Crisis of Faith: Politicians and the Press Escalate Attacks on the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Below is my column on the growing attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court after the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. As the Court ends its term, Democratic leaders are calling for removing justices, packing the Court, and other extreme reactions to the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Here is the column:

For justices, the end of a Supreme Court term usually brings welcomed vacations and speaking engagements out of town. This week it seemed more like the justices were fleeing the jurisdiction with a mob at their heels. Six justices (and their homes) are targeted because they dared to interpret the Constitution in a way that is opposed by many in the political, media, and academic establishment. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many called for impeachments, court packing, and “disciplining” justices. What is chilling, however, is that these calls have not come from extremist groups but political and media figures who are challenging the very  “legitimacy” of the Supreme Court.

The Madisonian democracy is based on the premise that, despite our factional divisions, the Constitution creates an interest in all groups in preserving the system. While the Constitution does not guarantee that your views will prevail in Congress or the courts, it has proven the most stable and successful democratic system in history.  We are all invested in that system which has achieved transformative changes over time in our laws and our society.

The Constitution is neither poetic nor pretentious in its language. It was written by the ultimate wonk in Madison. It has only one thing to recommend it: we are still here.  We have survived periods of war, economic collapse, and social discord that broke other systems.

Politicians and the press have thrived under this system and have historically defended its legitimacy even when demanding major changes in our laws. We are now witnessing a crisis of faith with the political and media establishment declaring the highest court to be illegitimate. All because they disagree with a constitutional interpretation adopted by the majority of its members.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rending opinions against “widely held public opinion.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even questioned the institution’s value: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” She has now demanded the impeachment of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch based on the entirely false claim that they lied under oath in their confirmation hearings. After the Dobbs decision, Ocasio-Cortez demanded “there must be consequences” for the Court.

Other leaders like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., issued a warning to the Supreme Court: Reaffirm Roe v. Wade or face a “revolution.”

The media has amplified these extreme calls. In the New York Times, columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote an outline of how Democrats could rein in the high court in a piece titled, “How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court.” He wrote that the Supreme Court does not exist above the constitutional system and added that the “rogue” court “cannot shield itself from the power of other branches.” Bouie’s discipline includes impeaching or removing justices as well as packing the court.

Notably, like many others demanding radical changes to the Court, Bouie previously advocated the change that is most responsible for creating the Court’s current composition. Like many liberals, Bouie demanded that the Senate kill the filibuster rule for Supreme Court nominees.

At the time, some of us warned the Democrats that the move was uniquely short-sighted and that they would rue the day that they took such a moronic step. As predicted, the Democrats soon found themselves in the minority without the protection of the filibuster rule and could not block nominees. They gained comparably little from the change given what they lost, including ultimately Roe v. Wade.

Rather than admit that their prior attack on the filibuster backfired, liberals are now demanding even more radical moves like a bad gambler at Vegas who just keeps doubling down in the hopes of winning a hand.

It does not matter that the Court is not as rigidly ideological or dysfunctionally divided as widely claimed. If anything, it has shown fewer divisions in most cases. Before the opinion, ABC admitted that “67% of the court’s opinions in cases argued during the term that ends this month have been unanimous or near-unanimous with just one justice dissenting.That compares to just 46% of unanimous or near-unanimous decisions during the 2019 term and the 48% average unanimous decision rate of the past decade.” Yet, after the decision, ABC’s legal analyst Terry Moran described the term as a “new era” of the “activist court.”

This crisis of faith is evident in other key constituencies in our system, including in our law schools. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justices “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Most recently, the dean and chancellor of University of California Hastings College of the Law David Faigman questioned the legitimacy of the Court after the ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  

Writing in his official capacity, Faigman went as far as to claim that “this decision turns back the clock not just to 1973, but to a century when women did not have the right to vote and were, largely, treated as property . .  . the world today is so much less generous and inclusive than it was just yesterday. I tremble for my granddaughters.” Faigman declared that the “the Court itself, which is a product of political gerrymandering—raises basic questions regarding the legitimacy of the Court itself.”

From Congress to the press to academia, the very foundation of the Court is being challenged. What is notable is that these are also the voices of some of the most powerful figures in our society. Rather than seek to moderate the mob, they are fueling the rage with such reckless rhetoric. There are good-faith objections to this decision but those objections challenge the legitimacy of the holding, not the institution itself. As Benjamin Franklin noted “The U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself.”

255 thoughts on “Crisis of Faith: Politicians and the Press Escalate Attacks on the Legitimacy of the Supreme Court”

  1. Just another step in the dimdem plan to “fundamentally transform” (that means destroy) this nation, one piece at a time.

    1. Alma Carman,
      It is as if they are trying to instigate a national level riot. The 2020 Summer of Love, fiery but mostly peaceful protests, but without the peaceful part.

