Tag Archives: Supreme Court

On Losing “Roe”, by Dr. Naomi Wolf

The pro-abortion crowd kept pushing its limits beyond what millions of Americans would support. From Dr. Naomi Wolf at naomiwolf.substack.com:

How Could this Possibly have Happened? Easy. Pro-Choice Movement, Look in the Mirror

Last Friday, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the ruling Roe v Wade via its decision on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Across the country, understandably, frightened and angry young women are protesting; screaming and weeping.

The organized, institutional, heavily funded US feminist movement, which for fifty years has predicated American feminist ideology, and its own donor appeals, on the foundation of defending Roe, is calling this ruling a travesty.

I am going to argue that the defeat of Roe is not in fact a defeat of women but a necessary evolution in the law, in response to women’s ascendancy in America over the last fifty years.

Before I do, though, I warn that the Roe decision is being used as a pretext for a campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court. This anti-SCOTUS campaign fits in as part of the larger war on our democratic institutions, about which I have been writing in The Bodies of Others, and elsewhere.

Members of the Court are being abused, intimidated and threatened in ways that are the definition of “un-American.”

Continue reading→

Roe is history. The left is furious. They ought to be contrite. By Phil Boas

Roe v. Wade was one of the most poorly reasoned Supreme Court decisions in history, and it’s distorted law and politics ever since. Good riddance. From Phil Boas at azcentral.com:

Instead of fuming, maybe Democrats should be contrite about the unearned advantage they got from Roe v. Wade

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP

For more than a month, pro-abortion militants have been firebombing and smashing churches and anti-abortion family centers in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

On Friday they planned “A Night of Rage” to scream at conservative justices and to put the anti-abortion right on notice:

“To our oppressors: If abortions aren’t safe, you’re not either. Jane’s Revenge.”

The group’s name likely derives from the Jane Collective, part of the abortion underground in 1970s Chicago, reports Newsweek and Fox News.

They are the pro-abortion radicals. On Friday, slightly less-radical voices in Washington were burning on lower flame.

* “(This is) one of the darkest days our country has ever seen,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., as reported in the Washington Post. “Millions upon millions of American women are having their rights taken from them by five unelected justices on the extremist MAGA court.”

Continue reading→

Roe and Soros Pallets, by Eric Peters

Will we get the sponsored and prearranged riots, looting, and general mayhem in response to the Supreme Court’s abortion decision that we got for the death of George Floyd? From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

“Peaceful Protests” are about to start again – now that the Supreme Court has issued its decision vacating the federal “right” to an abortion, found by a previous Supreme Court in a “right” to privacy nowhere described in the federal Constitution.

It does not mean that those who wish to end the lives of their developing babies aren’t still free to do so – in states where the practice will still be legal. Rather, it means the majority of this court found the “constitutional” reasoning of the court that originally decided Roe v. Wade to be without constitutional substance.

That, of course, is not the way the flying monkeys of the media are explaining it – the straight truth being something the media always distorts whenever it doesn’t serve to advance the agenda of the Left, which has become synonymous with the media.

Instead, the media has conveyed the idea that women who want to end the lives of their developing babies will no longer be “free” to do so. And Leftists in politics said similar, for example, the governor of New York, who said:

“Today the Supreme Court rolled back the rights of millions of Americans, disregarding their interests and — more importantly — their lives. Access to abortion is a fundamental human right, and it remains safe, accessible, and legal in New York.”

And then said the Martha’s Vineyard-dwellling ex-president, who recently also had 2,500 gallons of “climate changing” fossil fuel stored up for his comfort, after having derided the rest of us for the size of our “carbon footprints”:

“Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.”

Continue reading→

Thoughts on Justice Alito’s Draft Opinion, by Andrew P. Napolitano

The right to life is the ultimate natural right and if life begins at conception then Alito’s draft opinion reaches the wrong result—leaving the matter up to the states—on the wrong Constitutional rationale. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

In the pilfered draft opinion authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote that Roe v. Wade — the court’s 1973 opinion that prohibited the states from banning abortions during the first six months of pregnancy — and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — its 1992 opinion that modified Roe but essentially upheld it — were both egregiously wrong when decided, are egregiously wrong today and so should be overruled.

The practical effect of overruling Roe and Casey will be to return the issue of the lawfulness of abortion to the states, thus liberating all states to legislate as they wish — to ban all abortions or to permit them even AFTER the moment of birth.

Though I agree that Roe and Casey were and are wrong, I do so for reasons differently than those stated in the Alito draft. One of those reasons — that unenumerated rights today must have a long history of recognition — is deeply troubling to those who believe that personal sovereignty trumps governmental power.

