NATO will boost the number of troops on high alert by more than sevenfold to over 300,000, its secretary-general said on Monday, as allies prepared to adopt a new strategy describing Moscow as a direct threat four months into the Ukraine war.
Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine has sparked a major geopolitical shift in the West, prompting once neutral countries Finland and Sweden to apply to join NATO and Ukraine to secure the status of candidate to join the European Union.
A diplomatic dispute that had blocked Finland and Sweden from joining NATO was resolved on Tuesday, when the alliance’s secretary general announced that Turkey had agreed to lift its veto on the membership applications of the two Nordic countries following three hours of talks.
If Finland and Sweden join NATO, it would mark one of the most significant expansions of the alliance in decades at a time when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has radically altered Europe’s security calculus. It also underscores how the war in Ukraine has backfired for President Vladimir V. Putin, undermining his aim of weakening NATO and pushing Sweden and Finland, which were neutral and nonaligned for decades, into the alliance’s arms. …
Vladimir Putin has issued fresh warnings that Russia would respond in kind if Nato set up military infrastructure in Finland and Sweden after they joined the US-led alliance.
Putin was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying he could not rule out that tensions would emerge in Moscow’s relations with Helsinki and Stockholm over their joining Nato.
“We don’t have problems with Sweden and Finland like we do with Ukraine,” the Russian president told a news conference in the Turkmenistan capital of Ashgabat. “We don’t have territorial differences.”
“If Finland and Sweden wish to, they can join. That’s up to them. They can join whatever they want.” …
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (HLR, Vol 87: 1, p 7 – Laurence Tribe)
Roe enshrined bodily privacy in constitutional theory — seemingly no one takes exception to that today. Roe went on to proclaim that it takes a “compelling state interest” to override fundamental privacy.
Then Roe fudged.
“One reads this passage several times before becoming convinced that nothing has been inadvertently omitted.”
‘ … the compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation … after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.’ (my bolding)
“Truly, this mistakes a ‘definition for a syllogism’ and offers no reason at all for what the Court has held.” (Ibid. p 4 — quoting John Hart Ely, YLJ 1973 April; 82: p 924)
The Roe majority took upon itself the what is correctly considered to be a legislative undertaking — matching the compelling interest standard to the stages of prenatal development. There was no consensus on the worth or rights of the unborn “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition for guidance.
But instead of serving up a substantive delineation of life v. privacy — Roe rolled out a fiat policy that gave prochoice advocates nearly everything they wanted.
Roe disguised its substantive holdings on fetal life by not explaining its findings in any part. Once any specific substantive scheme comes into view — e.g., a ban above a specific week — there can be no return to Roe’s unexplaining camouflage.
What will any future Court be able to say when medical technology enables removing a fetus temporarily from the womb and then returning it to complete its gestation — when the cosmic question is legal personhood in the womb?
In my mind at least, the most substantive clause in your comment is “The Roe majority took upon itself the what is correctly considered to be a legislative undertaking.” That is why I predicted almost a half century ago that the Democratic Party would be troubled by it legislative cowardice for much of the remainder of my life and that eventually the Roe decision would probably be overturned by the prolonged blow-back. I was against it from the start, not because I disagreed with the decision, but because I disagreed with which branch of government had the right and the duty to make that decision. OTOH, I always thought SCOTUS was a awful bad idea on the basis of both lifetime appointments and the lack of repeal of any decision that went to far by right of popular plebiscite.
It often said by feminists that if babies were born to men there would be no questions ever about the necessity for abortion to be legal. That is why RBJ said, and Laurence Tribe agrees that the issue is really about ‘gender equality’.
But to ‘be secure in one’s person’ requires that a woman’s ‘right to choose’ takes precedence over the rights of an unborn fetus.
We have an obligation to care for children in the 18 years after birth. Prolife just extends that obligation to before birth — even if the pregnant woman is admittedly tied down much more restrictively — still same general idea.
in case anyone is still interested, Fauci is experiencing a Paxlovid rebound, ie, his Covid came back after he stopped taking the drug…that story is everywhere, here’s a few links:
Fauci says he is experiencing ‘rebound’ of COVID symptoms after Paxlovid treatment – Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious diseases doctor, said he is experiencing a rebound of COVID-19 symptoms after taking Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid. Fauci, 81, contracted COVID-19 earlier this month, and while his symptoms were initially “minimal,” he was prescribed a five-day course of Paxlovid when they worsened because of his age. Paxlovid is the leading treatment for COVID-19, and is used to prevent the risk for severe disease in high-risk people who test positive, including the unvaccinated and the elderly. The drug was made available under an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration in December 2021. Speaking during a Foreign Policy global health summit on Tuesday, Fauci said he tested negative for three days in a row after he finished taking Paxlovid. But then on the fourth day, Fauci said he tested positive again, a phenomenon that’s referred to as a “Paxlovid rebound.” Scores of patients have reported a similar experience, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month warned health providers to be on the lookout for a “rebound” in Paxlovid patients between two and eight days after an initial recovery.
