Durbin: Dumb Or Demagogue?

Today’s performance by Sen. Richard Durbin (D, Ill) in Day 3 of the Alito culture war raises the question of whether that “D” stands for “Dumb” or “Demagogue.”

Durbin claimed that he was

concerned that many people will leave this hearing with a question as to whether or not you could be the deciding vote that would eliminate the legality of abortion, that would make it illegal in this country, would criminalize the conduct of women who are seeking to terminate pregnancies for fear of their lives and the doctors who help them.

If he were really concerned about that he shouldn’t have attempted to fan the flames of these hypothetical fears with such transparently false arrant nonsense. Even the New York Times reporters, Richard Stevenson and Neil Lewis, felt obliged to state in the very next paragraph that

Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal but would leave the question in the hands of states.

Here’s how Howard Bashman presents this point:

… even if the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade were overturned, that would merely return to the States the question of whether and how abortion should be regulated. It would not result in the declaration, by the U.S. Supreme Court, that abortion is illegal. And second, as I explained in my essay this week for law.com, “Even if both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade — and that’s a big if — five votes would remain on the Court to uphold Roe’s central holding.”

But why choose? Perhaps from now on, Durbin should be classified as a Double “D” Democrat, as in Richard Durbin (DD, Illinois), for Dumb and Demagogic.

Say What? (35)

  1. actus January 12, 2006 at 8:23 am | | Reply

    “Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal but would leave the question in the hands of states.”

    Congress and the states. And does anyone not believe that our GOP congress and red states would not move towards criminalizing the behaviour which Roe Reaches? If not, why do the wingers even care about roe?

  2. Stephen January 12, 2006 at 9:55 am | | Reply

    Ann Coulter’s column today is hilarious. I must quote:

    “I had nearly forgotten what the Democratic Party stands for. It’s good to be reminded that the sole item on the Democrats’ agenda is abortion.

    According to Dianne Feinstein, Roe vs. Wade is critically important because “women all over America have come to depend on it.” At its most majestic, this precious right that women “have come to depend on” is the right to have sex with men they don’t want to have children with.

    There’s a stirring principle! Leave aside the part of this precious constitutional right that involves (1) not allowing Americans to vote on the matter, and (2) suctioning brains out of half-born babies. The right to have sex with men you don’t want to have children with is not exactly “Give me liberty, or give me death.”

    In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today’s Democrats. It’s as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc.”

    actus reminds us that the Democratic Party is in a death spiral. Yes, given the opportunity, Americans will vote to restrict or outlaw abortion. When, or when will the Democrats regroup and find an idea?

    Perhaps it will be a good thing for the Democratic Party to simply die. The contempt of the party, and actus, for the voters is painfully obvious.

    Yes, actus, by all means, we should be prevented from voting on abortion.

  3. actus January 12, 2006 at 10:23 am | | Reply

    “Yes, actus, by all means, we should be prevented from voting on abortion.”

    I’d say roe going away would be a good thing for democrats. A bad thing for women, but a good thing for democrats.

  4. Stephen January 12, 2006 at 11:28 am | | Reply

    The majority of women oppose the present abortion laws, actus.

    What you mean is “feminist women,” who are a decided minority.

    As I said, we can’t allow the voters to have their say, can we?

  5. actus January 12, 2006 at 11:45 am | | Reply

    “As I said, we can’t allow the voters to have their say, can we?”

    It can still be a bad thing for women for these to change. The entire idea of rights is that they’re not majority votes.

    That being said, I think that in the end it would be better for democrats to fight this in the ballot box.

    Most people support the formulation of casey: no restrictions pre-viability, all restrictions but for life and health of the mother post-viability. The right wing has the organizing advantage on the issue, so they will gain the electoral upper hand. But I think roe being gone will also take away their organizational advantage as there will be more and more things to organize on the democrat side.

    Which is not to say that things will be awful for women, specially in red states. As it no doubt already is.

