RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-not-prosecute-judicial-intimidation-department-of-justice-supreme-court-justices-glenn-youngkin-larry-hogan-11656108679?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Protests erupted Friday in Washington after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and bigger disruptions are possible. Yet so far the Justice Department has refused to enforce federal law to keep the peace at the personal homes of the Justices. That’s despite a request by Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.

“Hundreds of demonstrators have recently chosen to picket Supreme Court Justices at their homes in Virginia and Maryland,” the two Governors wrote last month to Attorney General Merrick Garland. As they pointed out, there’s a law that prohibits attempting to influence federal judges by picketing “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge.” Violations are punishable by a year in prison.

“It seems clear this federal code is applicable,” the Governors wrote, given the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion on Roe v. Wade. The protesters were trying to influence the final ruling. Messrs. Youngkin and Hogan cited comments such as: “If you take away our choices, we will riot.” They asked Mr. Garland to “ensure these residential areas are secure” and to “enforce the law as it is written.”

We’ve obtained the Justice Department’s reply, which is about as responsive as a wet blanket. “Your letter,” it says, “suggests that some individuals may have violated federal criminal law. We appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter. Longstanding policy and practice of the Department prevent us from discussing this information with you further or confirming or denying the initiation or existence of any investigation.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/abortion-goes-back-to-the-people-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-dobbs-v-jackson-samuel-alito-11656107148?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Can America still settle its political conflicts democratically, and peacefully? We’re about to find out after the Supreme Court Friday overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the profound moral issue of abortion to the states and democratic assent, where it has always belonged.

Critics say the Court’s 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is rule by unelected judges. But Roe was the real “exercise of raw judicial power,” as Justice Byron White put it in dissent in 1973. That’s when seven Justices claimed to find a constitutional right to abortion that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and had no history in American common law. The Court on Friday finally corrected its mistake, which has damaged the legitimacy of the Court and inflamed our politics for 49 years.

The Justices in the majority deserve credit for sticking with their convictions despite the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in May. The leak was probably intended to create a furor to pressure the Justices to change their mind, and it has led to protests in front of their homes and even an apparent assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. By holding firm, they showed the Court can’t be intimidated.

***

Justice Alito’s majority opinion hews closely to his draft, and it is a careful, thoughtful survey of abortion law and its history in the constitutional order. His opinion takes apart, brick by logical brick, the reasoning of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the other main abortion precedent the Court overrules in Dobbs.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-6-23-progressive-utopian-vision-versus-the-constitution

It’s already been a bad week in the Supreme Court for progressive shibboleths. Just today, the key provision of New York’s gun restriction regime — under which the authorities had discretion to deny you a gun permit if they thought the reason you gave for wanting one was not good enough — got struck down under the Second Amendment. For what it’s worth, I’ve long thought that that provision was obviously unconstitutional, and that the Second Circuit’s decision upholding it was not a good faith application of existing Supreme Court precedent. In practice, the authorities denied almost all requests for gun permits except from politicians, big political donors (to Democrats) and celebrities. The decision has caused a good deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth over in the precincts of the Left.

And there’s plenty more to come. Without doubt you are already familiar with the case involving Mississippi’s abortion law, likely to spell the end of the long reign of Roe v. Wade. But today I’m going to focus on another high-impact case, West Virginia v. EPA. This one was argued back in February, but the decision still has not been issued. They tend to issue the decisions in the most important cases at the very end. In the West Virginia case, there is significant potential that the Supreme Court could significantly rein in the regulatory assault that the Biden Administration is currently waging against the fossil fuel industries, and maybe some other regulatory assaults as well.

You can tell that there is concern over this one because the New York Times is not waiting around for the decision to start its parade of hit pieces. On Monday, the lead story, occupying about half of the front page, dealt with this case, with the headline “Republican Drive to Tilt Courts Against Climate Action Reaches a Crucial Moment.” The byline is Coral Davenport.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3535437-bidens-war-on-oil-is-funding-putins-war-on-ukraine/

President Biden’s bizarre and implacable hostility to U.S. oil producers is helping Russia win its war against Ukraine.

No joke, as Biden might say. Not only has the president’s unswerving effort to squash domestic oil and gas production caused higher prices for consumers, a looming recession as the Federal Reserve struggles to dampen inflation and disastrously low approval ratings, it is also funding Russia’s destruction of its neighbor.

The U.S. is the world’s largest oil and gas producer. Because of the COVID-19 shutdowns, but also because of the many restrictions and costs piled onto domestic producers by the Biden administration, and in recognition of those likely to follow, U.S. output has declined from 13.1 million barrels per day in February 2020 to 11.9 mb/d today.

Taking over 1 million barrels per day off the world market amid what was until recently a global economic expansion has helped boost prices. And higher prices are funding Putin’s war with Ukraine.

Consider: On June 10 the central bank of Russia dropped its key lending rate by 150 basis points, the fourth such cut in the past few months.

This even as financial authorities around the world, including in the U.S., are pushing rates higher to dampen demand and squash inflation.

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/at-the-supreme-court-with-pro-life-democrats/

When Cockburn took a rainy-day stroll past the United States Supreme Court on Thursday, he didn’t expect to see many people. To his surprise, there were several protesters outside, anticipating a decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which could overturn Roe v. Wade.

Cockburn decided to stop and chat with both pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators, briefly catching interviews between shouting matches laced with obscenities and references to genitalia.

“Roe is a barbaric remnant of a eugenic past. [It’s] responsible for the murder of 60 million babies,” said Terrisa Bukovinac, the founder and executive director of the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising.“I believe in equity, nonviolence, and nondiscrimination. We can’t build a better world on top of dead babies.” Bukovina was one of two women who recently took home a box that was being shipped away from a Planned Parenthood clinic and found five dead babies inside.

Cockburn was astonished to see that a plurality of pro-life protesters were openly progressive or waved banners touting the Democratic Party. One of them, John Quinn, a 26-year-old affiliate of Democrats for Life, said, “We want to have a secular conversation. It is important to support women, but abortion is a violent solution, and it doesn’t solve poverty.”

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/roe-v-wade-gone-now-what/

With the recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, Cockburn figures it’s time to draw lines in the sand… or at least around the states. Following the decision, some states will serve as sanctuaries for the unborn, while others will be sanctuaries for women seeking abortions, sometimes right up until the moment of birth.

Let’s start with the states that have “trigger laws” to ban abortion if Roe is overturned. They are Arkansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming and Utah.

The states that codify abortion into law irrespective of the Supreme Court are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Washington, DC.

In other words, abortion states outnumber pro-life states eighteen to thirteen, while the rest have neither an immediate ban nor a codification in place. For these states, the heightened tensions will make for a vibrant debate in the coming days. People on both sides of the issue will be fighting vehemently, and abortion will become a much larger political issue in elections to come.

There are others among the nineteen states without “trigger laws” that may soon restrict abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a Planned Parenthood-funded pro-choice “think tank,” states that may act against abortion in the coming days are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Some of these states have pre-Roe legislation that will come back into effect, such as Arizona and Michigan, while others have laws that prevent abortions six weeks after pregnancy, such as South Carolina and Ohio