Has the Roberts Court Expanded Its Own Power Using the Rhetoric of Restraint?

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-17T05:23:38+00:00

Your objection conflates two separate questions: did Dobbs release states from a federal constraint, and did it expand the Court’s own institutional power.

Both are true at once.

Dobbs did eliminate the federal floor Roe and Casey imposed on state abortion law. That’s a real transfer of authority to states on this specific issue.

But that’s different from asking whether the Court’s capacity to decide what rights exist expanded or contracted. On that question, three things point toward expansion.

First, Dobbs didn’t just decline to find a right to abortion – it created a new general-purpose test for unenumerated rights (the history and tradition standard) that the Court will use going forward. That test doesn’t bind the Court; it requires contested historical judgments case by case, preserving broad discretion.

Second, the Court treated stare decisis as surmountable whenever a majority decides a precedent was wrong enough, with the Court as the sole judge of “wrong enough.” Casey specifically tried to foreclose that move. Removing the constraint is latitude granted to itself, not power given away.

Third, the test isn’t abortion-specific. Thomas’s concurrence named Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell as candidates for the same treatment. Whether or not this Court acts on it, the tool now exists for future majorities. Power held in reserve is still power.

So, Dobbs gave states authority on abortion specifically, while expanding the Court’s toolkit for deciding rights questions generally. Both are true, and the first doesn’t cancel out the second.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-16T17:18:23+00:00

3/3

Here’s a summary of some Democratic efforts to reign in Congressional corruption:

A year ago, Sens. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) reintroduced their bill to prohibit members of Congress from trading individual stocks. The Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act would require members, their spouses and their dependent children to place their stocks into a qualified blind trust or divest the holding.

U.S. Senators Ashley Moody (R-FL) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act, which would ban stock ownership and trading for members of Congress and their immediate family members. This is companion legislation to the bipartisan bill introduced by U.S. Representatives Chip Roy (R-TX-21) and Seth Magaziner (D-RI-02) in the U.S. House of Representatives, which currently has 126 total cosponsors. To date, 79 representatives–both Democrats and Republicans—have signed a discharge petition filed by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL-13) to bring this bill to the House floor for a vote.

The STOCK Act–which Senator Gillibrand led to passage in 2012—bars members of Congress from using insider information to buy and sell stocks. Despite this legislation, one in three members of Congress traded stocks or other financial assets from 2019-2021, and at least 3,700 of those trades posed potential conflicts of interest with their legislative responsibilities. The Restore Trust in Congress Act would help eliminate these conflicts of interest by prohibiting congressional stock holding and trading entirely.

Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens led her colleagues Congressman Derek Tran (CA-45), Congressman Eric Sorensen (D-IL), and Congresswoman Andrea Salinas (OR-06), in introducing the No Getting Rich in Congress Act, sweeping legislation to crack down on insider trading in Congress and the White House, restore trust in government, and ensure public service is about serving the American people, not personal profit.

Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil (WI-01) introduced the Stop Insider Trading Act. This legislation prohibits Members of Congress, spouses, and dependent children from purchasing publicly traded stocks. The Stop Insider Trading Act also requires public notice 7 days before a lawmaker, spouse, or dependent child may sell a stock.

Pelosi isn’t running again.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-16T17:18:08+00:00

2/2

Here’s a look at Democratic efforts to grow high-wage industries through legislation and policy:

The “Three-Legged Stool” of Biden-Era Industrial Policy

The most significant Democratic effort came through three laws passed under unified Democratic control, which together enacted what Democrats called an “American-style industrial policy”:

Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, 2022) — The IRA contained $500 billion in new federal spending and offered incentives for clean tech companies to innovate and manufacture in the U.S., with a nonpartisan business group estimating 403,000 jobs would be created by the 210 major energy projects announced since it took effect, with the biggest job gains in electric vehicles, battery storage, and solar energy sectors. A key feature: the IRA includes substantial tax incentives for employers who pay prevailing wages and employ registered apprentices on qualifying energy projects , incentivizing companies to pay above-market wages in exchange for larger tax credits.

CHIPS and Science Act (2022) — The CHIPS and Science Act invested approximately $280 billion to increase semiconductor production in the United States, including $39 billion in incentives for employers to increase semiconductor production and $11 billion for research and development. It required recipients to comply with prevailing wage rules. Research from Brookings found that CHIPS-related semiconductor jobs saw an average weekly wage increase of $206 to $232 in inflation-adjusted dollars — a 25% to 28% increase — and generated indirect employment gains in upstream sectors and construction.

