We begin today’s roundup with The New York Times editorial board and its take on the Supreme Court’s landmark abortion rights ruling:
While the decision was unquestionably correct, the vote should have been unanimous. The 2013 Texas law — which forced abortion clinics and their doctors to meet absurd, pointlessly strict medical standards — was the textbook definition of what the court had prohibited in a major 1992 ruling on abortion: “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” [...]
For years, the court has looked the other way as lawmakers around the country have grown increasingly bold in their efforts to weaken or obliterate a woman’s right to reproductive freedom. Versions of the Texas law are on the books in 23 other states, and other laws have tried to block abortion rights even more directly — for instance, by banning all abortions six weeks after conception, when many women don’t even know they are pregnant.
Monday’s ruling should spell the end for many if not most of these regressive, unconstitutional laws.
The Washington Post:
The majority’s eagerness to clarify what the Constitution requires resulted in a ruling that, on the merits, is both sensible and clear: Politicians may not use obvious pretexts to erode a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. Forty-three years after Roe, they should stop trying.
Here’s Dana Milbank’s take on Justice Kennedy:
The Republican-controlled Senate refuses to consider President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, but a fifth liberal justice has arrived anyway. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee and the longest-serving current justice, surprised many last week by joining the liberals in defending race-based affirmative action. In earlier terms, he provided the key vote in legalizing same-sex marriage.
It’s not that Kennedy has become a bleeding heart (he sides with the conservatives on gun rights, campaign finance and Obamacare) but that he has split with conservative colleagues such as Samuel Alito who, by temperament, are disinclined to find consensus. [...]
He’s no King Solomon, but Kennedy, the perpetual swing vote, may be the dominant lawgiver of his day. Unlike Alito and Clarence Thomas (and, to a lesser extent, Chief Justice John Roberts), he recognizes the importance of public consensus on cultural issues, such as the growing acceptance of gay marriage. On abortion, which chronically divides Americans, Kennedy has avoided destabilizing change.
Moving on to Donald Trump, Tina Nguyen at Vanity Fair sums up his very bad month:
In the interest of quantifying exactly how damaging the past several weeks have been for Donald Trump, a half-dozen new polls offer an encouraging answer. In the short period of time between mid-May, when the former reality-TV star won enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination, and the end of June, Trump has seen his support collapse, while Hillary Clinton, who was virtually tied with Trump just five weeks ago, is surging. According to the general-election polls aggregated by RealClearPolitics, Clinton leads Trump by an average of 6.8 points, with one recent survey giving the former secretary of state a whopping 51-to-39 lead.
The Daily Beast’s Patricia Murphy:
Along with [Sen. Mark] Kirk and [Republican Senate candidate Chris] Vance, several House Republicans have taken the extraordinary step of refusing to back the presumptive nominee of their party. Some are retiring at the end of this term, but most are not. All are straying from the tradition of supporting the top of their party’s ticket to protest Trump. Among them, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Cuban-born congresswoman and most senior member of the Florida delegation, said she won’t vote for Trump or Clinton. [...]
As November looms, it is imperative for Trump to prevent more defections and begin to unite his party, but it’s not clear how he’s planning to do so. He’ll meet with House and Senate Republicans in Washington after the Fourth of July recess and two weeks before the Republican convention, which an unprecedented number of House and Senate Republicans say they’ll be skipping altogether.
Jacqueline Alemany at CBS News explains how progressives are gearing up for Trump:
If there is one thing that Trump is very good at, it's stirring the collective ire of nearly every faction of the progressive movement, including some which Clinton herself has had trouble inspiring. While these groups advocate for varied policies, they all are extremely opposed to the businessman.
"We will be more active in this presidential election than in our entire 124-year history," Mike Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, an environmentalist group, told CBS News.
And Ryan Cooper highlights Hillary Clinton’s “secret weapon”:
[W]e shouldn't forget the final and most powerful advantage Clinton will have: President Obama.
No sitting president in modern times has ever campaigned at full strength for his party's nominee. George W. Bush was persona non grata on the campaign trail by 2008. Bill Clinton was seen as damaged goods by Al Gore in 2000, who distanced himself from the Clinton name (despite the 42nd president's tremendous popularity at the time). Ronald Reagan was already elderly in 1988 and did not have a great relationship with George H.W. Bush. LBJ quit politics altogether in 1968. Eisenhower did campaign a bit for Nixon, but he was also old by 1960, and avoided much of the campaign.
President Obama, by contrast, is still quite young (indeed, he is 14 years younger than Clinton herself), and by all accounts is eager to help Clinton, who represents the best chance of preserving his legacy. Any lingering sense that a soon-to-be former president should refrain from campaigning to preserve the dignity of the office is utterly dead. And as he finishes his presidency, Obama is more popular today than he has been since the bin Laden raid — part of an upward trend that shows no sign of slowing.
On a final note, Eugene Robinson writes about the Brexit vote and Trump supporters:
Here is the real lesson from the stunning Brexit vote: Throwing a tantrum at the polls is not liberating; it is self-defeating. Those tempted to vote for Donald Trump should pay very close attention. [...] Brexit could end up breaking Britain into pieces — without addressing any of the problems it was supposed to solve. I hope Trump supporters pay attention. Catharsis is not a plan.