While this might not have been the way to go about it, anything that opens up the deliberation process of the Supreme Court into the open cannot be bad. While their final decisions are easy (ish) to read and understand why the majority prevailed, how they got there needs transparency. During the height of the pandemic, they started broadcasting oral arguments and I thought it was enlightening. (Full disclosure - I'm not a lawyer, just a sad guy who likes to read court filings that pique my interest!)
When I heard about the leak I was dismayed. The sanctity of the Supreme Court has been violated from within. But, I also got to thinking about the decision itself. At this point it might be best to leave the legal theory of stare decisis alone. I know, Roe is an example of the high court legislating from the bench but, flawed legal theory aside, look at what this will do to the country at a time when we are already divided on politics, Covid, immigration and whatever else comes up tomorrow. Is this really the time for upheaval in the legal field as well? I admit I'd like to see the leaker publicly flogged. Not for their political views but for tarnishing the sanctity of SCOTUS. Shame on him/her for taking it upon themselves to disrupt the honor and trust of a venerable institution.
I love the way you handled this today. I really don't even care about the leak, it's the decision that is mind boggling! I love the way you said "there is nothing left to say". That about sums up what is happening.
"We all know it's political..." Begging your pardon, Bill, but we don't. My take, and maybe I'm the only one, is that too often in the recent past, the Supreme Court, and even for that matter, jurists throughout the country, are now identified by members of the media as either "Trump-appointed", "Republican-appointed", "Democrat-appointed", etc. This is not something that has been traditionally an identifying part of our courts. If I consider myself John Q. Public, I've never looked up a judge to see who appointed him or her. Yet I now hear the media identifying jurists by their appointed official. How do we address the issue? Stop identifying judges based on who appointed them. Easier said than done, I know. But this contentiousness is led by a media ingraining itself in context of decisions by justifying/attacking decisions based on politics.
When I hear the most (or, my most) respected news source (NPR) taking this tack, I almost want to give up. Life imitates art, indeed.
The basic purpose of media is to report the facts of the news. The opinion side of news is just that: opinion. Technology (social media) has allowed for greater transparency. My point is that you can’t blame media for doing their job.
Judges should be apolitical but apparently they often are not. That point was most recently brought to light with the Clarence Thomas family news. It’s also why Mitch’s blocking of Garland became such a big issue to both parties.
Thanks Tommy. I would love to be wrong about this. But I think there's a multibillion dollar industry, or maybe I should say multiple industries, dedicated to political influence of the judiciary, certainly at the appellate level where real law is made. Good article on it here -- suggesting that the U.S. Senate had generally deferred to presidential nominations until the 1960s; then some senators started flexing power -- notably starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall in 1967.
Thank you, Bill. Interesting read (though I would respectfully disagree on some of the writer's/author's presumptions ($15K in mid-60s was not a "...petty offense). I'd also contend that, while the confirmation process has indeed gotten very political, there "shouldn't" (can't type in italics here) be a reason to justify identifying a jurist by who appointed him. My own wishful thinking here, probably, but there ya go. Always enjoy the daily information you bring. Thank you.
You read an entire article on a subject and the only thread you can disagree with is the value of $15k in the mid-60s? I doubt that was Bill’s point but it did offer you an opportunity to deflect.
The obvious purpose of the article was to show how judicial appointments have become politicized, along with many of their decisions. Trump even made public statements about “his” judicial appointments and how they would help him. And let’s not forget 2000. Since judges are political appointments by the executive branch in power, and given the politics of today, along with the facts of the article, you perhaps are actually engaging in wishful thinking. I, for one, watch how judges rule and have seen a pattern.
Darrell, please note in my comment that I said "....respectfully disagree on some of the ...." You are absolutely correct, as I also noted, that the purpose of the article was that the process has indeed gotten very political. And I can't deny wishful thinking. I find it more comforting than thinking of only how bad it can get.
I’m afraid that if you track the voting of the Supreme court justices opinions in the last 10 years, you’ll find they go along with their political affiliations. The press are just pointing out the obvious.
This fiasco at SCOTUS has already created what you suggested. It was the other guy and here's why. A conspiracy theorists holiday, but in my opinion the truth is that SCOTUS is now political and has caught the Trumplican propensity to not tell the whole truth when asked, i.e., hearings for the last three Justices, all Trump appointees (see - political?).
