TRUMP IS "HONORED" TO BE INCLUDED WITH HITLER AND STALIN

…..Trump doesn’t understand that he is being "Honored", as were these dictators.

 

Trump say he “Grew up reading TIME”, but he only read them when he was in the magazine.

 

Trump says he is “honored” to be the “Person of the Year” for TIME Magazine.  But this man doesn’t seem to understand that this “honor” is for the most influential person in the news, whether it was for good influence, or for bad influence. 

 

When asked about the comment that TIME had said he was the president-elect of a “divided America”, Trump of course had to say that “He didn’t have anything to do with dividing America.”……huh?  Oh, of course he didn’t!  Calling all your opponents names like: “Lyin Ted”, or “Little Marco”, or “Crooked Hillary” or saying that President Obama was the “Worst president in US history!”, that’s not supposed to be divisive?

 

I think it’s time to make Donald Trump aware that he is one of the very bad people that have been TIME’s “Persons, or Man of the Year”.  As an example, other previous individuals that have received this “Honor” at TIME magazine have included, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, George W. Bush, Ayatollah Khomeini and yes, even Russia’s Vladimir Putin, although Trump might feel very positive about this last one.

 

The future of the Supreme Court was extremely important to some groups this election, especially white evangelicals, but it was not discussed much on a national level. However, now that Donald Trump has been elected, and with the past results of former Republican presidents filling Supreme Court vacancies, it will be of tremendous importance to the country’s future.

 

Trump has already said that he will only nominate pro-life justices.  And with all the elderly justices on the liberal side of the court, Trump could eventually change the overall make-up of the high court.  If that is the case, and Roe vs Wade is over turned, then everyone had better expect that major hospitals would have to set up health departments for those women that had attempted self-abortions.  Or those that had gone to a not so successful illegal abortion provider.  Prior to the passing of Roe vs Wade, this was required and a common hospital issue, back when abortion was illegal.  So, we need to get ready for this kind of problem, especially at all the large metropolitan hospitals.

 

No up-coming issue will be more volatile than that of abortion, which raises the inevitable question: Is Roe v. Wade doomed?  If enough Justices retire, the answer is “yes”.  Ohio’s latest “Heartbeat Bill” says it all.  Influenced by Trump’s election win, the Ohio legislature’s already decided to pass a ban on abortions once a fetal heartbeat can be detected.  This is usually about six weeks into a pregnancy, and before many women even know they’re pregnant. Under current Supreme Court jurisprudence, this ban is almost certainly unconstitutional. But by the time it reaches the Supreme Court, perhaps it will be legal.

 

As Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights recently told New York magazine, “We definitely need to be concerned, but we do not believe that Roe v. Wade would be overturned at this point in time.” The idea is that not only are the justices not considering the overturn of the Court’s precedents, but they’re also tuned into public opinion and political reality, and they understand what havoc would result if they overturned Roe. Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as much in an interview last year: “This court is highly precedent bound. And it could happen, but I think it’s not a likely scenario.”

 

Pro-choice groups may be taking that approach for persuading the justices of just that argument. Unfortunately, it’s much more likely that by the time we get to the end of Donald Trump’s term, Roe could be history.

 

The court today has three votes against Roe. Let’s imagine that at some point in the next four years, either Ginsburg (age 83), Breyer (78) or Kennedy (80) leaves the Court. Their replacement would also be all but guaranteed to be a vote to overturn Roe. That’s four votes which means it all comes down to the Chief Justice, John Roberts.

 

Earlier this year, Roberts dissented in a case that struck down a set of ridiculous restrictions that Texas had placed on abortion clinics, a classic “TRAP law” (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers).  The state had placed regulatory demands that are virtually impossible to satisfy at the abortion clinics as a way of driving them out of business.

 

That Texas law was so stupid that if you believed it was constitutional, as Roberts, Thomas, and Alito did, then there’s essentially no restriction on any abortion rights that you’d find unduly burdensome. This suggests that Roberts will be perfectly ready to discard Roe, if and when he gets the chance.

 

On the other hand, Roberts did earn his stripes in the Reagan Justice Department.  That was when he participated in many efforts to restrict abortion rights. While he did make all the right noises about Roe being a settled precedent during his confirmation hearings in 2005, (as every conservative justice always does), he has never joined the pro-choice side of any decision before the High Court.

 

The point here is that if this happens and then Trump get one more appointment, he could effectively overturn Roe without actually overturning Roe.

 

The pro-lifers could claim that Roe still stands while they gut the standards as stated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said that states can’t place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose. They could say that “heartbeat” bans like Ohio’s are fine, as are TRAP laws that make it impossible to open an abortion clinic.  They could agree to lengthy waiting periods or requirements that doctors lie to their patients and tell them that they either put the baby up for adoption, or they’ll go mad and die from cancer.  (Yes, this has actually been done in the past in some southern states.)

But the real issues are just beginning.  Things could be even worse, and with the Republicans control of Congress and the White House, they probably aren’t going to wait around.  They will likely pass national laws on abortion, things like bans after 20 weeks or less, or national stated waiting periods, and other laws meant to make abortion as difficult and cumbersome as possible for women, particularly poor women, to obtain.

 

Under this scenario, every state would have to live under the strict rules set by Republicans in Congress, who are almost unanimous in their desire to see abortion rights disappear completely.

 

Would there be any political backlash? Absolutely. But that just might be what it will take to restrain Republicans from reaching for their real desires.

 

But no matter what the case, there are some very dark days ahead for this nation’s reproductive rights.

 

Copyright G.Ater 2016