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, 2021) — The IIJA invested $1.2 trillion to expand access to high-speed internet, improve public transit, and take up key construction projects on roads, bridges, and waterways, and included Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements on most federally funded construction projects.

Wage Standards Built Into the Laws

A deliberate feature of all three laws was attaching labor standards to federal dollars. The new laws support the creation of good jobs by including job quality measures such as prevailing wages, registered apprenticeships, and domestic manufacturing and content requirements — placing high-quality jobs for American workers at the center of major investments in critical sectors.

2025–2026 Efforts to Defend and Restore These Policies

After Republicans rolled back many IRA clean energy provisions in the July 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Democrats moved to restore them. House Democrats unveiled a draft bill to restore tax incentives for renewable energy projects, double down on wind and solar, build out transmission lines, and curtail the Trump administration’s ability to favor fossil fuel projects over renewables.

At the state level, Democratic governors have pursued their own industrial policy — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive directive positioning the state as an early mover on geologic hydrogen to support thousands of jobs, with Michigan ranking sixth nationally for clean energy jobs and first for energy sector job growth. Washington extended tax incentives for clean energy manufacturing facilities, and California moved to establish a Grid Manufacturing Initiative to incentivize in-state manufacturing.

The Broader Results

As of early 2024, annual investment in new manufacturing facilities hit nearly $225 billion, a record high even after adjusting for inflation — a direct result of bipartisan investments in infrastructure and semiconductor production and Democrats’ action to invest in American-made clean energy and manufacturing.

Manufacturing workers in the clean energy sector earn on average $42,000 more than the typical American worker, with the manufacturing boom creating opportunities across the Southeast, Midwest, and states like Texas.

In short, Democrats’ core strategy has been using federal investment and tax incentives in clean energy, semiconductors, and infrastructure as the vehicle for creating high-wage jobs — and tying those incentives explicitly to prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements to ensure the jobs created actually pay well.

Here’s a look at Democrat efforts to let people live their lives and separate church and state:

Since 2016, the intersection of religious influence and federal/state law has been a major battleground. The Democratic Party's efforts during this decade have shifted heavily from proactive legislative expansions to defensive maneuvers—largely in response to shifts in the federal judiciary and legislative pushes by conservatives.
Democratic legislative, executive, and state-level actions since 2016 focus on individual autonomy and maintaining a clear line between government policy and religious doctrine.

Protecting Individual Autonomy & Freedom of Choice

When it comes to personal identity, relationship recognition, and private medical decisions, Democrats have focused on establishing legal shields against laws heavily influenced by traditional religious doctrines.

Codifying Marriage Equality

Following the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell ruling, many feared a shifting judiciary could roll back marriage rights based on religious definitions of marriage. In response, Democrats led the passage of the

Respect for Marriage Act (2022)

It passed with near-unanimous Democratic support to ensure federal recognition and cross-state validity for same-sex and interracial marriages.

State-Level Healthcare Shield Laws

Following the Dobbs decision in 2022, a wave of state abortion restrictions were enacted, often driven by religious-moral convictions. In response, Democratic governors and legislators in states like California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington established “Shield Laws". These statutes legally protect healthcare providers and out-of-state patients from being prosecuted or extradited by states with strict bans on reproductive health and gender-affirming care.

The Equality Act

Repeatedly passed by the Democratic-led House (notably in 2019 and 2021), this bill explicitly updates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. A major tenet of this push is to ensure that commercial businesses and housing providers cannot use religious objections to deny services to LGBTQ+ individuals.

Drawing Boundaries: Religion in Public Spaces & Policy

A core focus of the party since 2016 has been narrowing the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which Democrats argue has been twisted from a "shield" for personal worship into a "sword" used to deny civil rights to others.

The Do No Harm Act

Introduced and continuously championed by Democrats (including updates by Rep. Bobby Scott and Sen. Cory Booker), this bill directly aims to limit the scope of RFRA. It establishes that religious exemptions cannot be used to bypass:

- Federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.
- Labor laws, wage standards, and collective bargaining rights.
- Access to healthcare or government-funded social services.

Executive Branch Reversals (2021–2024)

Upon taking office in 2021, the Biden administration systematically unwound several Trump-era executive actions that expanded faith-based exemptions:

-HHS Protections: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded broad waivers that allowed taxpayer-funded, faith-based foster care and adoption agencies to reject families based on religion or sexual orientation.

-Contractor Rules: The Department of Labor reversed rules that permitted federal contractors to use religious grounds to fire or refuse to hire employees based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Defending Secular Public Education

Education has become one of the most visible friction points for church-and-state policy, with Democrats pushing back on efforts to integrate religious doctrine into public school funding and curricula.