      In their fevered, twisted minds, to save democracy by burning it down. Then create their own democracy in their image. If that looks anything like progressive wokeism, you can count me out.

  2. Jonathan: Has the SC gone “rogue”? Definitely. In one stroke Alito and his 5 compatriots wiped an almost 50 precedent regarding women’s reproductive rights. This is the first time the Court has actually taken away a fundament constitutional right. And this decision portends that other fundamental constitutional rights are in jeopardy. For obvious reasoning you have not discussed the reasoning in Alito’s decision overturning Roe. His decision was shoddy because it almost entirely relied on the views of a 17th century misogynist English jurist. Alito’s opinion is rooted in his conservative Catholic dogma re abortion that wants to impose its orthodoxy on all women regardless of their religious affiliation, or lack thereof. Many other religions, including Judaism, recognize the right to abortion. Alito simply thinks the 17th century views about women taken precedence over women’s rights in the 21st century. In its other significant decisions last week the conservative court turned the country back to the “Wild West” and now every American can carry around openly a gun on their hip. And the Court has pretty much gutted the Establishment clause. No wonder most Americans have lost respect for the Court.

    The Court has lost its legitimacy–principally because Clarence Thomas has a blind eye when it comes to his conflicts of interest. He continues to participate in opinions directly related to his wife’s political activism. In any other federal court he would be required to recuse himself. Thomas simply thumbs his nose at the requirements for recusal. He has almost single handily brought the Court in disrepute.

    You accuse the Dems of wanting to “pack” the Court. You ignore the fact that it was Trump who “packed” the court with 3 right-ideologues to carry out his agenda. Of course, a president is entitled to appoint his ideological soulmates. But don’t complain if the Dems want to do the same thing. That’s disingenuous. The fact that so many law school deans and professors have condemned the Dobbs decision speaks volumes about the Court’s loss of legitimacy in the legal community. It’s not the “foundation” of the Court, as you claim, that is in jeopardy but the right-wing cabal on the Court that wants to impose its rigid orthodoxy on all of us!

    1. You are still free to move about the country, Dennis. No one is imposing rigid orthodoxy on ya, baby doll.

      1. There you go….just like back in Alito’s 17th century. If you don’t like slavery, don’t live in the South. (If you’re white, that is.) Just move to a different state and ignore the plight of the blacks. Problem solved.

      2. Anonymous: I am “free to move about the country” because I am a man. If I were a poor Black pregnant woman or other minority I would not have the means to freely move “about the country”. Should a Black pregnant woman be denied an abortion because she can’t afford a plane ticket? That’s apparently what the the right-wing cabal on the SC seems to think. They knew state bans on abortion would fall disproportionally on the poor. My quarrel with Clarence Thomas has nothing to do with his race. It’s his judicial philosophy, “baby doll”!

    2. Still going with attacking Justice Thomas as the angry black man who doesn’t know his place, eh? Typical lib. We see your true colors, baby.

      1. Nah, ol’ Clarence is just an entitled hypocrite. He greatly benefitted from affirmative action, but would deny it to others. He wants to deny all constitutional rights based on privacy, including contraceptives, abortion and same sex marriage, but the ONE he didn’t mention? You guessed it: inter-racial marriage, because he personally benefits from it. People don’t like hypocrites. Even Jesus, who was quite tolerant, had no use for hypocrites.

        1. The stigma attached to race-based affirmative action on Thomas certainly showed brightly during his confirmation hearings along with the public’s perception of whether or not he would have the abilities required.

          Racists like that stigmata attached even if they don’t know it.

          Clarence Thomas has demonstrated to the world that where individuals are concerned labels don’t count. The same was done by Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. The left hates all three because the left is unable to provide intellectual arguments that are better than the ones these three provide.

    3. Blah, blah, blah… like all leftists, you think only conservatives should compromise. If the left is so anxious to eliminate the filibuster then support it when a republicans have control of the senate. If the left is so anxious to expand the court, then support it when a republican president and senate are in control. Truth be told, the left only wants more power for themselves.

  3. Applying Griswold to pregnancy issues is hardly off the rails for a Court to do. You might disagree with doing so and use an equally appropriate judicial approach.

    The majority and dissenting Justices chose not to do that — using language in their rulings that is infantile and hyperbolic.

    It caused Justice Kavanaugh to write a concurrence — which isn’t really a concurrence in that it does not differ legally from the majority opinion. Rather, it is written the way an adult citizen and judge would write something.

    Looks like at least 6 of the Justices have been spending too much time on twitter, or at least soaking in the rants that go on there.