I can recall supposedly political appointments to SCOTUS over the past two hundred plus years that were supposed to be political that turned out to be the opposite, to the chagrin of the party that made the appointment, because they followed the essence of the Court which is supposed to follow precedence. Until now, the Court mostly followed this guidance, which is not in the Constitution. If I am not mistaken, they are to interpret laws, not make them - isn't that what it says in the Constitution? Probably too simplistic.
So, here we go again. Fox News is lauding SCOTUS while CNN and MSNBC are wondering how this could happen, but ain't it grand that it did? What war? All of this while Rome is still burning and Nero keeps fiddling, as our democracy goes down in flames with an American flag draped over a Christian cross while 30% of our population is saying amen and in control while the top 1% who have funded this fiasco rubbing their hands in glee. Wow, what a croc of BS!
is it political or do we just have very real differences of what we feel is morally correct? And how do we get others to agree with our internal code? the past 40 years has seen a change in our moral code and while many feel we have gone too far an equal number feel that we need loosen them further. It is this divide that haunts the nation now. Your discussion on happiness was just the tip of the iceberg as we all peruse happiness in our own way and some are internal while others are external and they conflict. this may be more easily discussed in terms of when we seek happiness. Many want it now if at the expense of the future while others take less today figuring that they will have a better tomorrow. Live for today vs. prepare for tomorrow.
Sorry, but you lost me at “how do we get others to agree with our internal code.” The only real difference I can see in the last 40 years was the advent and subsequent influence of social media. It have the bullies a pulpit.
Even some prominent scholars who supported legal abortion derided the court’s opinion.
It’s “a very bad decision,” wrote Yale Law professor John Hart Ely, a former clerk to
Chief Justice Earl Warren, “because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense
of an obligation to try to be.”
Those critics included a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the years before she became a justice,
she said the court made a mistake by going too far, too fast in its first ruling on the constitutionality of abortion. Ginsburg had been the leader of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project in the 1970s, and later an appeals court judge in the 1980s. She gave several speeches criticizing the court’s handling of the abortion issue.
Congress could pass a law guaranteeing the right to abortion, but I don’t see that happening.
It is only in the last two decades I have come to realize how political the Supreme Court
nominations are. My respect for them is diminished, and I expect it will stay that way. It is hard for me to wrap my head around what they rule can affect my life and the lives of all women so deeply.
Sharon - I was about about to say folks are missing the point diving headlong into the merits (or demerits) of abortion. Then I saw your take! I agree - the Court is, for better or worse, pointing out the elephant in the room: Roe was bad law. These 'emanations of penumbras' are a lot of nonsense, and pretending that the Court can make up Constitutional rights only works until those made-up rights conflict, and we need Congress to make a public policy decision, or we need to establish an ACTUAL Constitutional right using the process for doing so - an Amendment. I actually respect the Court more for doing the right thing, even though it damages their own party in the political short term.
Question though - why do you not expect Congress to pass a law? There's broad support for legal abortion access - I would expect an uncontroversial Federal law would actually sail through pretty quickly, perhaps even this summer... unless they want to let the issue 'stew' for awhile so they can campaign on it?
Wow, this has never and will never go away. Somehow, as a society we need to learn to live together with it. Frankly, I see both sides of the argument. I consider myself fairly liberal on most things, but I can understand the contention that life begins, etc….. And, I am not a woman so I feel like I cannot wade into the debate; let the women decide it. But then, what if “the life” was also half of me? In the end, the woman deals with the ton of issues, so as a man I’m deferring to the women in my life.
Smart move on your part. If only more men would stfu about the subject that they helped create in the first place but who in most cases would want nothing to do with the end result.
I think we need to avoid broad brushing in any situation. My ex wife got pregnant (my child) right before we split up. She had the abortion. But I got custody of my three year old year old daughter and raised her without any help from my wife. I would have raised the other child as well, but I had no say in the abortion choice. Yes a lot of men wouldn’t want the responsibility, but more than you think would. Either way, if I was in power I would never advocate for legislating against this. Still up to the woman
You’re right. Many men would step up but a goodly number would not. The thing is, as you’ve recognized, having a baby begins on day one and never really ends; neither physically nor mentally. Thank you for your greater understanding of this issue.
So let me understand from your comments. You want men to “own up” to being part of the process, but you don’t want men to be able to weigh in with thoughts about the outcome.
Well, conspiracy theorists have been turning up right since the 2016 election. Hillary paid for the Steel Dossier and was colluding with the Russians, not Trump. Hunter Biden's laptop is a 'smoking gun' of information on his father's involvement in his business dealings. The FBI lied on the stand, etc. Don't mock your neighborhood conspiracy theorist, they may know more than you give them credit for.
The latest is that Biden met with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on two different days, regarding the upcoming elections and the potential disaster being teed up. The next day there was a leak of a decision that could potentially have dire consequences for the GOP. We'll find out in November if it was well played or if regular Americans are more concerned about the issues Biden is ignoring: illegal immigration, Crime, Inflation, taxes, and the fact that every tax paying American might be on the hook for college loans, regardless of whether they paid their own off, ever took a loan themselves, or even went to college. Distract, distract, distract. We live in a very embarrassing time for our country.
I could not have said this better myself. I also was thinking about Biden's meeting with the 2 previous Dem presidents recently and voila! Next day, there is a leak. I agree with everything else you said. Every day I wake up to "'the latest drama, tragedy, etc."
agree completely! I was considering going on a trip to Norway a few years ago, pre-pandemic but was afraid I would be "shamed" for being an American and cancelled the trip.
Why would you want to ruin what you have here? So far you have done a nice job of staying out of politics. Why change that? There are plenty of places for people to go to do their ranting. I think it is nice that we have a "quiet" place to go to without the ranting. Opening up a discussion on this is a can of worms that will destroy the fabric of the blog
As an extremely MODERATE pro-life person, (meaning do not ever overturn Roe-versus-Wade and do everything as a society and government to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place) but still recognize that some sort of life does exist at conception, I know there is not any way to come to a consensus on abortion. Like a lot of you, I was alive before Roe-versus-Wade. I subscribe to Feminists for Life, a pro-life group of feminists.
I KNOW we were not supposed to wade into pro-life versus pro-choice but I did and Bill can delete my post if he wants to. It seems we are all painted as STRONG pro-life and STRONG pro-choice. But for a lot of us, the decision is heavily nuanced.
Our household has one pro-choice person and one pro-life person. Lets just say we NEVER discuss abortion issues. Its just not worth it.
I may be in denial on this whole SCOTUS leak and all the potential repercussions on it so I am focusing on the fact that Elon Musk took his beautiful model mother to the MET Gala.
A man can have several hundred children per year. A woman can only have one. If there must be stopguards, put them on men. They contribute equally to pregnancy and yet this is considered a women's issue? It takes two, people. Yes, it happens in her body, but without him, it wouldn't happen at all. If we're going to police people's bodies, start with the most prolific perpetrators.
Irene, you’re a woman after my own heart! It’s been my belief for years that male infants should be “fixed” at birth and “unfixed” when they prove to be financially stable and desirous of being a father. Life might prove to be a lot nicer then.
Maybe. The point is it's about everyone, not just women! Stand up, guys. You always wanna get some action, but then you get to walk away when you have co-created a human? NO.
Well. . . the legion of men paying child support this very moment (for children they are not legally permitted to parent in any meaningful way) would disagree that they have 'zilch' consequence. I've found that most men want to be involved fathers whether or not the relationship works out. Sadly, men today are often devalued as 'fathers', and viewed only as a walking paycheck, both before and after the divorce.
I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like to co-parent with someone with whom I have no real relationship. Trying to agree on something with a person for whom the fundamental relationship agreement does not work is insane.
Even worse on the children of these parenting “partners” who are as far removed from a partnership as you can be.
Oh, it gets even better...In many states - even if separated on the grounds of adultery - if your wife gives birth to another manxs child before the divorce is final, guess who's obligated to pay support for that child?
As to suggestions on commenting about the mega-contentious, a few ideas/suggestions: 1) examine the mechanics of how each side has come to understand and view the issue (media, social media, historical events), 2) examine the mechanics/nature of discourse the discourse and how it is/isn't promoting any new understanding, or 3) looking at those that are profiting (money or power) from the generation or continuance of there being such contention. These can mostly skirt the underlying emotionally charged issues yet meaningfully add context and understanding from which most of us would benefit.
My vote would have been for May the Fourth.
While this might not have been the way to go about it, anything that opens up the deliberation process of the Supreme Court into the open cannot be bad. While their final decisions are easy (ish) to read and understand why the majority prevailed, how they got there needs transparency. During the height of the pandemic, they started broadcasting oral arguments and I thought it was enlightening. (Full disclosure - I'm not a lawyer, just a sad guy who likes to read court filings that pique my interest!)