Fauci says he’s taking 2nd course of Paxlovid after experiencing rebound with the antiviral treatment – After testing positive for COVID-19 earlier this month, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Tuesday that he has joined a growing group of people experiencing a Paxlovid rebound, following treatment with Pfizer’s antiviral. Fauci, 81, said that when he first tested positive two weeks ago, he had very minimal symptoms. However, when he began to feel worse, “given [his] age,” he was prescribed Paxlovid. Other than fatigue and a bit of congestion, Fauci reported that he felt “really quite well,” and after his five-day course of Paxlovid, he tested negative with a rapid test. However, after testing negative for three consecutive days, Fauci said he decided to take one more test out of precaution and subsequently found himself positive again on the fourth day. “It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound,” Fauci said during a remote interview with the Foreign Policy Global Health Forum on Tuesday. Over the course of the next day, he began to feel “really poorly,” and “much worse than in the first go around,” he added.
NATO to boost troops on high alert to over 300,000
Reuters – June 27
Turkey clears the way for Sweden and Finland to join NATO
NY Times – June 28
Putin issues fresh warning to Finland and Sweden
Vladimir Putin has issued fresh warnings that Russia would respond in kind if Nato set up military infrastructure in Finland and Sweden after they joined the US-led alliance.
Putin was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying he could not rule out that tensions would emerge in Moscow’s relations with Helsinki and Stockholm over their joining Nato.
“We don’t have problems with Sweden and Finland like we do with Ukraine,” the Russian president told a news conference in the Turkmenistan capital of Ashgabat. “We don’t have territorial differences.”
“If Finland and Sweden wish to, they can join. That’s up to them. They can join whatever they want.” …
In-Substantive Due Process
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (HLR, Vol 87: 1, p 7 – Laurence Tribe)
Roe enshrined bodily privacy in constitutional theory — seemingly no one takes exception to that today. Roe went on to proclaim that it takes a “compelling state interest” to override fundamental privacy.
Then Roe fudged.
“One reads this passage several times before becoming convinced that nothing has been inadvertently omitted.”
‘ … the compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation … after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications.’ (my bolding)
“Truly, this mistakes a ‘definition for a syllogism’ and offers no reason at all for what the Court has held.” (Ibid. p 4 — quoting John Hart Ely, YLJ 1973 April; 82: p 924)
The Roe majority took upon itself the what is correctly considered to be a legislative undertaking — matching the compelling interest standard to the stages of prenatal development. There was no consensus on the worth or rights of the unborn “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition for guidance.
But instead of serving up a substantive delineation of life v. privacy — Roe rolled out a fiat policy that gave prochoice advocates nearly everything they wanted.
Roe disguised its substantive holdings on fetal life by not explaining its findings in any part. Once any specific substantive scheme comes into view — e.g., a ban above a specific week — there can be no return to Roe’s unexplaining camouflage.
What will any future Court be able to say when medical technology enables removing a fetus temporarily from the womb and then returning it to complete its gestation — when the cosmic question is legal personhood in the womb?
Coming soon?!
Dennis,
In my mind at least, the most substantive clause in your comment is “The Roe majority took upon itself the what is correctly considered to be a legislative undertaking.” That is why I predicted almost a half century ago that the Democratic Party would be troubled by it legislative cowardice for much of the remainder of my life and that eventually the Roe decision would probably be overturned by the prolonged blow-back. I was against it from the start, not because I disagreed with the decision, but because I disagreed with which branch of government had the right and the duty to make that decision. OTOH, I always thought SCOTUS was a awful bad idea on the basis of both lifetime appointments and the lack of repeal of any decision that went to far by right of popular plebiscite.
It often said by feminists that if babies were born to men there would be no questions ever about the necessity for abortion to be legal. That is why RBJ said, and Laurence Tribe agrees that the issue is really about ‘gender equality’.
But to ‘be secure in one’s person’ requires that a woman’s ‘right to choose’ takes precedence over the rights of an unborn fetus.
Err, RBG of course.
We have an obligation to care for children in the 18 years after birth. Prolife just extends that obligation to before birth — even if the pregnant woman is admittedly tied down much more restrictively — still same general idea.
Unfortunately, it isn’t that simple. Or there would not be so many protests and demonstrations, by people on both sides of the issue.
in case anyone is still interested, Fauci is experiencing a Paxlovid rebound, ie, his Covid came back after he stopped taking the drug…that story is everywhere, here’s a few links: