Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ll not be taking any victory laps, other than for the Constitution, the rule of law and potentially the restoration of federalism.  Let us, gentle readers, allow attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline, to explain:

No one seriously defends Roe v. Wade. When it was decided, it was greeted mostly with shock. A poll of law professors found, as I recall, that 85% thought it was wrong. Roe was decided in large part on the basis of an understanding of pregnancy that was refuted by subsequent scientific developments. By the time of the Casey decision, no one could defend the logic of Roe, and the court did not attempt to do so. There is no intellectually serious argument in favor of Roe.

Let’s be clear: abortion is not banned.  The Dobbs decision returned this area of law to the states, as the Constitution has always required.  It is going to take several years for the legal dust to settle.  I suspect we’ll eventually, in virtually every state, end up with laws that allow abortion until fetal viability, with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother thereafter.  Women who want abortions will be able to obtain them—particularly with the post-Roe advent of the abortion pill–but will have to make such decisions relatively more rapidly than in the place.  More from Hinderaker:

We have all gotten used to the idea that the federal courts exist not only to apply the written documents that define their authority, the Constitution and federal statutes, but to apply their own policy judgment when they think Congress or a state legislature has gone badly awry. In the last sixty years, at least, the Supreme Court has used this supposed power to act as a liberal super-legislature, imposing doctrines that couldn’t pass Congress or various legislatures. Thomas wants all of this to end: no more made-up ‘rights,’ only a fair interpretation of what the written documents actually say. If you don’t like what they say, you can undertake to amend them. This is known as the rule of law, and it is anathema to the Democratic Party.

This, gentle readers, is a fundamental difference between Normal Americans and Democrats/Socialist/Communists.  Normal Americans respect the separation of powers.  The Courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, exist to apply the law and to determine if it is in harmony with the Constitution.  Courts have no power to substitute their policy preferences for the law.  D/S/Cs want courts to do just that, but only if those policy preferences are their own.  They see the Supreme Court as a super legislature, which will give them the laws they want, but can’t obtain through the legitimate legislative process.  This is why D/S/Cs want to pack the Supreme Court.  This is why they say things like this:

It’s also why they argue the Justices should “look like America,” and why Joe Biden chose a justice based on gender and skin color.

Presumably, Ketanji Brown Jackson, like pretty much every other D/S/C, has experienced a sudden revelation of what a woman is.  It’s why D/S/C legislators say things like this:

And this:

No, it’s the opposite of governmental overreach

Once again, the Supreme Court did not legislate.  It banned nothing; it mandated nothing.  It returned the decision to the states, where citizens are far closer to their elected representatives than they are to DC politicians.  And of course, D/S/Cs engage in ritual projection:

Jackie Speier (Right)

During an interview on MSNBC on Friday, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said she thinks that the Supreme Court ‘tipped off’ pro-life protestors about how it was going to rule in the Dobbs decision. Because when she went over to the Supreme Court, there were only pro-life protestors. She later admitted, ‘I don’t have any evidence’ for the claim the court tipped off pro-life protestors.

Evidence?  We don’ need no stinking evidence!

What would we do without experts?

A variety of D/S/Cs–and “experts”–are complaining fewer abortions will further wreck the economy in general, while providing President Biden with another explanation, though one lawmaker threw out the baby with the formula:

Ayanna Pressley (Right)

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s ‘Hallie Jackson Reports,’ Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said that we’re talking about outlawing abortion ‘in a country that does not have paid leave, that does not have child care, on the heels of a baby formula shortage.’

Hmmm.  The Biden Meat Puppet Administration is forcing gas prices to run amok to force Americans to buy electric vehicles.  Are they making baby formula scarce to preserve the maximum number of abortions?  That’s Rep. Pressley’s logic, gentle readers, not mine.

And of course, when D/S/Cs don’t get their way, they resort to violence.  This is a “movement” perpetually aggrieved and enraged.  Whatever the provocation, or merely the existence of opposing opinion, they are ready to burn the country down, and increasingly, “kill them all!”  Examples: A “pro-abortion mob” attacked the Arizona Capitol Building:  

There were obligatory attempts at violence at the Supreme Court Building:

And of course, in Seattle:

In Los Angeles:

In New York City:

There were also incidents of property damage and arson throughout the country. Andrea Widburg at The American Thinker thinks D/S/Cs are provoking an actual insurrection:  

Angered that the Supreme Court announced in Dobbs that abortion is not part of the Constitution but is, instead, a matter for the states to decide, a lot of leftists are announcing that they’re ready to burn down the entire American system rather than yield to the Supreme Court’s ruling. Leading the charge are sitting members of Congress, people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Maxine Waters. What they are demanding, and an army of activists is agreeing to do, is a classic insurrection.