When I heard about the leak I was dismayed. The sanctity of the Supreme Court has been violated from within. But, I also got to thinking about the decision itself. At this point it might be best to leave the legal theory of stare decisis alone. I know, Roe is an example of the high court legislating from the bench but, flawed legal theory aside, look at what this will do to the country at a time when we are already divided on politics, Covid, immigration and whatever else comes up tomorrow. Is this really the time for upheaval in the legal field as well? I admit I'd like to see the leaker publicly flogged. Not for their political views but for tarnishing the sanctity of SCOTUS. Shame on him/her for taking it upon themselves to disrupt the honor and trust of a venerable institution.
Perfect approach today. Thanks
I love the way you handled this today. I really don't even care about the leak, it's the decision that is mind boggling! I love the way you said "there is nothing left to say". That about sums up what is happening.
"We all know it's political..." Begging your pardon, Bill, but we don't. My take, and maybe I'm the only one, is that too often in the recent past, the Supreme Court, and even for that matter, jurists throughout the country, are now identified by members of the media as either "Trump-appointed", "Republican-appointed", "Democrat-appointed", etc. This is not something that has been traditionally an identifying part of our courts. If I consider myself John Q. Public, I've never looked up a judge to see who appointed him or her. Yet I now hear the media identifying jurists by their appointed official. How do we address the issue? Stop identifying judges based on who appointed them. Easier said than done, I know. But this contentiousness is led by a media ingraining itself in context of decisions by justifying/attacking decisions based on politics.
When I hear the most (or, my most) respected news source (NPR) taking this tack, I almost want to give up. Life imitates art, indeed.
The basic purpose of media is to report the facts of the news. The opinion side of news is just that: opinion. Technology (social media) has allowed for greater transparency. My point is that you can’t blame media for doing their job.
Judges should be apolitical but apparently they often are not. That point was most recently brought to light with the Clarence Thomas family news. It’s also why Mitch’s blocking of Garland became such a big issue to both parties.
Amen brother1
Thanks Tommy. I would love to be wrong about this. But I think there's a multibillion dollar industry, or maybe I should say multiple industries, dedicated to political influence of the judiciary, certainly at the appellate level where real law is made. Good article on it here -- suggesting that the U.S. Senate had generally deferred to presidential nominations until the 1960s; then some senators started flexing power -- notably starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall in 1967.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/30/trump-supreme-court-nominations-history-bork-garland-218942/
It’s really quite simple: if politicians are involved it is political.
Thank you, Bill. Interesting read (though I would respectfully disagree on some of the writer's/author's presumptions ($15K in mid-60s was not a "...petty offense). I'd also contend that, while the confirmation process has indeed gotten very political, there "shouldn't" (can't type in italics here) be a reason to justify identifying a jurist by who appointed him. My own wishful thinking here, probably, but there ya go. Always enjoy the daily information you bring. Thank you.
You read an entire article on a subject and the only thread you can disagree with is the value of $15k in the mid-60s? I doubt that was Bill’s point but it did offer you an opportunity to deflect.
The obvious purpose of the article was to show how judicial appointments have become politicized, along with many of their decisions. Trump even made public statements about “his” judicial appointments and how they would help him. And let’s not forget 2000. Since judges are political appointments by the executive branch in power, and given the politics of today, along with the facts of the article, you perhaps are actually engaging in wishful thinking. I, for one, watch how judges rule and have seen a pattern.
Darrell, please note in my comment that I said "....respectfully disagree on some of the ...." You are absolutely correct, as I also noted, that the purpose of the article was that the process has indeed gotten very political. And I can't deny wishful thinking. I find it more comforting than thinking of only how bad it can get.
Look over your shoulder for the answer.
I’m afraid that if you track the voting of the Supreme court justices opinions in the last 10 years, you’ll find they go along with their political affiliations. The press are just pointing out the obvious.
I think the Chief Justice would offer the counterpoint to that, however your point is well-taken.
This fiasco at SCOTUS has already created what you suggested. It was the other guy and here's why. A conspiracy theorists holiday, but in my opinion the truth is that SCOTUS is now political and has caught the Trumplican propensity to not tell the whole truth when asked, i.e., hearings for the last three Justices, all Trump appointees (see - political?).
I can recall supposedly political appointments to SCOTUS over the past two hundred plus years that were supposed to be political that turned out to be the opposite, to the chagrin of the party that made the appointment, because they followed the essence of the Court which is supposed to follow precedence. Until now, the Court mostly followed this guidance, which is not in the Constitution. If I am not mistaken, they are to interpret laws, not make them - isn't that what it says in the Constitution? Probably too simplistic.
