Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 202: "The Extreme Court" is now available!

Podcast: I Feel Snitty

Episode 202: The Extreme Court

Premiere Date: 6/28/2022

Length: 10:22 (1,637 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/the-extreme-court/

Transcript: 

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 202, entitled, “The Extreme Court.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

 

Well, it happened. On Friday, June 24th of 2022, after 50 years of protecting women’s reproductive rights, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade – leaving it up to the states to ultimately decide whether or not women should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.

 

The votes were along ideological lines, at 6-3, and immediately after the decision was announced, Republican-led states – like Missouri – signed laws to make abortion illegal, except for in cases where men get pregnant, of course…

 

Extreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas added his no-sense two cents in the decision, writing, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

 

But first thing’s first – Friday’s ruling. How backwards is this country? Seriously… On Friday, after 50 years of women’s reproductive rights being protected under the federal government, 5 men and 1 woman voted to strip away said rights – and 5 of these 6 Justices were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote in their first :: ahem :: “victorious” elections. Think about that… We are a nation notorious for bragging exceptionalism ad nauseum. Really?!? In two of our past six presidential elections, the candidate with the fewer votes WON. Those two “presidents” appointed five of our nine Supreme Court Justices. All five of these Supreme Court Justices, along with Clarence Thomas, voted to turn back the clock 50 years on women’s rights. So yeah, we’re a free country. We’re a free country if you’re rich, straight, white, “Christian,” and possess a penis.

 

Protests have erupted nationwide as a result of the Extreme Court’s ruling. Not only that, but perhaps the only positive from this disgraceful ruling is that it may have provided a lift to Democrats’ chances in the midterm elections. The minority party historically picks up a good chunk of seats on average in the midterm elections. Although, to no fault of his own, with the exponential increase in inflation under his watch, President Joe Biden and the Democrats were at risk of losing a record number of seats in November. Now, though, not only do Democratic candidates have the January 6th hearings from which to air countless ads, they have the Supreme Court’s ruling and successive legislation passed and signed by Republican state legislatures and governors from which to campaign. So, if Democratic voters were a bear – this bear was in deep hibernation, with no signs of it awaking before November. Well, this ruling and the likely two dozen or so states which have already or will go on to banish abortion, has awoken the bear, and long before she wanted. Now the bear is angry and ready to go on the attack.

 

I truly don’t think the Republican Party realizes what kind of trouble it’s getting itself into here. Not only was the court’s decision enough to reenergize progressive and Democratic voters, but Republican politicians seem to exacerbate this increased level of energy daily by simply opening their mouths. Here are just a few of the comments I’ve heard or read in recent days from male defenders of the high court’s Roe v. Wade ruling:

 

“I see women protesting the Roe v Wade ruling with their kids. What hypocrites!”

Um, no. Just because a person chooses to have a child doesn’t mean he or she can’t believe others shouldn’t be afforded the same choice. Thinking every woman or couple deserves to have a choice on what they can do post-pregnancy isn’t hypocritical; claiming everyone is free in the U.S. and then supporting laws which essentially make women 2nd-class citizens is. I seriously wonder how they made it through school: “I’m free. You’re not. So, you see? We’re equal.” Um, no. Next?

 

“Oh, so now you’re all about what a person does with their body being their choice! What about COVID vaccines?!?”

Hey, numbnuts, if a woman has an abortion, people within 6’ of her do not suffer an increased susceptibility to suffering from an abortion within a week’s time, and then transferring abortions to others in their inner-circles.

 

“The Supreme Court didn’t outlaw abortion! They just sent it to the states!”

Gee, how swell. Let’s set up another high court, only this one is led by progressive women, who will rule in favor of laws which: monitor all men’s sexual urges; require them to see a doctor before acting on said urges; force them to wait 72 hours before engaging in coitus - oh, and that’s just in blue states. In red states, it would be illegal for men to have sex until they’re married and masturbation would result in prison-time. Anti-choice men, what say you? Stop looking down. You’re not going to see it anyway. You left your magnifying glasses in room 666 at the Red Roofie Inn.