    1. Like anyone is going to believe what Kavanaugh says or writes at this point…hahaha.

  4. I wrote to my female senator last night that I for one do not appreciate the incendiary rhetoric coming out of our elected officials. When an unstable person listens to an unstable voice (elected officials) and decides to take action, will that satisfy them? I agree with Peggy Noonan. There are many intelligent, highly educated people who are stupid. I do not have their education. I do not have a law degree. I cannot talk as fast as they can. But I have something they lack–common sense. In my writing to my senator, I referred not only to her shaky voice, angry, incendiary comments about the recent Supreme Court decisions, but also to the recent border issue–the dead in the tractor trailer (human rights violations?); the Fentanyl (kids playing Russian roulette with laced pills?). Probably as th those wo involved in that were being released, a large drug raid with many arrests was being carried out across my local region. As I looked at the names of the people arrested, I did not recognize any from when I grew up there. I wonder of their legality. Not only drugs, but illegal guns (oh my) were found. This raid put many LEOs at risk. I do not feel our hired government officials (elected by us) are doing the work they are being paid to do. If a person does not perform a job as required, usually they are fired. This November, look over your choices carefully before you put an x next to someone’s name.

    1. Amen. Now is the time to make our voices heard, relentlessly. And don’t just write, pick up the phone and CALL! Light up their switchboard!

    2. One of the indoctrination techniques used by alt-right media is to discredit educated people and convince the disciples that they are smarter for believing the drivel they put out. This post of yours is a perfect example, and it not only proves you aren’t smarter–you are gullible. You believe that it is “common sense” for the rights of privacy and liberty to depend on your address because your handlers have convinced you of this. You don’t really understand the principles of stare decisis or honoring precedents, and it doesn’t bother you that 4 of these judges lied about their views on abortion just to get onto the SCOTUS. If they truly bellieved that Roe was “egregiously wrong”, then why didn’t they say this when they were asked about it by Senators, openly in hearings and in private interviews? They didn’t because they wanted the power to shove their views down the throats of all Americans, most of whom don’t agree with them. You also don’t understand how seriously wrong and dangerous it is for people with extremely strong views on a key issue to lie about their feelings just to get onto the SCOTUS. You don’t understand that it was wrong for McConnell to deny Obama a SCOTUS pick because the election was more than a year away, but when RBG died, they shoved Barrett onto the Court when the election was only weeks away. You don’t get it when you saw that dozens of witnesses begged to testify about Brett Kavanaugh, but were denied this right by Republicans so they could shove him onto the SCOTUS. That’s why the US is in the turmoil we are right now: the political game-playing by Republicans to gain control of the Supreme Court. The overwhelming majority of the American people no longer trust the SCOTUS to do anything other than twist the Constitution and ignore precedent in order to come up with a predetermined outcome based on politics. More fallout from the wrongful “presidency” of Donald Trump. As Rick Wilson’s book title says: “Everything Trump Touches Dies”, including respect for the Supreme Court of the United States.

  5. A friend of mine from back in the day kept it real simple: since the 1960’s, this country has seen an enormous increase in women occupying seats in Congress and in numerous other positions of prestige and influence.
    This country would be far better off if this were not so — women should have stayed in their lane.

    1. What’s a woman? Are you referring to trans women, who are biologically male but women? Or womyn? Or nonbinary with lady parts? It’s all so confusing, isn’t it?

    2. And, who decides what “lane” a woman should “stay in”? Where does the power to decide this come from? Don’t women have the right to vote? Aren’t women obligated to pay taxes? They have these rights and obligations, but no say in governance–is that what you’re saying? So “prestige and influence’ only belong to those with a penis? Based on what, exactly, other than misogyny?

  6. Turley must be working overtime trying to write his criticism of the damning hearing last nite. First hand testimony is hard to refute with the exception of the steering wheel incident which was indeed hearsay. But the rest of the testimony is a glaring contradiction of Trump’s claims about his intentions regarding the mob. There were weapons, Trump wanted his armed mob to march to the Capitol. He wanted to Force his VP to unilaterally revoke the certified election to Trump’s favor despite clearly losing.

    The testimony clearly shows trump knew and didn’t care that his mob was armed. He wasn’t concerned about being hurt. He was confident that threat was aimed at Pence and the congressmen in the Capitol.

    1. Turley’s self-interest and self preservation in keeping his FOX gig is on full display with his daily deflection about J6.

      1. Fishwings, no kidding. Turley is doing exactly what Fox News is doing. Avoiding the J6 hearings as much as possible in order to minimize any seeding of doubt on Fox viewers about Trump’s attempted coup.

        1. ‘Call me old-fashioned, but I kinda think maybe documentary evidence that the sitting president of the United States paid cash money to support human trafficking in Russia is something Congress ought to be investigating, not goofy second-hand fairy tales about the previous one.’ @doc_0

        2. The committee has failed to offer any evidence.

          Now they have put forward a witness that has lied. The committee could have called the SS to confirm the witness statement. The comittee did not. Why offer a wittness to remember conversations from 18 months ago, when they had full access to the people the witness is quoting?

  7. ADDED: Is this post unfair? Yes. That’s deliberate. It’s intended as a commentary on unfairness. The January 6th committee hearings are unfair.

    This comes from a retired Constitutional Law Prof, who is a full on 70’s minting liberal. Much like Turley, the media has applied a ‘Conservative’ tag to the Profesor. Because the writings are based on Constitutional principles. Telling, that when supporting the Constitution, liberals get labeled conservative

    1. Yesterday’s liberal (i.e. divergent) is today’s conservative (i.e. moderating).

    2. What exactly is unfair about the Jan 6 committee? Republicans had plenty of opportunities to include members of their party on a commission but they refused to vote on it. That’s their fault. When McCarthy offered Jim Jordan and Banks they were making it clear they were going to be there just to obstruct. McCarthy offered alternatives and suddenly withdrew them. That’s their fault. There are two republicans on the committee. The majority of witnesses, testimony, and evidence has come from republicans. So again, what’s unfair about the Jan 6 committee? That it’s successful on showing the evidence?

      1. Svelaz – Neither you nor Pelosi nor the committee can offer a legitimate reason that this committee would illegitimately exclude members selected by minority leadership. That has been a guardrail against tyranny by the majority for decades … but Democrats are a party who cares nothing for the institutions that have made the US a beacon on hill and love to destroy our institutions and mores.

        The US (vs oligarchical and tyrannical systems you may favor) is a system that guarantees a prosecution AND a defense. Jordan’s and Banks’s inclusion would have brought legitimacy by providing the full story. .

        And now we see the proof as this committee is purposely distorting testimony, cutting and pasting to distort and creating theatrical “hearings” just like Salem trials – predetermined outcomes showing illegitimacy, distortion, and lies.

        But Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer, and the Democrats have been doing that for 6 years (and some for decades) so it’s no surprise … just a groomed and manipulated narrative meant to rile up their emotional, illogical base. As you illustrate …

        1. Republicans excluded their own members. They voted against a bipartisan commission. McCarthy withdrew THEIR choices after Jordan and banks made it clear they were going to obstruct rather than legitimately participate.

          1. “after Jordan and banks made it clear they were going to obstruct rather than legitimately participate.“

            Tell us how they were going to obstruct.

            Will you now become mum?

            1. Jordan directly participated in the insurrection. Banks made it clear that no quantum of evidence would convince him that Jan 6th was not valid, and he voted against accepting the certified results from the 50 states. Pelosi wisely excluded them, so in a fit of pettiness, McCarthy withdrew the other 3. This is on McCarthy.

      2. Republicans had plenty of opportunities to include members of their party on a commission
        No. Pelosi picked all of the committee. she refused to seat the Republican choices.

        1. You’ve had this explained to you multiple times. McCarthy and McConnell pulled out. Even then, Pelosi sat two R’s on the Committee.

          1. I would prefer Jordan over those two dimwits that were taken because they both hate Trump from the start.

            I guess you cannot understand what is wrong with your logic. A 9 year old would know better.

            1. it doesn’t matter what your personal preferences are, despite how much you may like Gymmy Diddler.

          2. ,” Pelosi sat two R’s on the Committee.”

            I said, Pelosi picked all of the committee.

            What is the substanative difference in the two statements?

      3. The Democrats refused Jim Jordan because they recognize he can tell truth from fiction. The left and media are used to superficial thinking. You fall for it all the time, but that is expected.

        This is a kangaroo hearing full of hearsay and lies. We need to raise the bar but then you would be stuck behind it.

        1. As was made clear yesterday, in addition to being a worthless waste of Congressperson, Jordan is also a witness,

          1. Pelosi is a witness and perhaps a guilty party, yet she selected who could or could not be on the panel.

            Are you that foolish that you can’t understand what that means?

            1. Every person in Congress is a witness by your standards, idiot. But Pelosi wasn’t on the phone with Mark Meadows as people were breaching the Capitol. it’s hard for me to fathom the sheer dregs of your intellectual capacity. Let’s just consider you an experiment then, shall we?

              1. Learn to read. I objected to Pelosi choosing the panel since she was integrally involved in many of the decisions that were made starting with not permitting the 20,000 troops. She is one of the most important witnesses and the most likely to be guilty of a crime or of permitting things to get out of hand.

                She should have accepted Jordan and Banks but perhaps she recognized they would find her culpability in Jan 6 which could lead to locking her away.

                She is not a nice person. I liked watching Pelosi elbow the child to her right in a photo op. The child is of Mexican descent so perhaps Pelosi is prejudiced against Mexicans.

                1. As per usual, Allan gets right to the essence in a way all of us can understand.

          2. The only constitutional power of the committee is investigation into the drafting of legislation. Jordon is in conflict with what again?

      4. Svelaz,

        The elimination of any Trumpists on the committee was fortuitous for the Republicans. We have seen enough courtroom dramas wherein a defendant asks his lawyer why he does not cross-examine a damning witness. His lawyer tells him that to do so would only serve to reinforce the harmful testimony by having the witness repeat it on cross. Imagine Jordan trying to beat up Hutchinson by calling her a RINO or insinuating that she is suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as the liars do to us on this blog. Beating up on God-fearing Republican witnesses would be a pretty sight indeed for all of America to witness!

    3. iowan2 wrote, “”when supporting the Constitution, liberals get labeled conservative”

      What’s extremely significant about how liberals are tarred as conservatives when they support the constitution is that it clearly shows that those doing the tarring do not support the Constitution.

    4. Turley isn’t a conservative. He is nothing but a political hack paid to write what the Hate Network tells him to write.

  8. The left and its handmaidens in the media attacked Trump for five years, mostly with lies, and succeeded in denying him a second term and replacing him with a man they knew was unfit to be President. They simply are doing to the Supreme Court what they did to Trump, hoping that it will work again. When we add this to the concerted effort to destroy law and order by defunding police and electing feckless DAs, it is clear that the left and its handmaidens in the media are intent on destroying America as it was and presumably replacing it with something more to their liking. One of the many problems with what they are doing is that their leaders, in both politics and the media, are mental lightweights with precious little reasoning ability and no sense of history. Is there anyone in politics dumber than Elizabeth Warren? (There are many contenders). And, can anyone actually take Chuck Todd seriously? Or Terry Moran? Or a host of others? They are incapable of building, only tearing down, and their “movement” will go the way of so many other failed efforts mounted by incapable zealots. We can only hope that they don’t take the rest of us with them.

    1. Honestlawyer asks:

      “Is there anyone in politics dumber than Elizabeth Warren?”

      I’d like to answer that. Let’s see….

      Marjorie Taylor Greene.

      1. Jeff, maybe. but you left out the biggest moron of them all. Let’s see…. AOC!!

          1. Jeff, Jeff,

            Did Hunter Biden ever hurt you in any way?

            Look at me!

            Are you bruised any way?

            Jeff, Jeff, Pay Attention!

            Did Hunter Biden Hurt You In Any Way.!

            If he did, where did the Bad Man Touch You?

            BTW: The people that lives across the street from you, can you get someone down their to clean up the used condoms, syringes & the piles of Crap.

            It was Gross back when I seen it &I used to do Repos. Dr Savage has said it’s even worst now.

                1. I’ll ignore you if you ignore me. We have nothing to say to each other.

                  1. So you’re saying you’re giving up Slandering us & the promotion of people pushing Sodomy, Pedophilia & Anti-American Commie/Nazi Authoritarian Practices!

                    I’ll believe it when I see it, but good luck with it.

          2. Jeff, I take all comments into account when making a determination. Not using just calls for impeachment of justices. Every time she opens her mouth more ignorance comes pouring out. Witness her appearance with low I.Q. Colbert. She should however get her money back from Boston U. If she is an ” economics expert” I am a brain surgeon.
            Not defending MTG. She has problems.
            Still waiting for AOC to lament the deaths in Texas yesterday. Maybe she could fake crying at a fake facility again.

            1. Paul,

              I don’t follow AOC. The fee times I have seen her interviewed, she seems coherent. I can’t judge her intelligence. She is not on my radar. I don’t watch the late night comedy shows. I’m not interested.

              1. Jeff, setting the bar a little low with ” coherent”. But given our President’s acumen, understandable. And Colbert is not a comedy show. It is leftist drivel.

              2. Coherent. as compared to the the current resident of 1700m Pennsylvania Ave? And the attending queen of word salad, the VP

                1. Iowan,

                  Anytime you wish to admit publicly that Trump is an inveterate liar and “carnival snake charmer,” I will concede that Biden has a few screws loose. Until then, I am going to match your lies with my own to see how you like it.

      2. Jeff, it sounds like you have never heard what Greene says. Warren’s voice of today conflicts with most of what she said yesterday.

        By the way, the other day you asked about this being a Christian nation and I responded while also asking you to expand on your thoughts. That question was more in line with what I think you might understand, since as you have said many times on many policy issues, you don’t know enough about them. That is fair enough, but you brought up a topic you have made oblique comments about. so I thought a fair discussion of the subject might be of interest.

      3. jeffsilberman– I cannot argue with you because I know very little about Greene. I know she is considered an extremist (whatever that is) and a horrible person according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Honestly, I consider a condemnation by the very corrupt SPLC to be a badge of honor. At any rate, I plead ignorance. In fairness, I did say there are “many contenders.”

        1. Honestlawyer,

          I respect your admission that you are not well-informed enough to comment about Marjorie Taylor Greene. I wish more people here would concede their lack of knowledge about matters they profess to know. I will take exception to your characterization of the SPLC as corrupt however. I am not aware that they are corrupt.