So, here we go again. Fox News is lauding SCOTUS while CNN and MSNBC are wondering how this could happen, but ain't it grand that it did? What war? All of this while Rome is still burning and Nero keeps fiddling, as our democracy goes down in flames with an American flag draped over a Christian cross while 30% of our population is saying amen and in control while the top 1% who have funded this fiasco rubbing their hands in glee. Wow, what a croc of BS!
is it political or do we just have very real differences of what we feel is morally correct? And how do we get others to agree with our internal code? the past 40 years has seen a change in our moral code and while many feel we have gone too far an equal number feel that we need loosen them further. It is this divide that haunts the nation now. Your discussion on happiness was just the tip of the iceberg as we all peruse happiness in our own way and some are internal while others are external and they conflict. this may be more easily discussed in terms of when we seek happiness. Many want it now if at the expense of the future while others take less today figuring that they will have a better tomorrow. Live for today vs. prepare for tomorrow.
Sorry, but you lost me at “how do we get others to agree with our internal code.” The only real difference I can see in the last 40 years was the advent and subsequent influence of social media. It have the bullies a pulpit.
Seems the legal basis of Roe vs Wade was flawed.
Even some prominent scholars who supported legal abortion derided the court’s opinion.
It’s “a very bad decision,” wrote Yale Law professor John Hart Ely, a former clerk to
Chief Justice Earl Warren, “because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense
of an obligation to try to be.”
Those critics included a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the years before she became a justice,
she said the court made a mistake by going too far, too fast in its first ruling on the constitutionality of abortion. Ginsburg had been the leader of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project in the 1970s, and later an appeals court judge in the 1980s. She gave several speeches criticizing the court’s handling of the abortion issue.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-05-03/how-roe-vs-wade-went-wrong-broad-new-right-to-abortion-rested-on-a-shaky-legal-foundation
Congress could pass a law guaranteeing the right to abortion, but I don’t see that happening.
It is only in the last two decades I have come to realize how political the Supreme Court
nominations are. My respect for them is diminished, and I expect it will stay that way. It is hard for me to wrap my head around what they rule can affect my life and the lives of all women so deeply.
Sharon - I was about about to say folks are missing the point diving headlong into the merits (or demerits) of abortion. Then I saw your take! I agree - the Court is, for better or worse, pointing out the elephant in the room: Roe was bad law. These 'emanations of penumbras' are a lot of nonsense, and pretending that the Court can make up Constitutional rights only works until those made-up rights conflict, and we need Congress to make a public policy decision, or we need to establish an ACTUAL Constitutional right using the process for doing so - an Amendment. I actually respect the Court more for doing the right thing, even though it damages their own party in the political short term.
Question though - why do you not expect Congress to pass a law? There's broad support for legal abortion access - I would expect an uncontroversial Federal law would actually sail through pretty quickly, perhaps even this summer... unless they want to let the issue 'stew' for awhile so they can campaign on it?
Wow, this has never and will never go away. Somehow, as a society we need to learn to live together with it. Frankly, I see both sides of the argument. I consider myself fairly liberal on most things, but I can understand the contention that life begins, etc….. And, I am not a woman so I feel like I cannot wade into the debate; let the women decide it. But then, what if “the life” was also half of me? In the end, the woman deals with the ton of issues, so as a man I’m deferring to the women in my life.
Smart move on your part. If only more men would stfu about the subject that they helped create in the first place but who in most cases would want nothing to do with the end result.
I think we need to avoid broad brushing in any situation. My ex wife got pregnant (my child) right before we split up. She had the abortion. But I got custody of my three year old year old daughter and raised her without any help from my wife. I would have raised the other child as well, but I had no say in the abortion choice. Yes a lot of men wouldn’t want the responsibility, but more than you think would. Either way, if I was in power I would never advocate for legislating against this. Still up to the woman
You’re right. Many men would step up but a goodly number would not. The thing is, as you’ve recognized, having a baby begins on day one and never really ends; neither physically nor mentally. Thank you for your greater understanding of this issue.
I know just as many women who refuse to step up - but they're suddenly 'parents' when it's time to collect that 'earned' income credit.
So let me understand from your comments. You want men to “own up” to being part of the process, but you don’t want men to be able to weigh in with thoughts about the outcome.
Which outcome are you referring to? There are many in the lifetime of a child.