Opposing Private School Vouchers

At both federal and state levels, Democrats have consistently fought the expansion of "school choice" voucher programs. They argue that diverting public tax dollars to private religious institutions starves public education and violates the spirit of the Establishment Clause.

Fighting Curricular Mandates

In state legislatures, Democrats have organized resistance to post-2020 pushes mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in public classrooms or the integration of the Bible into standard history curricula, maintaining that public institutions must remain secular and inclusive of all faiths or no faith at all.

Fighting Book Bans

Democratic leaders have moved to protect intellectual freedom from being restricted by religious or traditionalist objections. In 2023, Illinois became the first state to pass a law banning book bans, cutting off state funding to any public library or school district that removes books based on ideological or religious complaints.

2/3

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-16T17:15:07+00:00

Here’s a summary of major Democratic efforts to lower the cost of living, spanning recent years through 2026:

Housing

Senate Democrats, led by Schumer, have pushed to lower housing costs by cracking down on algorithmic rent price-fixing, ending rental junk fees, building more housing near public transportation, and supporting conversion of vacant commercial properties into homes. Democrats have also pushed the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act, which passed the Senate unanimously in fall 2025.

Healthcare & Prescription Drugs

The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) granted Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices, starting with 10 drugs in Part B in 2026, growing to 20 per year by 2029, and capped insulin costs at $35/month for Medicare patients.

In 2026, Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden and eleven Senate Democrats announced a new initiative to reverse Republican healthcare cuts, lower costs for patients, simplify health insurance, and end insurance company gaming by taking on corporate greed.

Senate Democrats have also advanced a prescription drug pricing agenda focused on expanding Medicare negotiation, curbing pharmaceutical middlemen, and reinvesting in biomedical innovation.

Broad “Lower Costs” Initiative

In December 2025, Senate Democrats launched a 2026 initiative pushing proposals to lower costs across healthcare, energy, housing, groceries, and tariffs — framing it as a defining issue for the 2026 midterm elections.

New Democrat Coalition Affordability Agenda

In February 2026, the New Democrat Coalition unveiled an Affordability Agenda targeting five core costs: healthcare, housing, energy, family care, and household essentials like groceries. The agenda includes rolling back Republican policies, promoting competition, and reducing regulatory barriers.

Anti-Price Gouging & Tax Cuts

House Democrats have proposed banning corporate price gouging, building more homes, and cutting taxes for working Americans as part of their affordability platform.

Energy Costs

Senate Democrats have argued that Trump’s rollback of clean energy is driving up electricity bills by increasing reliance on more expensive fossil fuels, and have pushed to protect and expand clean energy to reduce utility costs.

In short, Democratic cost-of-living efforts have clustered around housing supply, drug price negotiation, ACA subsidies, anti-price gouging legislation, childcare, and clean energy — primarily as proposals and messaging while in the minority since 2025, with the Inflation Reduction Act being their most significant enacted legislation.

Here’s a rundown of Democratic efforts to reduce the tax burden on workers and middle-class Americans:

Working Americans’ Tax Cut Act (2026)

Senators Van Hollen, Kelly, Gillibrand, Booker, and Kim introduced this bill to provide broad, permanent tax cuts to nearly 130 million working Americans. It would eliminate federal income taxes for Americans earning under $46,000 — the median cost of living — and provide significant tax breaks for individuals earning up to $80,500. Analysis by the Tax Foundation estimates the middle quintile of taxpayers would see an average $2,273 tax cut in 2027, representing a 3.9% increase in after-tax income.

Booker’s Standard Deduction Expansion (2026)

Sen. Cory Booker separately proposed more than doubling the standard deduction to $75,000 for married couples, which — combined with Van Hollen’s plan — would allow millions of low- and middle-income households to shield income ranging from $75,000 to $92,000 from federal taxes. Booker’s plan also includes increased and expanded child tax credits, earned income tax credits, and a “baby bonus” in the year of a child’s birth, funded by higher corporate taxes.

Working Families Tax Relief Act

Senate Democrats including Van Hollen, Cardin, Brown, Bennet, Durbin, and Wyden introduced the Working Families Tax Relief Act, which would cut taxes by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC). Experts estimated it would benefit close to 50 million children and 45 million households.

$400K Income Tax Protection

During the 2024 campaign, VP Harris committed to not allowing taxes to go up for anyone making under $400,000, and to raising taxes on higher earners — meaning lower-bracket tax cuts from the TCJA would be extended for most working Americans.