  9. The only “legitimacy” in question here is the legitimacy of the press. If any institution needs to be curbed, revamped and railed in, it’s the lying and irresponsible media that has become so politicized it can literally whip up enough hysteria to endanger the fundamental laws of the nation. That sounds a lot like insurrection. Authoritarian countries deal with this issue through state control over the media. Democracies just don’t deal with it at all, until it’s too late. Is there a middle way?

    1. The resolution of the democratic/dictatorial duality is a [constitutional] republic.

  10. Strange that this is first I have seen this glaring truth seeing the light of day.

    “But while it may sound strange coming from the lawyer who heads the ACLU, the real path forward is not through the courts. We must turn to the political process and increase pressure on elected officials—especially at the state and local level. State Constitutions will provide opportunities for new advocacy. We can enact constitutional amendments and pass ballot measures that expand abortion rights and access, as we are doing in Michigan this November.”

    1. Expand [elective] abortion rights or the performance of human rites is a wicked solution enacted for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. Feminists and masculinists bray to keep women, and girls, affordable, available, and taxable.

      That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman (i.e. female by Nature) has four choices: abstention, prevention of conception in depth, adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), compassion (i.e. shared/personal responsibility), and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice.

      Roe’s regrets. Ruth’s remorse.

  11. Without a favorable court, then the left has to go back to legislating the old fashioned way. Elect enough people to pass their program. They had that in 2008-2010 and blew the chance. The other problem is that the left expected that 2020 and on was going to be a new age to “Transform America” again but they forgot to elect someone even minimally competent to be president. I think the rage also is of disappointment and outright horror that the country and so many of the groups that used to make up their coalition is abandoning them for the republicans and they see a possible (but not certain) dark age for democrats ahead. Trump may or may not be there at the head of the Republican Party but I think there is little argument he has transformed that party. And in so many cases the people, from the local all the way to Washington, are starting to voice their displeasure at the elites and some of their harebrained approaches to American life. The question will be “Can the Left Survive?” If the right seizes (electorally) control of states and the federal government and starts to deconstruct the hold that the left has over our institutions, and particularly education. It will be interesting to see. That sort of forward thinking is beyond Trump but not others in his party. Particularly that guy down in the Governors mansion in Tallahassee.

    1. Trump has no chance of being elected. None. He very narrowly lost last time, but it’s a different ballgame now. He’s alienated the majority of professional and suburban women who voted for him, and that’s a big block of voters that he can’t do without. A victory would necessitate that he add voters, not lose them. And the same with DeSantis. Post-Roe, everything has changed. Republicans have to come up with a moderate who can appeal to educated women because there aren’t enough right-wing Catholics and evangelicals to cross the finish line.

      1. TIN, the dust is settling. Reality is creeping in. Abortion law has not changed much. The Sububan women you claim are upset, are paying the fuel bill, they will get their first heating bill about the time they vote. In the NE, the price of heating oil, will be secondary to supply. As diesel is very tight now. But you go ahead and put all your electoral eggs into today’s news cycle basket, concerning abortion. Republicans are counting on you.

        1. I can’t wait to see the shocked d bag trumpists in here in November.

      2. Right, left, and center-wing Catholics and evangelicals, and, generally, people… persons concerned about the progress of human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. Equally, the diverse acts of mischief justified by the Twilight Amendment (i.e. emanations from the penumbras of the Constitution) not limited to the wicked solution a.k.a. planned parent/hood that is a first-order forcing of corruption and dysfunction.

      3. I voted for Trump twice, but won’t do so again. Yes, I’ve been hit with higher gas bills, but can offset the increase in other ways. I now pack a sandwich and Thermos of coffee instead of buying lunch at work. And we eat out less often. But reversing Constitutional rights after half a century? That’s unheard of. Totally unprecedented. And far more important than my gas bill!

        1. TIN, get to work in your state legislature. The people will govern themselves. Judges do not write law.

          1. Much as Iowan can’t keep himself from lying, he is on to something. If you stand for women having control over the own bodies in any capacity there is absolutely no reason to vote republican. Full stop.

          2. Iowan says:

            “Judges do not write law.”

            No kidding?

            What is the “Common law”?

  12. We’ve been shown too many times to blindly ignore the problem that’s staring us in the face, there are way too many ignorant 21st century Democrats that want to literally “control” the judiciary branch of the government, they seem to think the judiciary should be a political puppet of the Democratic Party, a slave to mob justice, and bypass the legislature to create law; this is NOT what the Supreme Court is all about! These Democrats should be very careful what their pushing for, there will likely be a full tit-for-tat political retaliation when Republican politicians are in the majority if these extreme Democrats get their way to completely undermine the Supreme Court – the third branch of the government. It’s darn near impossible to go back from the kind of extreme anti-Constitutional, anti-Judiciary, anti-American rhetoric that the Democrats are projecting right now. Do these Democrats truly want to destroy the United States of America?

