206 Comments

I tweeted Harrison that he needs to condemn and condemn again the harassment at people's homes. They are in the drivers seat on so many things including RvW they don't need to blow it with run-amuck nonsense or we will be stuck with Trump and his kind.

Expand full comment

The trend on both the left and right of protesting outside people's homes is really unfortunate. My friend had the misfortune of sharing a residential building with the Lt. Governor who the anti-maskers decided was responsible for all of the public health "tyranny." He actually had no power and was not the one responsible for any county or state public health orders but because he urged covid precautions on TV, the anti-maskers protested outside his building for weeks. Nonstop racket from 6 -10 pm every night. People were afraid to walk their dogs because the only way out of the building was to walk through a gauntlet of angry shouting unvaxxed and unmasked idiots. Both sides do it. I'm really dismayed that the going attitude is that this tactic is ok as long as you agree with the cause.

Expand full comment

I was a bit bothered about protesting outside the homes of the supreme court justices, but have reconsidered for several reasons. First, they have been very peaceful protests - no violence or breaking of any laws. Second, they have erected huge barriers around the supreme court so they are not "bothered" by protesters. And most importantly, the ruled in the 90s that protesting outside employees of abortion clinic's homes was legal. https://www.truthorfiction.com/in-the-90s-the-supreme-court-held-that-protesting-outside-of-the-homes-of-abortion-clinic-employees-is-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Expand full comment
May 10, 2022·edited May 10, 2022

Weigel writes about "Plenty of Democratic and pro-abortion rights efforts". The dash is misleading. We don't really have good punctuation for this, but the reader is less likely to think someone is gleefully for abortion if the phrase is "pro abortion-rights"

Expand full comment
founding

Personally, I don't like the protests in front of the Justices homes. It's a violation of privacy. But, on the other hand, it seems they are set to rule that there is no Constitutional right to privacy.

So I guess it's okay?

Expand full comment

Dear Bulwark: I managed to sign up for an entire other year. I would like to be refunded. Your site seem to provide no means to do this. Could you please refund me my $100. I'm not sure how the hell you do it otherwise.

Expand full comment

In the off chance that one of the authors sees this and addresses (yes, JVL, I saw your wife's thing about diaper donations). I feel my skin crawling when I see Louisiana's law. It's obscene. It's 60% people who already have one child that have abortions in the end, most of them poor. And because of "financial responsibility" that has no caring for the outcomes it induces, they will have no support. McConnell fully supports even rejection of the Child Tax Credit. The rest of the them don't care about the children that will born into poverty - 75% of women that have abortions are low income.

What's the GOP or the Bulwark doing about that? Or even talking about? Yet conservatives don't feel bad. It's actually good for the children they claim, in fact. Well, the reality is here. It's going to be grim.

I do know it's time to stop supporting this site if it doesn't care about the kids or women it's okay with losing rights. Because those kids are going to need more than austerity measures by government. Maybe you guys (mostly guys) didn't think this whole thing through. Maybe start writing articles about that, Bulwark.

I don't expect you to change your stance on abortion, but are you going to change it on financial measures and start endorsing full healthcare and child support? Or is it crickets all the way down because charity?

Expand full comment

I keep telling people that the abortion issue won't be that great of an issue for Democrats. Pro-life voters have always been more motivated than pro-choice voters. Overturning Roe won't change the equation that much.

A new CNN poll confirms that:

"[C]omparing the results of the new poll to one conducted immediately before the revelation of the draft opinion, the impact on the political landscape heading into the 2022 midterms appears fairly muted.

The share of registered voters who say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this fall rose 6 points between the first survey and the second, but that increase is about even across party lines. Among Democrats, 43% now say they are extremely or very enthusiastic, up 7 points. Among Republicans, it's 56%, up 9 points. And voters who say overturning Roe would make them "happy" are nearly twice as enthusiastic about voting this fall as those who say such a ruling would leave them "angry" (38% extremely enthusiastic among those happy, 20% among those angry)."

People are pointing out that the Rs will overreach. No doubt. But the Ds will no doubt overreach just as much. The political climate will eventually cool and most states will have laws that allow abortion the first three months which is position most Americans hold, but is a contradiction to Roe and its progeny which mandates states allow abortion for (approximately) 6 months.