Well, conspiracy theorists have been turning up right since the 2016 election. Hillary paid for the Steel Dossier and was colluding with the Russians, not Trump. Hunter Biden's laptop is a 'smoking gun' of information on his father's involvement in his business dealings. The FBI lied on the stand, etc. Don't mock your neighborhood conspiracy theorist, they may know more than you give them credit for.
The latest is that Biden met with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on two different days, regarding the upcoming elections and the potential disaster being teed up. The next day there was a leak of a decision that could potentially have dire consequences for the GOP. We'll find out in November if it was well played or if regular Americans are more concerned about the issues Biden is ignoring: illegal immigration, Crime, Inflation, taxes, and the fact that every tax paying American might be on the hook for college loans, regardless of whether they paid their own off, ever took a loan themselves, or even went to college. Distract, distract, distract. We live in a very embarrassing time for our country.
I could not have said this better myself. I also was thinking about Biden's meeting with the 2 previous Dem presidents recently and voila! Next day, there is a leak. I agree with everything else you said. Every day I wake up to "'the latest drama, tragedy, etc."
Much less embarrassed for our country than previous administration. What an atrocious cruel period that was.
agree completely! I was considering going on a trip to Norway a few years ago, pre-pandemic but was afraid I would be "shamed" for being an American and cancelled the trip.
You mean the same Norway that is ghosting Joe Biden?
Why would you want to ruin what you have here? So far you have done a nice job of staying out of politics. Why change that? There are plenty of places for people to go to do their ranting. I think it is nice that we have a "quiet" place to go to without the ranting. Opening up a discussion on this is a can of worms that will destroy the fabric of the blog
Great job Bill! You handled an extremely volatile subject brilliantly!
As an extremely MODERATE pro-life person, (meaning do not ever overturn Roe-versus-Wade and do everything as a society and government to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place) but still recognize that some sort of life does exist at conception, I know there is not any way to come to a consensus on abortion. Like a lot of you, I was alive before Roe-versus-Wade. I subscribe to Feminists for Life, a pro-life group of feminists.
I KNOW we were not supposed to wade into pro-life versus pro-choice but I did and Bill can delete my post if he wants to. It seems we are all painted as STRONG pro-life and STRONG pro-choice. But for a lot of us, the decision is heavily nuanced.
Our household has one pro-choice person and one pro-life person. Lets just say we NEVER discuss abortion issues. Its just not worth it.
I may be in denial on this whole SCOTUS leak and all the potential repercussions on it so I am focusing on the fact that Elon Musk took his beautiful model mother to the MET Gala.
A man can have several hundred children per year. A woman can only have one. If there must be stopguards, put them on men. They contribute equally to pregnancy and yet this is considered a women's issue? It takes two, people. Yes, it happens in her body, but without him, it wouldn't happen at all. If we're going to police people's bodies, start with the most prolific perpetrators.
Irene, you’re a woman after my own heart! It’s been my belief for years that male infants should be “fixed” at birth and “unfixed” when they prove to be financially stable and desirous of being a father. Life might prove to be a lot nicer then.
Maybe. The point is it's about everyone, not just women! Stand up, guys. You always wanna get some action, but then you get to walk away when you have co-created a human? NO.
Exactly. You get my point. Childbearing is just the tip of the iceberg for women and for men? Zilch.
Well. . . the legion of men paying child support this very moment (for children they are not legally permitted to parent in any meaningful way) would disagree that they have 'zilch' consequence. I've found that most men want to be involved fathers whether or not the relationship works out. Sadly, men today are often devalued as 'fathers', and viewed only as a walking paycheck, both before and after the divorce.
I cannot begin to imagine what it must be like to co-parent with someone with whom I have no real relationship. Trying to agree on something with a person for whom the fundamental relationship agreement does not work is insane.
Even worse on the children of these parenting “partners” who are as far removed from a partnership as you can be.
Oh, it gets even better...In many states - even if separated on the grounds of adultery - if your wife gives birth to another manxs child before the divorce is final, guess who's obligated to pay support for that child?
As to suggestions on commenting about the mega-contentious, a few ideas/suggestions: 1) examine the mechanics of how each side has come to understand and view the issue (media, social media, historical events), 2) examine the mechanics/nature of discourse the discourse and how it is/isn't promoting any new understanding, or 3) looking at those that are profiting (money or power) from the generation or continuance of there being such contention. These can mostly skirt the underlying emotionally charged issues yet meaningfully add context and understanding from which most of us would benefit.
The people all emotional thrive on the drama. Always follow the money. It is the driver for all politics.