  6. Laura January 12, 2006 at 1:31 pm | | Reply

    “…women who are seeking to terminate pregnancies for fear of their lives…”??

    Why are the prisons not full of these rapists and domestic abusers? Does aborting the baby and sending the woman back into her personal hell really solve the problem?

  7. Stephen January 12, 2006 at 1:42 pm | | Reply

    What you’ve so casually forgotten, actus, is that men and children also have rights.

    Men have the right to an interest in their progeny. Children have the right to exist.

    You ought to actually visit with and get to know old fashioned Christian folks. They’re happier than liberals.

  8. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 12, 2006 at 1:51 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    “Congress and the states”? Really? Under the Commerce Clause as the same people who want Roe overturned interpret it? I suppose Congress could ban, say, a kid’s mother driving his underage girlfriend across state lines to get rid of the evidence without her parents hearing of it. In fact, I believe it already has. But banning abortion country-wide? You have to be kidding me. They don’t really want to do it anyway, and I don’t see how it’d be constitutional.

    Poll after poll shows sizable majorities agreeing that there should be legal abortion, but that it should be restricted more than it now can be under Roe. Women are a majority of the electorate in 49 states, and they are presumably capable of judging their own interests as well as you can. Much smaller interest groups than half the population routinely derail legislation every day.

    Which is to say that if women don’t want abortion further restricted, it won’t be. The truth, of course, is that very many women do want abortion further restricted. (More women than men, actually, in some polls — a lot of men are quite happy with the idea of casual sex with a lower risk of child support.) The Democrats need to realize that, or rather need to fess up that they’ve always known it, which of course is why they never want to see the issue put to, like, a vote or anything.

    I do agree with you that Roe overturned would be a good thing for the Democratic Party. This is the prime irritant that has kept a lot of “natural Democrats” voting Republican for more than thirty years.

  9. Stephen January 12, 2006 at 2:05 pm | | Reply

    Laura,

    The rape and domestic violence hysterias are among the most damnable and execrable inventions of feminists.

    Rape and domestic violence do not occur within light years of the frequency feminists insist upon. The invention of these hysterias was an attempt to create jobs and justify the intrusion of feminist busybodies into our homes and institutions. Think Reichstag fire.

    Wild claims about domestic violence (i.e., lies) have been a staple of feminist propaganda. Read this at Cathy Young’s weblog:

    http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2006/01/breaking-silence-update.html

  10. actus January 12, 2006 at 3:46 pm | | Reply

    “What you’ve so casually forgotten, actus, is that men and children also have rights.”

    Sure they do. A mans got to do what a mans got to do to tell that woman what to do with her body.

    “Under the Commerce Clause as the same people who want Roe overturned interpret it? ”

    Under the commerce clause of today. Of course abortions are interstate commerce. Specially if some states have restricted it but others not.

    I expect at least an analogue of the fugitive slave laws: congress forbidding women from getting an abortion in another state in avoidance of their home state prohibitions. I think we’ve already made attempts to criminalize aiding women in doing this now.

    “In fact, I believe it already has. But banning abortion country-wide? ”

    If they can ban weed grown in berkeley, then they can ban abortion there too.

    “Poll after poll shows sizable majorities agreeing that there should be legal abortion, but that it should be restricted more than it now can be under Roe”

    Like Casey?

    “The Democrats need to realize that, or rather need to fess up that they’ve always known it, which of course is why they never want to see the issue put to, like, a vote or anything.”

    I think the democratic party would gain by this being voted on. Roe ended a lot of organizing on the issue, and instead turned it into an organizing issue for the right.

  11. Stephen January 12, 2006 at 3:52 pm | | Reply

    “A mans got to do what a mans got to do to tell that woman what to do with her body.”

    Well, actus, a woman can keep her panties on and her knees together. This will prevent the need for an abortion.

    Having become pregnant, the “her body” cliche becomes problematic.

  12. actus January 12, 2006 at 4:11 pm | | Reply

    “Having become pregnant, the “her body” cliche becomes problematic.”

    Yes. because there is something in her body.