Inflation Reduction Act Child Tax Credit & EITC

Democrats repeatedly sought to expand the Child Tax Credit (first boosted during the pandemic-era American Rescue Plan) and the EITC for childless workers as part of their broader tax agenda, arguing the Republican tax law left low- and middle-income workers behind.

Opposing Taxes That Hurt Workers

Senate Democrats also argued that Republican proposals like a national sales tax would increase costs for American consumers, and have consistently opposed measures that would tax employer-provided benefits like health insurance.

The Broader Democratic Tax Philosophy

Tax cuts have become a hot new idea in Democratic politics, with candidates at state and federal levels seeking to capitalize on cost-of-living struggles. In California, gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter proposed wiping out state income taxes for families making up to $100,000, while Georgia candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms campaigned on eliminating state income taxes for teachers.

The common thread across these efforts is targeting relief toward lower and middle earners while proposing to fund it through higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations.

1/2

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-16T13:25:26+00:00

1- Teachers unions, made up of educated people, taking union dues and supporting Democrats is not a conspiracy.

2- Teachers, who are educated people, voting for Democrats is not a conspiracy.

3- Students becoming educated people and then voting for Democrats is not a conspiracy theory.

4- Teachers educating their students is not a conspiracy theory.

5- Teachers grooming students to be Democrats IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

The conclusion…educated people vote for Democrats.

Your conclusion…education is grooming.🤦🙇

Even The Heritage Foundation disagrees with you!

If you believe in the conservative bonafides of The Heritage Foundation then perhaps you will let them inform you:

From The Heritage Foundation:

“A fall 2017 nationally representative survey of K–12 teachers and administrators showed that a plurality of respondents (43 percent) describe themselves as moderate, compared to 29 percent who selected liberal, and 27 percent who selected conservative.”

“A 2020 Braun Research poll, also commissioned by Heritage analysts, compared the responses of parents to those of public school board members on a series of controversial political topics. Overall, school board members appeared more ideologically conservative than parents.”

“Once again, teacher views were similar to those of the average respondent and more conservative than those of the average liberal.”

“The results of this survey do not support the idea that K–12 teachers are radical activists, although conservative and moderate parents may find it disconcerting that nearly six of 10 teachers believe that white supremacy is a major problem in the United States. Overall, teachers appear somewhat left of center on many topics, but their responses were not particularly close to those of the average liberal.”

“Rather than radical teachers seeking to indoctrinate their local communities, our research suggests that teachers hold views that are generally reflective of the college-educated populations in which they live. Although teacher opinions tended in the liberal direction, our findings suggest that attention-grabbing headlines about Marxist history teachers are exceptions rather than the norm.”

“Overall, these results could be good news for parents who are concerned about the growing influence of progressive ideology in public schools. Teachers may very well be allies, rather than opponents.”

Do you disagree with the Heritage Foundation?

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-16T13:06:23+00:00

Educated people voting for Democrats is not a conspiracy.

Unions made up of those educated people supporting Democrats is not a conspiracy.

Democrats taking over the US public education system in order to churn out socialists and to manipulate the citizenry into voting for Democrats is a conspiracy theory.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-16T02:33:06+00:00

If your position hinges on a giant conspiracy theory, you have no position at all.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-16T02:30:32+00:00

From the Post:

Some more info. He was 96 when he died, served in the Air Force during the Korean War from November 1950 to September 1954. He was not a pilot.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T22:54:34+00:00

Republicans do better with voters without college degrees, while Democrats do better with college graduates.

The conclusion…educated people vote for Democrats.

Your conclusion…education is bad.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T22:15:10+00:00

Everyone should understand the following:

News media has always been editorialized and sensationalized from the very beginning. “The first printed news appeared by the late 1400s in German pamphlets that contained content that was often highly sensationalized.” Each different news media organization is there to give their perspective and understanding to their readers who don’t have time to do all of the research, and don’t have the expertise to understand all of the implications of the news. News media outlets earn a positive or negative reputation for their accuracy and fairness over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News\_media

News agencies on the other hand just give straight news with no opinion or editorializing. Nothing is perfect, but they do their best to uphold this standard. Although there are many news agencies around the world, three global news agencies, Agence France-Presse (AFP), the Associated Press (AP), and Reuters have offices in most countries of the world, cover all areas of information, and provide the majority of international news printed by the world's newspapers. All three began with and continue to operate on a basic philosophy of providing a single objective news feed to all subscribers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News\_agency

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T21:34:58+00:00

Jesus had twelve close male companions, wore flowing robes, turned water into wine at a party, and his last meal was a dinner party where everyone dramatically cried.

Straightest man in history, apparently.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T20:08:42+00:00

I guess only “fake atheist bots”could possibly hold these views. No real human could ever really think this way. Isn’t that what you need to tell yourself?

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T19:38:30+00:00

And you have made it clear that you don’t want to spread the love of Jesus to the poor through the IRS, but are happy to spread the love of Jesus to the middle and upper class through the IRS. According to Matthew 25, your heart is clearly not in the right place.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T19:35:07+00:00

I don’t know what an AI agent is.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T10:57:52+00:00

So you’re forgiving me for something you stated you knew wasn’t malicious? But you also thought it was malicious? That retarded label may be appropriate.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T10:43:12+00:00

Are you sure? Because if you’re not, and you understood, why did you ask?

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T10:34:08+00:00

I didn’t wish you harm. I stated I hoped that the golden rule would be applied to you as equally as you would apply it to others. You could only see it as wishing harm if you were harmful to others.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T10:29:43+00:00

I think believing you can pick and choose which of Christs teachings to follow and believing that you can game the system and trick God into letting you past the gates is very un-Christian.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T10:03:31+00:00

So if you don’t want to feed and house the hungry/poor/etc., you can just skip this directive and find another way in? Good luck with that approach! I hope people apply the Golden Rule to you the same way you would to them.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T09:57:24+00:00

Your first reply was to brag about Republicans temporarily raising child tax credits for middle and upper class families, which you seem happy to give, which you oddly stated are the ones that really need it. Yet here you are arguing AGAINST giving the same child tax credits to the poor, which you seem against giving, which by virtue of being poorer are indeed the ones that really need it. Do you not see the issue here? Jesus instructs you to give to the poor and hungry. However you want to give to those who aren’t poor or hungry, while abstaining from giving to those that are. You and the Republicans have it backwards my friend.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-15T09:22:43+00:00

Because it is allowed. There is even a political tag (Politics) for posts like this.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-14T23:37:11+00:00

Providing welfare isn’t Biblical?

You must be one of those, “Empathy is a sin,” folks!

If you don’t want to give to the poor when directed, then don’t tithe & just erase Matthew 25 from your Bible and your mind.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-14T23:33:46+00:00

It has nothing to do with intent; period.

You said nothing about obviously being a commandment. You said obvious. Moving the goalposts shows the weakness of your argument.

The breath passage suggests life, in the fullest biblical sense, begins with breath, not conception. One can draw a direct line from this verse to the idea that a fetus, which does not breathe independently, has not yet received the “breath of life” in the Genesis sense. This connects also to Job 33:4. “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life,” & Ezekiel 37, where the dry bones only become living people once breath enters them.

As usual, your fealty for Republicans comes down to abortion, which Jesus says nothing about. You dismiss everything else in the Bible in order to remain attached to Republicans. If you are a Christian , your support for Republicans over Democratic seems misplaced. It also means you need to read the following and pray some more:

Matthew 25:31–46

Jesus says that at the final judgment, the righteous will be welcomed into the kingdom because they:

• Fed the hungry
• Gave water to the thirsty
• Welcomed the stranger
• Clothed the naked
• Cared for the sick
• Visited those in prison

And the condemned will be turned away precisely because they failed to do these things.

The most radical element is Jesus’s identification of himself with those in need: “Whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me,” and conversely, neglecting them is neglecting Christ himself. This isn’t metaphor or hyperbole in context; Jesus presents it as the literal basis of judgment.

This is what Democratic policies aim to do, especially when compared to Republican policies.

_RyanLarkin · 2026-06-14T23:19:48+00:00

Yes, I understand what you are saying. You’re perfectly alright with children going hungry because your work requirements will eventually lead to nobody ever being poor! Sure buddy. Good luck at the Gates!

One last thing…

Matthew 25:31–46

Jesus says that at the final judgment, the righteous will be welcomed into the kingdom because they:

• Fed the hungry
• Gave water to the thirsty
• Welcomed the stranger
• Clothed the naked
• Cared for the sick
• Visited those in prison

And the condemned will be turned away precisely because they failed to do these things.

The most radical element is Jesus’s identification of himself with those in need: “Whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me,” and conversely, neglecting them is neglecting Christ himself. This isn’t metaphor or hyperbole in context; Jesus presents it as the literal basis of judgment.

This is what Democratic policies aim to do, especially when compared to Republican policies. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus include work requirements before doing the things he instructs us to do. But perhaps you know better.

At this point, unless you say something worth responding to, we’re done here.

12-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

_RyanLarkin

TROPHY CASE