 

“Sometimes it’s good to overrule precedents. Just look at Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. the Board of Education!”

Texas Senator John Cornyn tweeted this. While some mistakenly accused the senator of racism with his tweet, the reality behind his post is just as egregious. What he’s saying is that overturning the precedent of segregation is akin to overturning the precedent of women’s reproductive rights. In the former scenario, a demographic has gained rights, and in the latter, they’ve lost rights. That’s about as similar as the physical statures of Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger if DeVito starred as one of the children in Honey, I Shrunk the Kids and Arnold ate his Wheaties.

 

“The Constitution never mentions abortion!”

So what? The Constitution was written nearly 2.5 centuries ago. A few things have changed since then. The document is so flawed, it’s been amended 27 times. The only reason Republicans stand by the Constitution like it was some divine document is because it was originally written by white men for a land of white men. No matter how much society evolves, they continually want to live like it’s 1787, and party like it’s Trailerpalooza at a 1787 Walmart in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

 

“Abortion is just about convenience for women!”

This is just wrong on so many levels. If we’re going to go there, then getting paid less for equal work is just about convenience for women. Being subjected to rampant sexism in the workplace is just about convenience for women. Not receiving paid maternity leave is just about convenience for women. Carrying a being inside her for 9 months is just about convenience for women. Being born with a uterus is just about convenience for women. You know what’s convenient? A sex, void of the reproductive organs necessary to become impregnated, making decisions for a sex which possesses the reproductive organs necessary to get pregnant. Men, as soon as you grow uteruses, or if we want to get fancy, uteri, feel free to contribute to the discussion about women’s reproductive rights. Until then, and I say this with all due respect, shut the f*ck up. Thanks.

 

I don’t want to set off the panic-alarm, but this is far from over. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday essentially banned abortion in half of the states, but the so-called “pro-lifers” won’t be satisfied until the procedure is illegal in all 50. On top of that, as Clarence Thomas indicated, he wants, in addition to overturning the precedent of protecting women’s reproductive rights courtesy of Roe v Wade, he wants to overturn the precedents set courtesy of the Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell rulings.

 

If you’re unfamiliar with these cases, I’ll briefly summarize them for you. In a 7-2 vote, the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling provided married couples with the right to purchase and use contraceptives without government restriction. In a 6-3 vote, the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling made it illegal to sanction those who committed consensual sodomy. Then, in a 5-4 vote, the 2015 Overgefell v. Hodges ruling permitted same-sex couples the right to marry. So, in other words, Thomas wants to restrict contraception access; criminalize sodomy; and ban same-sex marriage. Oddly enough, the black Supreme Court Justice, who just so happens to be married to a white woman, didn’t mention overturning the precedent set by the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court ruling, which legalized interracial marriage. It’s funny how he doesn’t seem to hold the same standards for rulings which have directly impacted him. Hmm…

 

The Republican Party doesn’t care about equality. As a matter of fact, they loathe just the thought of it. When they say they want to make America “great” again, what they mean is to regress it to a time when whites were deemed superior; LGBTs were stuck in the figurative closet; Muslims only prayed at home; and women stayed in the kitchen. Two of the most effective ways to decrease unwanted pregnancies is via comprehensive sex-education and easy contraception access. Well, the GOP has attempted to limit the former for some time, and Clarence Thomas’s recent rumination on the latter seems to suggest there are at least some Republican officials who wouldn’t mind condensing the latter either. What’s the best way to keep women at home? Solely teach abstinence; rarify contraception; and illegalize abortion. The Republican Party wants to turn the United States into a third-world country, where one demographic sits at the top - supreme, and all others are scraping for crumbs underneath, fighting for any semblance of rights, let alone equality. So, come November, we can all just sit at home, and whine, bitch, and complain about the goings-on in the world, or we can get off our asses and do something about it by voting. That’s our CHOICE.

 

That’s it for today’s episode. Until next time, you can find me on Podbean, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Blogger. This has been I Feel Snitty, with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"