Rectifying a Horrible Abortion Precedent Is a Very Conservative Virtue; Fear and Cowardice Are Not – Opinion

Monday was a chaotic day for the legal and political worlds after Justice Samuel Alito leaked a draft of his opinion. Dobbs v. JackonSee Politico Attempts to Pre-Game the Supreme Court by Leaked Draft of Opinion Against Roe This opinion received five votes. It was deemed abominable. Roe v. Wadedecision to take the foundation with the unholy, pagan pro-abort structure.

Since that time, the Supreme Court, the justices who agree with Justice Alito’s opinion, have been subjected to scurrilous attacks and reason itself turned on its head. The core of the Democrat party, picking up on the lessons they learned from the BLM protest, have taken to street violence (see WATCH: Violence Breaks out at Pro-Abortion Protest After Democrat Politicians Call to ‘Fight’), that is, those who aren’t actively encouraging child-murder (The Left Ghoulishly Glamorizes Abortion). Joe Biden is slobbering (Biden lies about the SCOTUS draft opinion, makes things worse).

Some of the Republican responses were equally amusing. Lisa Murkowski and sister quisling Susan Collins have been out front claiming that some recently confirmed justices “lied” to them to win their vote (my colleague Sister Toldjah covers the dismantling of that argument by Jonathan Turley in Jonathan Turley Triggers Meltdowns After Debunking Key Schumer Claim About Conservative Justices). Mitch McConnell will send me a fundraising email telling me to preserve abortion in order to avoid electoral Armageddon. (Perhaps I’m being unfair here, but I’ve always felt the GOP Establishment’s opposition to abortion was nothing more than failure theater intended to gull the rubes out in flyover country out of a few bucks.) Among the most risible is an op-ed by Bret Stephens, the Jennifer-Rubin-esque “conservative” columnist for the New York Times, Bret Stephens. In his opinion piece titled Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice, Stephens tries to use some tired verbal kung-fu to upbraid five conservatives that they really aren’t conservative.

He argues that, even though Roe is believed to be a terrible decision and has caused immense harm to society and institutions in the past fifty years, it is still a very long period.

As you’ll no doubt agree, Roe v. Wade was an ill-judged decision when it was handed down on Jan. 22, 1973.

The legal principle that privacy is a right was the basis of its existence at the time. This law can be found mainly in the Constitution’s penumbras. This gave the most democratic government power to resolve a question not better handled by Congress and state legislatures. This created a culture war, which polarized and radicalized America’s edges. It also made it more difficult to compromise. Confirmation hearings at the Supreme Court became the unholy death matches that they have become. The court’s standing was diminished by making it a more political part of government.

However, a quarter century is quite a while. America, which has most its citizens born post Roe decision, is quite a different country. And a decision to overturn Roe — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate Roe’s damage than to reverse it.

This would not be conservative but radical.

This is the truth that most alcoholics or drug addicts who are not reformed will admit to you. “Sure, it isn’t a healthy life style but I’ve done if for 50 years, so why should I stop now?” Or, in the words of the immortal philosopher Keith Richards, “I only get ill when I give up drugs.”

A half century is indeed a very long time. However, the persistence of injustice does not justify keeping it. Perhaps there was a leakage of opinion. Brown vs. Board of EducationStephens might have been tempted to defend. Plessy v Ferguson, the case that established the pernicious “separate but equal” doctrine. That “precedent” was nearly 60 years old when the ruling on BrownAnnounced. Korematsu v. United States is almost 80 years old (and still the law of the land), would Stephens agree to the internment of US citizens who had the wrong ancestry…other than white people, I mean, because if they were of European extraction, it goes without saying that Stephens and his employer would be in favor of that.

Stephens continues to praise the virtues and quote Hamilton in Federalist78:

“To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78, “it is indispensable that they” — the judges — “should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.”

Hamilton’s point was not understood. Hamilton refers clearly to how courts interpret the differences in two laws passed Congress. Hamilton isn’t referring to an imaginary Constitutional right, which might have its roots in bad curry. It has no legal foundation.

This conclusion does not imply that the legislative power is superior to the judicial. The conclusion assumes both the legislative and judicial power is superior. Judges should follow the Constitution if the will of either the legislature or the people stands against it. The fundamental laws should be used to govern their decisions, not those that aren’t fundamental.

The case of Roe, the Supreme Court invented a right that rejected existing state laws (that would be the whole “power of the people” thing) and a few centuries of British common law in favor of its own judgment.

He then warns the Supreme Court about the dangers associated with the urge to get too politically.

The pro-lifers soon would realize that there are unintended implications. These include the possible return to the unsafe and illegal abortion (or abortions that were performed in Mexico), as well as the establishment of pro-choice majority in the blue states. This is likely due to voters who are now anxious about their reproductive rights. Americans have almost equal opinions about their reproductive rights.personalGallup polling over many years has shown that only 19% believe abortion should be legal in all cases.

There is no complete editorial of the weaklings currently infesting this place without some level of panty-wetting over how terrible things might get.

However, the decision will make the court look weaker as both a guardian of American stability and sanity and as a buffer against the fast diminishing respect for tradition and institutions. The fact that the draft of Justice Alito’s decision was leaked — which Chief Justice Roberts rightly described as an “egregious breach” of trust — is a foretaste of the kind of guerrilla warfare the court should expect going forward. Not just abortion. A court that violates the trust of Americans over an issue so important to so many will also lose that trust.

Yes, indeed. Because someone connected to the Supreme Court broke their work contract by leaking the Alito opinion. The Supreme Court should withdraw that opinion as the leaker was notified of the success and promised never again. After writing this, my head hurts.

Even great actions can come with huge risks. Justice Alito could save approximately 700,000 baby girls each year from dismemberment. That is a worthy cause, and all of Stephens’ arguments and the arguments of Collins and Murkowski and the whole gaggle of vicious pro-aborts pale before it. It was not in the Founders’ minds that courts would create law out of thin air. The fact that Burger Court survived fifty years of this shameful irrigation of power is an example of how we should do things.