What’s that you say?  Widburg is sounding like the January 6 Committee?  Let’s look at a little of the evidence.  Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 2:

Exhibit 3:

Exhibit 4:

Exhibit 5:

Exhibit 6:

Exhibit 7:

I could provide an essentially endless list of this kind of violent lunacy, and all within a day of the release of the Dobbs decision.  Granted, most making explicit threats will not carry them out, but they are illegal under federal law, and many state statutes, which, if those responsible for enforcing the law refuse to prosecute, the greatest danger lies, as Professor Jacobson explains at Legal Insurrection:

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

‘Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.

‘The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.

The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.’

This is a blatantly political statement.  D/S/Cs are more than happy to see that “key pillar of the rule of law” destroyed when it adheres to their political whims.  Should they seize a Supreme Court majority, they would gladly demolish stare decisis as it applies to the Second Amendment.  Stare decisis means the Court should give considerable weight to its own precedents, but it does not prevent the Court from acting when that precedent is faulty.  Garland didn’t stop there:

‘The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.

Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.’ The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services.

And has a single clinic been burned?  Anyone assaulted?

‘And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care. In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.’

Mifepristone is commonly called the “abortion pill.”

‘Furthermore, federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law. And federal employees who carry out their duties by providing such services must be allowed to do so free from the threat of liability. It is the Department’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that federal employees engaging in such conduct would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law. The Justice Department is prepared to assist agencies in resolving any questions about the scope of their authority to provide reproductive care.

***

“The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive  freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.’

Prof. Jacobson notes:

DOJ is not vowing to violate the law. But it is vowing to use its prosecutorial and investigative power to limit the Supreme Court rulings. That’s a political function. DOJ is just another political player.

President Biden also weighed in:  

That was politically useful then; this is now.

‘Today, is, uh, it’s not hyperbole to suggest a very somber moment,’ Biden began, as he claimed that ‘today the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized.’ He continued to double down on his disappointment, calling it ‘a sad day for the Court and for the country.’

‘This landmark case,’ Biden said, ‘protected a woman’s right to choose, her right to make intensely personal decisions with her doctor, free from interference of politics. It reaffirmed basic principles of equality, that women have the power to control their own destiny, and it reinforced a fundamental right of privacy.’

Biden also called for no violence or intimidation from protestors, but that’s closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.   As I noted in Bruen: The Constitution Prevails? President Biden and AG Garland also expressed their political intentions regarding the Court’s Second Amendment decision in Bruen.

This is incredibly dangerous because the Administration has a consistent history of not enforcing the law against “protestors” who support their political aims, and of issuing the weakest comments about their crimes, when they comment at all.  The President and Attorney General are members of the executive branch, responsible for enforcing the law.  When they make clear their intentions not to enforce the law, particularly when they have a history of refusing to prosecute clear violations of federal law, they encourage and abet lawlessness, even insurrection.  Will Garland prosecute this leftist lunatic?

D/S/Cs see abortion, like the Jan. 6 Committee, as an issue that could help them avoid electoral disaster at the mid terms, and perhaps, in 2024.  That seems unlikely, as The Washington Examiner reports:

Abortion, the No. 1 concern in today’s media and politics, ranks nearly dead last among areas voters care about as they struggle with paying daily bills, soaring inflation, and interest rate hikes, according to a just-released survey.

While the Supreme Court’s decision overruling the 1973 Roe v. Wade right to abortion has dominated today’s network and cable coverage, the latest McLaughlin & Associates poll said just 5% of voters call it a top concern.

Just below abortion, at 1%, is reviewing the 2020 election, over which the media are also obsessing.

Final Thoughts:  the Supreme Court has, to the rage of D/S/Cs, done its constitutionally mandated job.  We can expect the DOJ to avoid charging any pro-abortion protestor, regardless of their crimes.  That’s the status quo in the Biden/Garland DOJ, which seems almost entirely weaponized against Normal Americans.  However, I suspect the violent rage of the last 48 hours will mostly falter.  There will be the occasional vandalism and arson, because Antifa and BLM thugs like that sort of thing, but with this issue, there really isn’t an excuse for massive looting and destruction of cities.

The greatest danger remains in our federal government refusing to equally apply the rule of law.  The worst example of that is its refusal to arrest and prosecute thugs threatening Supreme Court Justices at their homes, despite a very specific federal statute outlawing that conduct.  That refusal could easily encourage more such threats, but at the homes of state legislators and judges across America, which seems to be the intention.  On that path lies secession, even civil war.

UPDATE, 06-27-22, 1200 MT:  Fox News reports on the latest arson:

credit: beaver vfd

A historic Catholic Church in West Virginia burned to the ground this weekend, and police are now investigating the incident as arson.

St. Colman Catholic Church was already a smoldering ruin when firefighters from the Beaver Volunteer Fire Department arrived to the scene Sunday morning. The church was built in 1878 and was declared an official historical site in 1984.

I’m sure this was just a coincidence and has nothing to do with D/S/C pro-abortion violence.