Democrats are terrible at letting Republicans define the language of the debate. They don’t even try to fight back.
See “death tax”, “death panels”, etc.
Sharpe
1744
Unfortunately, I think that Georgia ruling is going to be overturned on appeal, at least at the Supreme Court level, for two reasons.
1)The conservative legal doctrine machine already has a theory addressing the legal reasoning of this judge about an unconstitutional law not lying dormant. They call the type of reasoning used by this Judge “the fallacy of erasure” and have a legal theory ready to go to overturn it. This type of arcane reasoning is beyond me - I can see the point the Judge is making. But bottom line, this Supreme Court has been pretty damn consistent with following the federalist society doctrine machinery so I don’t expect any different here. Expect the “fallacy of erasure” to be brought forth and overturn this ruling.
2)Legal technicalities aside, there is just no way in Hell Alito et. al. has the discipline to ignore the thrown gauntlet of that footnote. That footnote is balls-of-steel stuff (every word in it is true but it’s also JUST NOT SAID). I applaud the Judge for having the brass to write that footnote but there’s just no way in hell Alito et. al. will not rise to that bait. That’s like a 55 gallon drum of chum in the water. Alito will strike.
Oh well, at least it will be good court theater and the Georgia law will be in some kind of delayed status for a while at least.
I suspect you’re right about its chances, but I’m really scratching my head trying to counter the argument here. And if Georgia wants the ban, nothing stops the legislature from passing a non-defunct law.
Agree here as well. If anything, the broader argument might stand a better chance without this bit of rubbing Alito’s nose in it.
Sharpe
1746
Yeah the Dems need to get better. And specifically not just to say “oh that’s inaccurate” but also come up with better counter language. Like the so called “death tax” should be referred to as a “millionaire’s tax” (not the bland “estate tax”) because it doesn’t even kick in until what, $10 million for a couple? Something like that.
And the “fetal heartbeat” thing - we need to use the language “fetal cardiac impulse” or “fetal nerve impulse” because that’s what we are talking about. Specifically we need to have the word “impulse” in there to make it clear there’s no actual heartbeat sound, but just an electrical impulse. The sound that couples hear on the ultrasound is actually a sound manufactured by the ultrasound device. There is no real sound wave.
At every stage, rather than just saying “the GOP phrasing is wrong or inaccurate” we need to be using better, more accurate, and more politically effective language.
One thing I will give the younger, leftier generation of Dem pols: they do seem to grasp this language issue better and seem to be much better at it than the older gens of Dems. Perhaps that is due to social media experience.
Sharpe
1747
Well sometimes that whole “can’t help themselves” thing applies even to our side. I cheered that footnote while at the same time thinking “that is some pre-game poster shit right there.” But I can see how the Judge just couldn’t stop those fingers from typing that.
Sharpe
1749
If you care, you can google “fallacy of erasure” and “Volokh Conspiracy” and there are many Fed Soc Machine articles that will “enlighten” you. I’ve only ever skimmed it. But the theoretical construct is tanned, rested and ready to go for Alito to cut and paste.
I don’t doubt it. I’m saying if you set aside magical doctrines that get you out of jail free, the argument itself is sound.
Was the 2019 Georgia law struck down while Roe and Casey were still in force? Then the argument that it never because law and can’t be enforced now sounds pretty solid. Retroactively striking it down now, post Dobbs, does seem a lot more tenuous.
Yes. Then the Court of Appeals reversed after the Dobbs ruling.
Given this unbroken chain of U.S. Supreme Court decisions affirming the right to pre-viability abortions, many of the same plaintiffs from this suit promptly challenged the LIFE Act in federal court, where a judge in the Northern District of Georgia unsurprisingly found certain provisions of the Act, including Section 4, to be unconstitutional abridgment of a woman’s right to privacy. SisterSong Women of Color Reprod. Justice Collective v. Kemp, 472 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1304 (N.D.Ga. 2020) (ruling that the holdings in Roe and Casey were “binding upon this Court”). That district court order was reversed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. —, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), which overruled Roe and Casey and the nearly half-century of constitutional precedent that had accreted on the basis of those holdings. SisterSong Women of Color Reprod. Justice Collective v. Governor of Georgia, 40 F.4th 1320 (11th Cir. 2022).
Yeah, but considering he was hanging out with Trump, I feel like there are dozens of reasons that he could be defrocked. Anti-Abortion might be one of them, or might not be related at all.
Thrag
1755
Who got defrocked for political activity?
It’s worth clarifying: While Pavone’s political activism and pro-life vituperations demonstrated constant ignorance, uncouthness, and unchristian behavior, these things in general weren’t the reason his faculties as a priest were stripped.
The core reason is that he refused to obey the bishop of the diocese in which he was assigned. Bishop Zurek of Amarillo tried to bring Pavone to heel by giving him a regular assignment in the diocese (which would have restricted his ability to travel for speech-giving and fundraising) and Pavone refused to even meet with him.
The second reason given by the Dicastery for Clergy was his “blasphemous communications on social media.” Maybe not surprisingly, none of the information shared by the Vatican describes which of Pavone’s many controversial posts specifically were the blasphemous ones. It could be when he referred to “God-damned baby-killing politicians” (he also dropped f-bombs in posts, but that’s more scandalous than blasphemous). It might be when he said Catholics who vote for Democrats would be denied absolution in the confessional (for the supposed sin those votes entail). Or maybe it was the time he posted a video in which he put the body of an aborted baby on a table dressed as an altar, a table he also used for masses. What a piece of work, that formerly-Father Pavone, huh?
These kinds of incidents (as well as suspected mishandling of all the funds he raised for “Priests for Life,” and his misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on voting) were the reasons the bishop of Amarillo was attempting to rein Pavone in. And ultimately it was his refusal to do what his bishop ordered him to do that got him defrocked.
Did he actually do this? Where did he get the body?
To a non-catholic that seems like a pretty silly statement since everything he said is in line with the public perception of the official church stance. My initial thought was that his only mistake was not being a team player.
I’m not suggesting you are wrong, and you are obviously better-informed on this subject than I am. I just wanted to share the outside observer perspective.
Matt_W
1759
Yeah, the headlines on various news sources for this aren’t particularly informative. Certainly he wasn’t defrocked for being anti-abortion. It is weird that the actual statement by the Vatican is not available anywhere. All the news sources reference it, but no one links it. Maybe they’re protecting sources or something.
I mean putting dead fetuses on a sacramental altar is a bit beyond the pale. Also, endorsing political candidates by church officials is verboten in the United States.
Well, it turns out the sacramental altar was actually just a table, and I’m (still) skeptical about the fetus.
I dunno, I pass by abortion protestors all the damn time holding those dead fetus picture placards. I happen to live near the local planned parenthood clinic. These protestors are almost always accompanied by priests/nuns. A staged dead-fetus video just seems like more of the same to me.
Sure, but saying stuff like “nobody could in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate” gets the job done without names needing to be mentioned.
I can understand this perception, but if you look into Pavone’s rhetoric, it’s really not true. Yes, the Church is adamant that abortion is the killing of an innocent. That does not mean that Catholics can never vote for a pro-abortion candidate, which is something Pavone would often say. It doesn’t mean that actively voting in favor of abortion–which would be a sin–can never be absolved. And tonally Pavone was way outside the hierarchy’s preferred mode of addressing the issue. In addition to what Matt said about not endorsing candidates. Priests are allowed to preach about the issues and their severity, but not in favor or against any candidates.
It is the case that individual bishops have a lot of latitude with how they “police” the priests in their jurisdiction. There are probably a few dioceses in the country where Pavone could have operated as he has without things escalating to the point they did. But he doesn’t get to decide where he’s assigned, and no one was willing to transfer him or accept him, it seems.
What I read is that the quotes that are being used come from a communique to US bishops from the Dicastery for Clergy via the apostolic nuncio to the US.
Yeah, I don’t think there has ever been any confirmation of the body or where it came from. Although worth noting that there was another controversy this year in which an anti-abortion activist got their hands on multiple aborted fetuses by paying off a medical waste disposal driver. The supposed purpose was to give the bodies “proper burials.”
Catholics take the dignity of the human body really seriously. The bishop of Amarillo said at the time that “no one who is pro-life can exploit a human body for any reason, especially the body of a fetus.”
That’s not exactly the Church’s position, though. Catholics are required to believe that abortion is a grave sin and they are forbidden from advocating an acceptance of it in policy. They can’t actively vote in favor of expanded abortion access. But they can vote for pro-choice candidates if their conscience tells them that the good that candidate will do outweighs the evil of their pro-choice stance. That’s a very high hurdle, when abortion is so grave, but theoretically possible and up to the conscience of the voter. And a Catholic can vote for someone who is pro-choice when there are no candidates who are not pro-choice.