  13. Stephen January 12, 2006 at 4:19 pm | | Reply

    The brain dead cliches of feminism hold don’t work their magic on me, actus.

    Women can be responsible for their sexual behavior. We expect sexual responsibility from men, and punish them with financial loss and debtor’s prison when they fail.

    That “something” is a human life.

    We need to return to the days when we expected/demanded that women (a) be married and (b) do their duty to their husbands and children if they decide to become pregnant.

    If you think this is a form of slavery… well, then I’m in favor of slavery.

  14. John Rosenberg January 12, 2006 at 4:26 pm | | Reply

    Michelle:

    I do agree with you that Roe overturned would be a good thing for the Democratic Party. This is the prime irritant that has kept a lot of “natural Democrats” voting Republican for more than thirty years.

    Michelle, on balance I think this is right (and I think it is absolutely right that the states would not rush to outlaw abortion, nor would Congress, if Roe were overturned). Don’t forget, though, that Roe is “the prime irritant” that has also caused many “natural Republicans” in the suburbs and elsewhere to vote Democratic.

    In that regard (sort of), I just saw William Kristol on Fox News commenting that the thought that kept coming back to him as he watched Kennedy, Durbin, Feinstein et. al. badgering Alito is that 30 years ago Alito and people like him — sons of immigrants, middle class, Catholic — were “natural Democrats.” One thing (my comment, not Kristol’s) that the Dems have done a very good job of is driving people like Alito away.

  15. actus January 12, 2006 at 4:42 pm | | Reply

    “One thing (my comment, not Kristol’s) that the Dems have done a very good job of is driving people like Alito away.”

    Well, much like roe hurts democrats, so did civil rights.

  16. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 12, 2006 at 4:50 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    I don’t see why you’re sticking to the Commerce Clause jurisprudence we now have. Right now we also have Roe. If one might be overturned, why not another? It’s true that overturning Raich would mean persuading another couple Justices, since Scalia was actually in the majority, while O’Connor and Rehnquist dissented along with Thomas (some monolithic conservative bloc, that), but the trend has long been towards restricting what the Federal Government can regulate via the Commerce Clause, and I’m virtually certain that Congress will keep itself out of this (and that if it jumps in despite my prediction, any sweeping ban will be struck down).

    I expect at least an analogue of the fugitive slave laws: congress forbidding women from getting an abortion in another state in avoidance of their home state prohibitions. I think we’ve already made attempts to criminalize aiding women in doing this now.

    Um, I did mention that. Although “driving your son’s minor girlfriend to a a state without a parental-consent law, so that her parents will never learn that he was guilty of statutory rape” reads rather differently, does it not? The case that prompted this law involved a 12-year-old pregnant girl, an 18-year-old man, and a mother more concerned with keeping her son out of trouble than with the future welfare of the child whose stepmother she pretended to be at the clinic.

    Yo can call that “aiding a woman” if you like, actus. To me it looks more like protecting a rapist by abusing a child. Impressions do differ.

  17. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 12, 2006 at 4:56 pm | | Reply

    My, am I typo-prone today. Apologies to all.

  18. actus January 12, 2006 at 5:36 pm | | Reply

    “We expect sexual responsibility from men, and punish them with financial loss and debtor’s prison when they fail.”

    Debtor’s prison? what?

    “but the trend has long been towards restricting what the Federal Government can regulate via the Commerce Clause, and I’m virtually certain that Congress will keep itself out of this (and that if it jumps in despite my prediction, any sweeping ban will be struck down).”

    Look, if congress can regulate workplaces and minimum wages and civil rights violations and weed, which it can, it can regulate abortion. The pre new deal commerce clause will not come back. If it does though, I think we will have much greater problems in this country than the fact that congress cannot regulate abortions.

    “To me it looks more like protecting a rapist by abusing a child. ”

    Is the law limited to rapes of children?