    Like it or not, the judiciary does not make law, politicians in the legislature do that and that is exactly what the Supreme Court fixed with their Dobbs decision. Now the right to life issue that imbedded in the abortion issue is in the hands of the politicians, the legislature and We the People and that’s exactly where it belongs. The Supreme Court will be the final constitutional check on the legislature(s).

    Seriously folks, what the heck are the Democrats afraid of, can’t they support their arguments with facts instead of pure hysteria; oh I think we all know the correct answer to that rhetorical question.

    1. “ Seriously folks, what the heck are the Democrats afraid of, can’t they support their arguments with facts instead of pure hysteria; oh I think we all know the correct answer to that rhetorical question.”

      They do support their arguments with facts. The problem is the court is more ideological than objective with its rulings in regards to the conservative majority.

      The weak justifications and cherry-picked reasoning is obvious. Republicans packed the Supreme Court with right wing ideologues. The only way to rectify that is to unpack the court by expanding it and creating a more balanced court. The majority of Americans have lost faith in the court not just due to the recent rulings, but the clear politicization of it as evidenced by justice Thomas’s wife influencing her husband. They are supposed to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Not just ignore it.

      1. of it as evidenced by

        ” evidenced”

        That word does not mean what you think it means.

        1. iowan2,
          You should ignore the Svelaz troll, seriously just ignore the troll.

          Furthermore, you should probably actively ignore anyone who writes bald-faced partisan lies like “[Democrats] do support their arguments with facts.” and pure partisan BS like “The problem is the court is more ideological than objective with its rulings…”. This is delusional (characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument) thinking and anyone that begins their argument in such a way should be completely ignored.

          The Svelaz troll is one of the evidentiary pieces that supports the adage that bias makes people stupid.

          1. Witherspoon is just easily triggered by an opposing view. Rather than engage in an actual discussion, at the first sign of disagreement or factual evidence you cry out “troll!”.

            You should heed your own claim, “ bias makes people stupid.”. You’re much closer to that truth than I.

            1. Svelaz: this is exactly what alt-right media do: call the Jan 6th Committee and witnesses liars and attack them, rather than analyzing the contents of the testimony. But for the Capitol Police officer and the journalist embedded with the Proud Boys, all of the witnesses have been Republican insiders. This was probably by design: to take away the claim that they are biased “Never Trumpers”. Ms Hutchinson has been a red hot Republican all of her professional life. Does the fact that the witnesses are all Republican insiders stop alt-right media from attacking them and accusing them of lying? No. They’ve been indoctrinated to disbelieve anything other than alt-right media.

  13. Ocasio Cortas should quite dolling up like a hooker and go back to Guatemala.
    This decision on Roe is without precedent.
    Congress needs to pass a law. Congress is the failed aspect of our government.
    Trump needs to go back to Hell.
    The media needs to quite saying every five minutes that Biden is too old.

  14. the Supreme Court does not exist above the constitutional system and added that the “rogue” court “cannot shield itself from the power of other branches.”

    I agree with this part. But do not point that out to Democrats. It does however expose the shallowness of Democrat understanding of governance.

    For Decades, Democrats have advanced their radical agenda through the Judiciary. Because they always fail when attempting to legislate. Democrats have had multiple opportunities to codify Roe and/or Casey. They have ignored those opportunities. Lots of reasons.
    Democrats cannot compromise within their caucus on setting reasonable regulations on abortion. A sizable portion of their caucus sabotages any attempt to admit, a baby’s life worthy of protection.
    Democrats loath the idea of negotiating with Republicans, and give any small appearance that Republicans might seem to reasonable and willing to meet in the middle.
    Democrats need the “abortion cudgel” to fuel election rhetoric. Legislating abortion, unites, instead of divides the Nation.
    Democrats hate the existence of the Constitution, that empowers the States to self govern. The States delegating to the Federal Govt, limited, enumerated, powers.
    Republicans finally woke up and realized the best way to govern is to go back to basics and elect Republicans to all the State and local offices they could get.

    Its hard to understand the Democrats “end of civiliazation” schtick, when the United States just aligned themselves with the rest of the world, regarding the protections afforded new human life.

  15. Crisis of faith? Puhleeze. What we have is a crisis of sanity and tolerance, and it comes almost exclusively from the left.

    Most of us still believe in fairness and law and order. The only thing to conclude is that our modern dems have lost their damn minds. The young and woke (who are not too bright and even less experienced, but double that privileged) will bring this world to its knees if we let them, which is ironic considering their level of condescending preachiness purportedly in support of the opposite. Throw in the globalists and that is one foul tasting stew full of voices that never believed in or wanted the high courts in the first place except for as a cudgel.

  16. There is a push to tear down all of the icons and institutions that have served this nation. This is straight out of the Cultural Revolution playbook.
    A word of warning. If you’re going to tear down the guardrails of society you have to disarm the citizens first.

  17. Odd that those, like Sen Warren, want to make the Court more legitimate by adding FOUR seats to it while they have a Democrat in the WH and a Senate “majority”. How damn brazen and obvious can someone actually be?

    The Democrats used the filibuster many, many times only a few short years ago and actually used it even more recently, but when the Republicans use it is a “relic of Jim Crow”.

    One last point: Only a moron would be calling to end the filibuster rule 4 months prior to an election where they could lose the majority.

    1. “One last point: Only a moron would be calling to end the filibuster rule 4 months prior to an election where they could lose the majority.”
      Lieawatha know tribe on ropes and no thinkem beyond next moon. Firewater with husband cause loco head.

    2. “ Odd that those, like Sen Warren, want to make the Court more legitimate by adding FOUR seats to it while they have a Democrat in the WH and a Senate “majority”. How damn brazen and obvious can someone actually be?”

      There’s nothing brazen about it. It’s a legitimate option that is well within the constitutional powers of congress if it chooses to add more seats to the court. There’s virtually nothing in the law or the constitution that says no party can’t pack a court with their choice of justices. Even Turley supports the expansion of the court. His approach only differs by using an incremental approach rather than one big addition. But Turley does support expanding the court.

      1. Conservatives currently enjoy a 6-3 majority and Warren wants to add 4 seats giving liberals a 7-7 majority and Svelaz says there is nothing brazen about it????? Really deep thinking there pal.

        1. No, there’s really nothing brazen about wanting a more balanced court. What’s so bad about the idea of an ideologically balanced court? That would go a long way towards restoring credibility to the court.

          1. What’s so bad about the idea of an ideologically balanced court?

            What ideological balance are you talking about? They have one fundamental job to do, not 2 or 3. They make judgments on the constitutionality of things.

            The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. By a limited constitution I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such for instance as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. Federalist 78

            1. Iowan2,

              “ They make judgments on the constitutionality of things.”. True, but they make them with their ideological biases as well. No judge is free from those biases.

              The federalist papers can spout all avoid the independence ideals of judges. But they don’t speak of the flaws of being a human with biases.

              Even those justices who claim to be adherents of Originalism often violate those principles when they prove to be inconvenient. Scalia famously did this. When issuing his opinion on Heller.

              Presidents appoint justices not only on qualifications, bit also on “judicial philosophy”. Some choose liberal leaning justices other’s conservative leaning. An equal balance of the two would be much better than an unbalanced Court. It would be much better for the credibility of the court than its current makeup.

              1. Presidents appoint justices not only on qualifications, bit also on “judicial philosophy”.

                Just for clarity, I consider judicial philosophy different from ideological philosophy. I view the former as the process by which a justice interprets the constitution to arrive at an opinion. I view the latter as a justice’s worldview. The only imbalance I don’t want on the court and it is one that loses all credibility, is when we have an ideology that ignores constitutionality.

      2. One SCOTUS addition for each presidential 4 year term. Take the number to 13. the 14th appointee, will move the longest serving, justice to the Senior bench. they can handle some of the emergency stuff. The court is expanded and old wood is decommissioned. This will stop the appointment of 40 year old SCOTUS Justice, that are shy of ‘seasoning’
        Republicans should introduce the legislation first thing in 2023. Should pass by unanimous consent….assuming the Democrats are honest about the need to increase the size of the court.

    3. Wanting to rid of the filibuster reminds me of what happened in the Common Wealth of Massachusetts quite a few years ago now. When John Kerry ran for president in 2004, Democrats in the Massachusetts legislature were worried because Mitt Romney was governor, and they expected he would appoint a Republican senator. So instead of allowing that, the legislature decided to rewrite the law: rather than letting the governor appoint someone to an open Senate seat, a special election would be held. Fast forward to the death of But then Ted Kennedy died and a democrate was governor,, Duval Patrick. They wanted it to return to beingk appointment. It did not happen. There was a special election but there was a delay to allow the new Republican Senator Scott Brown to be seated because Congress was working on the ACA and wanted that to get pushed through via the temporary placeholder–a Kennedy family friend. For action there is a reaction. As in Harry Potter–“Keep your wits about you.”

  18. The mischaracterizations of the court are made by cynical politicians and media manipulating their low IQ followers.

    Just read the posts of our resident lefties to see how effective that manipulation has been.

    The antidote to this manipulation is thinking, but many lefties resist that difficult exercise.

  19. The left has given up on the Rule of Law. Alas. And for my money, the West Virginia v. EPA case may be the most important of them all , as it will decide the future of he administrative state. If the Court rules for WVa, then the left will howl

Comments are closed.