Expand full comment

Violence is wrong! Period, end sentence, repeat - VIOLENCE IS WRONG! The etiology of the violence is not just the SCOTUS leaked preliminary opinion on abortion, but the inevitable outcome of the tyranny of the minority, theocratic, neo fascists who control the court and much of congress. When decisions that are essential to the lives of Americans are made overturning their accustomed to rights and freedoms revolution is a likely outcome. By ignoring stare decisis SCOTUS is directly responsible for the violence that ensues. These are not conservative justices, these are radicals who eviscerate precedent. They should be held responsible but other than impeachment, no remedies are available. On a brighter note than civil war, the republicans

are lead by a group of evangelical theocrats consisting mainly of elderly white men from rural America. The demographics are heavily against them: the fastest growing belief group in America are unaffiliated, agnostic, and atheist - and they are currently the largest group of Americans. (Larger than any stated religious affiliation) The Bible thumping theocrats are loud, have influence far outstripping their numbers, but are a dying breed. Darwin will prevail. As usual it is religion, the folks who brought us the crusades and the inquisition that leads the call for snot flying, crazy violence.

For now, we should abolish the filibuster, expand the court to 13 justices, codify ethics rules for SCOTUS, pass voting rights reform and prosecute Trump and his band of seditionists. I am hopeful that the Jan. 6 committee’s upcoming televised hearings will facilitate the latter. If Trump is re-elected, extreme violence, perhaps even civil war or secession are likely outcomes.

Expand full comment
May 9, 2022·edited May 9, 2022

The GOP gets hammered (rightfully so) for how many times they respond about Trump with a "whataboutism" about the Dems.

I dare say that there are a lot of whataboutisms going today on this article. Abortion clinic bombings is the biggest one I'm seeing.

I'll just be honest and say that I'm not seeing much of a difference in the reasoning between the two today. "They" cheat and so that gives us the the right to cheat is very tempting for sure, but I really don't believe that this "at home" protesting....peaceful or not is going to move the needle.

If you want to prevent this from happening, then those middle of the road Republicans are who you want to target. I can pretty much guarantee that most of them will be very turned off by those type of protests and may very well be pushed further right by the Fox coverage showing the protests at the SCOTUS' homes. If something goes violent there...it's lights out.

Yes...protest, march and be loud...but targeting the SCOTUS' homes is a mistake in my opinion.

Expand full comment

I will be honest, I will not blame these democratic activists as organized protest gives me hope that the Dems are not going to just lie back and enjoy it. This is not violent. With 1/6 as a metric for what is acceptable activism in the US, this is nothing. These justices are laying the groundwork to take rights away from certain groups of people. Many of us understand this and will not be told that this is just about state rights. No it isn’t. It’s about personal privacy rights and the GOP wants to strip those. They are currently threatening that. Tweeting like it is comical. I’m going to believe their threats. I’m beyond outraged. I am enraged. This country might get pretty uncomfortable for Republicans. It’s already uncomfortable for Democrats.

Expand full comment

The consistent message: demonstrations and protests are counterproductive. It makes you wonder how the Civil Rights Act ever got passed. If the Oath Keepers and an insurrection don’t turn off GOP voters, why would protests turn off the Dems? A focus on the impact of protests avoids a focus on the issues involved.

Expand full comment

Wait a minute! Aren't the violent protests and rigorous personalized anger just peaceful people trying to exercise their constitutional right to protest?...Just like the people at the Capitol in Washington DC on January 6th? Civility is now in everyone's rear view mirror.

Expand full comment

Yep, when violence happens around an issue, violence becomes the issue. The validity of the issue gets left behind in the debris.

Expand full comment

We really need to stop pretending that these protests or the narrative about them are actually moving the needle a substantive degree in either direction.

The dynamics of voter behavior (which are largely identarian) tend to argue otherwise.

What these narratives and behaviors often do is simply justify already determined behavior. That behavior was/is determined largely by identity.

The self-identified left will vote left. The self-identified right will vote right. The self-identified independents will vote their lean (left or right) which is affected more by who is currently in power (which usually means a vote against those people) than anything actually happening. You can throw in perceptions of how the economy is doing on top of that (note that I say perception not actuality).

Is there a possibility for outlier behavior to shift things? Some, but not much--and outlier behavior is a function of normal behavior--which gives the Right a longer way to go to get to true outlier behavior.

At this point you still have the exact same choice that you have had for the last several years--and people will still largely respond exactly the same way to that choice.

You have a choice between voting for the ethno-nationalist (the theocracy is a part of the ethno-nationalism) authoritarians or the actual democrats--the people who believe in actual majority rule.

You have a choice between the people who want to control your personal life down to your sexual life versus the people who want you to (OMG) use weird pronouns and eat better and treat the environment better.

You have the people who are content to let the corporations and plutocrats control you in lieu of the government (which you at least supposedly get a vote on) versus people who actually think that the government should (OMG) govern.

It's a pretty simple choice--and the reality is that most people have already decided. The rest is performance art and excuses.

Expand full comment

The party behind the J6 insurrection, the bird refuge standoff, and the Bundy Ranch standoff is trying to tell the left how to protest peacefully LOL

Expand full comment