions…
Stare decisis makes little sense. The problem is that, without it, the Supreme Court itself makes even less sense. It is just nine costumed political appointees looking for the votes they need to get the outcomes they want. And the further we travel down that road, the more the mystique that sustains the court dissolves. There is no rule, really, that the Supreme Court must be obeyed as the final word in constitutional interpretation — that, too, is a norm, and one that the court has no power to enforce. If all the Supreme Court is left with are the rules, soon enough there will be no Supreme Court to speak of.