Continue reading→

The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade, by Glenn Greenwald

The Supreme Court is not supposed to wholeheartedly embrace democracy; it is supposed to be a check on it. From Glen Greenwald at greenwald.substack.com:

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.

Protesters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on May 03, 2022, in Washington, DC, after a leaked initial draft majority opinion obtained by Politico, in which Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito allegedly wrote for the Court’s majority that Roe v. Wade should be overturned (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Politico on Monday night published what certainly appears to be a genuine draft decision by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Alito’s draft ruling would decide the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy except in the case of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormalities. Given existing Supreme Court precedent that abortion can only be restricted after fetal viability, Mississippi’s ban on abortions after the 15th week — at a point when the fetus is not yet deemed viable — is constitutionally dubious. To uphold Mississippi’s law — as six of the nine Justices reportedly wish to do — the Court must either find that the law is consistent with existing abortion precedent, or acknowledge that it conflicts with existing precedent and then overrule that precedent on the ground that it was wrongly decided.

Alito’s draft is written as a majority opinion, suggesting that at least five of the Court’s justices — a majority — voted after oral argument in Dobbs to overrule Roe on the ground that it was “egregiously wrong from the start” and “deeply damaging.” In an extremely rare event for the Court, an unknown person with unknown motives leaked the draft opinion to Politico, which justifiably published it. A subsequent leak to CNN on Monday night claimed that the five justices in favor of overruling Roe were Bush 43 appointee Alito, Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas, and three Trump appointees (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett), while Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by Bush 43, is prepared to uphold the constitutionality of Mississippi’s abortion law without overruling Roe.

Continue reading→

Why Social Issues Dominate, by Jeff Deist

One rule to bind them all, rather than 50 different rules shaped to the population of each particular state. If indeed Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will kick the abortion issue back to the states, where it has always belonged. The thought is anathema to totalitarian liberals (but I repeat myself). From Jeff Deist at mises.org:

Inflation in the US is at forty-year highs, while interest rates on ten-year Treasury notes just hit 3 percent—signaling trouble for home buyers. Truck drivers pay more than $1,000 to fill their rigs with $5 per gallon diesel to deliver your increasingly expensive groceries and Amazon packages. Crime and homelessness skyrocket in large cities, exacerbated by virulent opioids like fentanyl and krokodil. And America’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine gives rise to the most serious threats of nuclear strikes against the West since the 1960s.

Yet so-called social issues, from abortion to critical race theory to teaching gender identity in elementary schools, dominate our politics and media. Virtually every voter has a strong opinion on these issues, and pays far more attention to them than, say, the M2 money supply or the next Fed Open Market Committee meeting—though the latter could have a far greater impact on that voter’s life and finances.

Why is this so?

The short answer is the Supreme Court.

Continue reading→

The Supreme Court Uses Twisted Logic to Protect US Agents Committing Torture, by James Bovard

For some Americans who still believed they weren’t living in a totalitarian state, this Supreme Court decision may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. From James Bovard at lewrockwell.com:

The Supreme Court declared last week that Americans have no right to learn the grisly details of CIA torture because the CIA has never formally confessed its crimes. The verdict symbolizes how the rule of law has become little more than a form of legal mumbo-jumbo to shroud official crimes. Why should anyone expect justice from a Supreme Court that covers up torture?

In 2002, the CIA captured Abu Zubaydah, a Palestinian radical, in Pakistan, mistakenly believing he was a kingpin with al-Qaeda. The CIA tortured him for years in Thailand and Poland. As dissenting Justice Neil Gorsuch noted, the CIA “waterboarded Zubaydah at least 80 times, simulated live burials in coffins for hundreds of hours,” and brutalized him to keep him awake for six days in a row. The CIA has admitted some of the details and Zubaydah’s name was mentioned more than a thousand times in a 683-page Senate report on the CIA torture regime released in 2014.

This case turned on the invocation of a holy bureaucratic relic of dubious origin—state secrets. As the court’s 6–3 ruling, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, noted, “To assert the [state secrets] privilege, the Government must submit to the court a ‘formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter.’” After a government agency claims the privilege, the court “should exercise its traditional “reluctance to intrude upon the authority of the Executive in military and national security affairs,” Breyer wrote. And the most important role for the Supreme Court nowadays is apparently to sanctify the privileges it has awarded federal agencies that committed crime sprees.

Continue reading→

Supreme Court: Torture at CIA Black Site Is ‘State Secret’, by Marjorie Cohn

If the U.S. government had its way, everything it does would be classified as a state secret. From Marjorie Cohn at consortiumnews.com:

In a scathing dissent, Neil Gorsuch accused the government of seeking dismissal of Abu Zubaydah’s petition to avoid “further embarrassment for past misdeeds.”