  19. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 12, 2006 at 6:02 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Look, if congress can regulate workplaces and minimum wages and civil rights violations and weed, which it can, it can regulate abortion. The pre new deal commerce clause will not come back. If it does though, I think we will have much greater problems in this country than the fact that congress cannot regulate abortions.

    Um, if you think so. I don’t think they’d dare. But you’re the one with the infallible finger on the pulse of the populace.

    [me:] “To me it looks more like protecting a rapist by abusing a child.”

    [you:] Is the law limited to rapes of children?

    The law IIRC is limited to cases of minor children being taken by adults not their parents to other states to get abortions without having to comply with their home states’ parental notification/consent provisions. Obviously most such cases don’t involve statutory rape, because most states have some sort of “Romeo and Juliet” provision wherein sex with a minor isn’t criminal unless the age gap is sufficiently large.

    But so far as I can tell via Google, the law applies only to minors being transported to other states by adults other than their parents for purposes of obtaining an abortion in a place with no parental notification or consent requirements. No one that I know of has suggested criminalizing helping an adult pregnant woman from one state to another for purposes of obtaining an abortion.

  20. John Rosenberg January 12, 2006 at 6:26 pm | | Reply

    actus:

    “One thing (my comment, not Kristol’s) that the Dems have done a very good job of is driving people like Alito away.”

    Well, much like roe hurts democrats, so did civil rights.

    Passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s did indeed drive many (mainly Southern) Democrats to the Republicans. Later, the Democrats’ abandonment of the core principle of civil rights, i.e., colorblind non-discrimination, and their turn to racial balancing through busing school children and preferences in employment and college admissions drove an equal (and perhaps even larger) number of blue collar, often Catholic Democrats in the North and West over to the Republicans.

    I continue to find it immensely annoying when people who reject the “without regard” principle of non-discrimination talk as though they were the only believers in “civil rights.”

  21. actus January 12, 2006 at 6:31 pm | | Reply

    “The law IIRC is limited to cases of minor children being taken by adults not their parents to other states to get abortions without having to comply with their home states’ parental notification/consent provisions.”

    Why can’t the home states parental notification / consent provisions deal with this?

    It looks like congress is ready to excercise its power to aid states in restricting abortions.

  22. Richard Nieporent January 12, 2006 at 6:40 pm | | Reply

    Imagine if scientists were hired by Universities the same way that Supreme Court Justices are confirmed.

    Dr. Einstein, we have had the Newtonian Laws of Gravity for over 200 years now. It is settled science. I heard you speak of your Theory of Relativity. That is out of the mainstream of science. Could you give us assurance that If hired you would not attempt to replace Newton’s laws?

  23. Michelle Dulak Thomson January 12, 2006 at 6:53 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Why can’t the home states[‘] parental notification / consent provisions deal with this?

    Perhaps because anything involving two states cannot be regulated by one of them unilaterally?

    Danged Constitution. Pesky Commerce Clause.

  24. Sandy P January 12, 2006 at 7:50 pm | | Reply

    Abortion goes back to the states for determination and all birth control disappears and the only option is coat hangers?

    There’s no more Norplant? The Pill? Spermicide???

  25. actus January 12, 2006 at 8:23 pm | | Reply

    “Imagine if scientists were hired by Universities the same way that Supreme Court Justices are confirmed.”

    Imagine if law worked like science.

    “Perhaps because anything involving two states cannot be regulated by one of them unilaterally?”

    Where does it say this in the constitution? Can texas regulate someone who comes into it to aid a minor in getting out to buy drugs? in getting out to have an abortion?

  26. Richard Nieporent January 12, 2006 at 9:25 pm | | Reply

    Imagine if law worked like science.

    Do you mean that we would test our laws and the ones that were found to be “wrong” would be repealed? That sounds like a good idea to me.

  27. actus January 13, 2006 at 12:08 am | | Reply

    “Do you mean that we would test our laws and the ones that were found to be “wrong” would be repealed? That sounds like a good idea to me.”

    Very democratic no?

  28. Richard Nieporent January 13, 2006 at 8:21 am | | Reply

    Very democratic no?

    As usual actus you are argumentative for the sake of argument. Where in the word repealed is the notion that it would not be done democratically? Who else but the legislative branch of government could repeal a law?

  29. actus January 13, 2006 at 9:23 am | | Reply

    “Where in the word repealed is the notion that it would not be done democratically? Who else but the legislative branch of government could repeal a law?”

    Because science isn’t done democratically. So law being done like science woudln’t be very democratic. And also science isn’t done by determining whether things are ‘wrong’ with quotes but actually plain old wrong as in not fitting the evidence.

  30. Richard Nieporent January 13, 2006 at 10:53 am | | Reply

    Actus, I believe you misunderstood me (what a surprise!). The use of quotes around wrong was for the laws, not for science since unlike science laws are not right or wrong but beneficial or harmful. My reference to science had to do with the scientific process for testing ideas. Why in the world would you take my analogy literally? Is the reason you had to comment on my observation that you were bothered by the fact that the “laws of science” can change when new data shows that there is an inconsistency? Is it really your contention that the laws of our country should be immutable? For example, I don’t believe that you would contend that once the Dred Scott decision was handed down it should have remained the law of the land forever.

  31. actus January 13, 2006 at 10:59 am | | Reply

    “My reference to science had to do with the scientific process for testing ideas. Why in the world would you take my analogy literally?”

    I would take it as analogous. If the system is just one where “wrong” things are rejected, then that’s not quite like science. Religion rejects things it considers ‘wrong’ but it doesn’t use the scientific process. Neither does policymaking.

    The way that legislators and scientists come up with what is wrong is different. And one uses the scientific process while the other doesn’t.

    “Is the reason you had to comment on my observation that you were bothered by the fact that the “laws of science” can change when new data shows that there is an inconsistency?”

    That doesn’t bother me at all. That’s great in fact! That’s how science works. Its not how legislation works. The laws of legislation change when new laws get passed. Not when inconsistent evidence or anything else comes along.

    “Is it really your contention that the laws of our country should be immutable?”

    My contention is that the laws of our country should reflect our values and be a result of our political process.

    That’s not how the laws of science work.

  32. deb January 13, 2006 at 4:28 pm | | Reply

    “My contention is that the laws of our country should reflect our values and be a result of our political process.”

    And yet, you believe that 9 people in black robes should just throw out laws that were voted on by 290 million people instead of using ‘our political process’…. interesting.

    Just a question, do you continue to believe that way when you don’t personally agree with the outcome?

  33. Richard Nieporent January 13, 2006 at 4:28 pm | | Reply

    Actus, thanks for enlightening us to the fact that the scientific process is not the same as the legislative process. We would not have known that if you had not explained it to us.

  34. actus January 13, 2006 at 5:12 pm | | Reply

    “And yet, you believe that 9 people in black robes should just throw out laws that were voted on by 290 million people instead of using ‘our political process’…. interesting.”

    Having a supreme court rule on the constitutionality of things is part of our process.

    “Actus, thanks for enlightening us to the fact that the scientific process is not the same as the legislative process. We would not have known that if you had not explained it to us.”

    Well, some dude was out there claiming that one should be like the other, so mostly in his interests I clarified it.

  35. David Nieporent January 15, 2006 at 1:18 am | | Reply

    “Congress and the states”? Really? Under the Commerce Clause as the same people who want Roe overturned interpret it? I suppose Congress could ban, say, a kid’s mother driving his underage girlfriend across state lines to get rid of the evidence without her parents hearing of it. In fact, I believe it already has. But banning abortion country-wide? You have to be kidding me. They don’t really want to do it anyway, and I don’t see how it’d be constitutional.

    Michelle, it wouldn’t be — except that under Democratic interpretations of the Commerce Clause, it certainly would be. If they can ban the non-commercial growing of wheat or marijuana, they can certainly ban abortion.

    The problem with the theory is that they wouldn’t have enough votes to do it, particularly in the Senate.

Say What?