Great Hall of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Adam Fagen, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Abu Zubaydah, whom the CIA once mistakenly alleged was a top Al-Qaeda leader, was waterboarded 80-plus times, subjected to assault in the form of forced rectal exams, and exposed to live burials in coffins for hundreds of hours. Zubaydah sobbed, twitched and hyperventilated. During one waterboarding session, he became completely unresponsive, with bubbles coming out of his mouth. “He became so compliant that he would prepare for waterboarding at the snap of a finger,” Neil Gorsuch wrote in his 30-page dissent in United States v. Zubaydah.

On March 3, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Zubaydah’s petition requesting the testimony of psychologists James Mitchell and John Jessen, whom the CIA hired to orchestrate his torture at a secret CIA prison (“CIA black site”) in Poland from December 2002 until September 2003. Zubaydah was transferred to other CIA black sites before being sent to Guantánamo in 2006, where he remains today with no charges against him.

Abu Zubaydah in pre-2008 photo. (DoD, Wikimedia Commons)

Zubaydah sought information: (1) to confirm that the CIA black site in question was located in Poland; (2) about his torture there; and (3) about the involvement of Polish officials. First the Trump administration — now the Biden administration — claim that confirming the location of the CIA black site in Poland is a “state secret” that would significantly harm U.S. national security interests. Zubaydah needs Mitchell and Jessen’s testimony to document his treatment from December 2002 to 2003 at the CIA black site in Poland for use in the ongoing Polish criminal investigation of Poles complicit in his torture. Those details have not been publicly documented.

Continue reading→

National Concealed Carry? It Might Be Sooner Than You Think, by BKROP

The current Supreme Court is the most sympathetic the right to bear arms in decades. From BKROP at themachinegunnest.com:

If you’re unaware of the most recent 2nd amendment case in the Supreme Court, let me give you a quick refresher. NYSRPA v. Bruen deals with the “may-issue” scheme plaguing liberal states. Essentially, the government decides whether you can carry a firearm based on specific criteria or an atypical need from the general population. Suspiciously missing from this criterion is “self-defense.”

Maryland has a scheme very similar to New York’s. The Machine Gun Nest is a Maryland-based company, and I grew up in Maryland. I recently received my concealed carry permit from Maryland State Police after submitting to an intensive background check which required me to prove (with tax forms, bank account statements, and more) that I was indeed a business owner. If I had merely said that I was a humble tax-paying, law-abiding citizen who was concerned about their safety on my evening walks through Baltimore city, I would have denied that permit.

See the issue here?

Well, so does the Supreme Court.

Oral Arguments for NYSRPA v. Bruen took place on Nov. 3rd, and afterward, it seemed like the majority of Justices were staunchly on the 2nd amendment side. We’ll have to wait until summer 2022 to get the verdict, but it appears that the state of New York has seen the future and has already started crafting legislation to render a concealed carry permit useless.

New York Bill A08684 is an apparent reaction to the almost certainty that the Supreme Court will rule New York’s permitting scheme as unconstitutional. The bill itself states that no firearms can be possessed anywhere on “public” transportation (including rideshares, trains, and taxis), in restaurants, or anywhere where 15 or more people are gathered.

While this bill may be depressing to read for the New Yorkers who are desperate for the ability to defend themselves, the evidence is clear that even the government of New York seems to be confident that they’re going to lose NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Continue reading→

Biden Reminds Everyone That Black Justices Can Be Just As Smart As Rich Ones

From The Babylon Bee:

WASHINGTON, D.C.—As Biden prepares to nominate a woman of color to the Supreme Court, he took the time to remind the country that black Justices can be just as smart as rich ones.

“Listen, folks, black Justices can be just as smart, articulate, and clean as the rich ones,” said Biden to reporters. “Just because they mostly stock the spaghetti sauce on the shelves in the ladies department of the department store and hang out with bad dudes like Corn Pop doesn’t mean they can’t be judges too! Come on folks! This ain’t complicated! If I haven’t nominated you for SCOTUS, then you ain’t black!”

Biden went on to say that he will choose a SCOTUS Justice based on qualifications, as long as those qualifications belong to someone with very dark skin and a female body.

“Mixed race judges don’t qualify,” said Biden, insisting they “aren’t black enough.”

It is so far unclear whether Biden will also nominate black men who identify as women, or whether he knows what a SCOTUS Justice is or even where he is right now.

“I’m proud to be the first President in history to get one of them blacks on the Supreme Court,” said Biden. “Clarance Thomas doesn’t count. He’s a bit too uppity for my taste.”

Biden then saluted his framed portrait of Robert Byrd and took a nap.

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-reminds-aids-black-justices-can-be-just-as-smart-as-rich-ones

%d bloggers like this: