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.”
Russia will always be a perpetual problem for as long as it remains unattacked. Don’t curse the darkness when you can light a candle.
Russia will always be a perpetual problem for as long as it remains unattacked. Don’t curse the darkness when you can light a candle.
******************************
And after you attack Russia you’ll get to rely solely on candles what with the electrical grid destroyed, your home obliterated and most of your friends dead or dying. You can be a “point of light” in a very, very, very dark world you helped “create.” But you’ll be famous like this scene from “Dead Zone.” Your name will be on everyone’s lips. Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Lose an election? Eliminate the electoral college. Lose a case before the Supreme Court? Pack the court with additional members. Unhappy with some statutes? Don’t enforce them? Most importantly, while you are doing all of this, rail against the unraveling of democracy in America.
More of Turley’s paid drivel and deceitful spin to mollify the disciples: ” 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.” No, Turley, people oppose judges who LIED to get onto the SCOTUS just to get the chance to overturn Roe, who were vetted by a radical right-wing group, nominated by an election cheater who lost the popular vote, and imposing on the rest of us their radical right-wing version of morality. Thomas has actually invited radical right-wing states to impose bans on contraception, marriage equality and consensual sex so the SCOTUS can affirm that these rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution. You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to appreciate the fact that a woman’s right to choose whether to terminate an unwated pregnancy before the age of fetal viability should not depend on her address. You also don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to appreciate that the 4th and 14th Amendment rights of privacy and liberty should apply throughout the United States, and that the right to marry whom you choose, the right to contraception and the right of adults to engage in consensual sex should also be protected and not dependent on your address. The majority of Americans did NOT want Roe overturned, and do not want Obergefell, Lawrence and Griswold to be overturned, either. Republicans have gerrymandered and manipulated their way into power, but only represent 30% of the US population. They have outsized influence on lawmaking and the Courts. Explain to me, if you can, Turley, why the views of the majority of Americans should take a back seat to the views of the radical right-wing minority. Also explain to me, if you can, Turley, why you have ignored the blockbuster testimony coming from the Jan 6th Committee just to try to defend the 6 radical right wingers on the SCOTUS and/or to try to breathe credibility into the “Hunter Biden Scandal”.
They didn’t “interpret” the Constitution, they read it.
Please cite the Constitution for a right to abortion, or the power to legislate abortion.
I’ll do that after you cite the Constitutional provision that says that the government must have a warrant to tap your telephone or confiscate your computer. “Telephone” and “computer” don’t appear in the Constitution, so according to your flawed logic, the government can tap your phone and take your computer without a warrant–right?. “Executive privilege” also doesn’t appear in the Constitution.
So, the Governor of New York is inviting women to move to New York so that they can get abortions. Never mind the high taxes, crime, cost of living and other sordid benefits they will receive by changing their location of their humble abode. Sorry, I forgot to mention failing schools for your children that survive. You can even bring your elderly parents to our Covid filled nursing homes. Come one come all she says to your wonderful future.
Growing up in the South in the 60’s, I remember seeing signs saying “Impeach Earl Warren”. Nothing has changed. Now it is the Left attacking the court.
HullBobby,
Right you are!
Her testimony only serves to further the discredit of the J6 hearing committee.
So now the people of New York can decide to elect people who believe in abortion without limit. Those on the left will be joyful when they do so. They will say that they have every right to do so. Then there will be states where the populace will elect people who say that there should be limits on abortion and those on the left will say they have no right to do so. They talk so much about losing our Democracy but they want it for blue states and not for red states. They tell us every day that Democracy is not really what they are after and we should listen. When they tell you who they are you should believe them.
Tit, so, you would completely oppose a national ban on abortions if republicans propose it when they gain control of the house?
Yes. It is not a federal issue.
Citation please.
May Congress pass a law on abortion if no power to do so, or to regulate such, exists in the Constitution?
Does the Constitution require specific enumeration for a law on abortion or medical attention, or may Congress legislate any and all laws it deems “necessary and proper?”
Yes, it is not a federal issue.
Citation please.
May Congress pass a law on abortion if no power to do so, or to regulate such, exists in the Constitution?
Same comment by Anonymous is mine. Typing error.
Yes, It is not a federal issue.
The rights of privacy and lliberty are protected by the Constitution, and no state can take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to choose whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy before fetal viability, the right of consenting adults to engage in sex, the right to choose whom to marry and the right to contraception are all based on the 4th and 14th Amendments that protect the rights of privacy and liberty. No state can take away these rights, which should not depend on your address.
Abortion is not privacy, it is homicide.
Abortion involves a separate and distinct individual human being with its own privacy rights.
When a fetus moves away from surgical instruments on ultrasound, it is making a de facto statement that it chooses to live and it demands its right to privacy.
The zygote-cum-embryo-cum-fetus-cum-baby is a developing human being, and may, unfortunately, be aborted at any point in its development.
Homicide of human beings older than 9 months is currently and clearly homicide.
Of course, abortion of the youngest phase of human being, a zygote, which exists after 24 hours of fertilization, is also clearly homicide.
George, Natacha doesn’t know what abortion is. She thinks babies grow on trees.
The Dobbs decision is based on the Federal govt lacking constitutional power to ban abortion. (we needed an amendment to ban alcohol, but not pot, so we shall see
No, the Dobbs decision is based on the minority views of the radical right-wingers shoved onto the SCOTUS by an election cheater who took the advice of a radical right-wing group who vetted these losers specifically to overturn individual rights guaranteed by the Constitutional. The rights of privacy and liberty are guaranteed by the 4th and 14th Amendments that apply no matter what your address is, and Roe has withstood multiple challenges over the 50 years it was the law of the land; that is, until the fat election cheater got into our White House.
Well that’s the issue. The majority on SCOTUS now claim that the Constitution does not recognize a right to privacy. Thomas even wrote that the right to use contraceptives, and the right to same-sex marriage should be revisited. (Notice that he didn’t mention inter-racial marriage, which was decided under the same principle). So either there is a right to privacy recognized in the Constitution or there isn’t. I would suggest an amendment to once and for all settle the issue.
See, that sounds logical, but that’s not what’s happening here, and Republicans wouldn’t let it happen anyway because they depend on the gullible Evangelicals. Right-wingers will never be satisfied until they force others to live according to their moral code. The 4th Amendment says “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”. Wouldn’t being secure in your “person” include the right to decide whether to terminate an unwanted pregnancy before fetal viability, and the right for consenting adults to engage in sex, and also the right to contraception? The 14th Amendment says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to anyperson within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Doesn’t the right to “liberty” include the right to terminate, to use contraception and for consenting adults to engage in sex acts?
right to privacy.
Right to privacy ends at the taking of another life.
Substance ingestion is a constitutional right and freedom per the 9th Amendment.
It was such until ~1930s and SCOTUS must have struck down illegality.
Property damage and bodily injury are against the law.
One may ingest, while one may not damage or injure.
Conflation of the two, ingestion v illegal acts, must be avoided for understanding.
Svelaz your question is based on something that has not happened and is unlikely to occur. I see that the Democratic fear factory has had it’s intended effect on you. Next you will tell us that those on the right are polishing up the coat hangers. If a politician runs on a total ban on abortion his seat will be in grave danger. A respected sage once said, “If it’s and buts were candy and nuts we’d all have a happy Christmas.” Just because they’ve got you shaking in your boots the rest of us are not afraid.
“ Svelaz your question is based on something that has not happened and is unlikely to occur.”
Given the record for dishonesty within the republicans it’s not an unlikely prospect. It’s more likely they will do it because they can. They have a SCOTUS that is perfectly willing to come up with the justification to do so. They have already used poor reasoning and cherry-picking historical precedents. They certainly can come up with a justification to allow a republican congress to make abortion illegal nationwide.
They certainly can come up with a justification to allow a republican congress to make abortion illegal nationwide.
Hmm? 🤔 So this conservative court just ruled that the issue of abortion must be decided at the state level and not the federal level and somehow your crystal ball is telling you this court is going to defy their own precedent?
Okey dokey.
Did the SCOTUS set a “precedent,” or exhibit the letter and intent of the Constitution; the last abortion “precedent” was erroneous and rescinded, right, making all “precedents” dubious?
May Congress pass a law on abortion if no power to do so, or to regulate such, exists in the Constitution?
The far leftist ACLU has accepted reality. If you ask for help, maybe you could do the same.
“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.”
It’s not fear that’s the issue, it’s the fact that it’s already been proposed and it’s certainly a goal of the religious right to push for a national ban.
You apparently don’t understand how federalism works. The religious right can push for a national ban, but they will have to do that one state at a time.
Regrettably, New York State already has a very liberal abortion law on the books. Governor Kathy Hochul has been crowing about it. She even wrote an op-ed that was published in the WSJ, urging companies to re-locate to New York so that their employees could benefit from it. 😂
“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.”
***
What did you expect? They are Jacobins, not Democrats, and have been for some while. Watching them is like watching an asteroid about to collide with Earth and wondering what you will do if you happen to survive.
DINIOS are not about to do anything that might increase rights and expand freedom. I would have thought you would know that by now. “There’s not a dime’s worth
of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” Gov. George Wallace, 1968.
Cross examination has been the greatest engine of truth that justice has ever known, this is why the Democrats led by Pelosi banned it on the Jan 6 Committee. The Democrats proffer a witness who states easily rebutted testimony but there was no chance for anyone to cross examine her, much to the delight of the left in congress and the media. HOWEVER, this bit them on the backside when the witness’s testimony fell apart within hours of her giving it. Now her entire testimony is tainted. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Any lawyer in the field knows that having a witness lie is the most damning thing that they can do. This witness was caught in a lie. Not only a lie, but a hearsay lie that should never have been introduced by the “prosecution”.
This move reeks of Schiff, a known fabulist, a proven liar, a wannabe scriptwriter and a very partisan hack. Liz Cheney hitched her wagon wo Adam Schiff and the wagon went off a cliff, a Schiff cliff, yesterday.
Good post!
Hullbobby,
“ Cross examination has been the greatest engine of truth that justice has ever known, this is why the Democrats led by Pelosi banned it on the Jan 6 Committee.”
It’s a hearing, not trial. The majority of witnesses and testimony comes from republicans. They didn’t ban anything.
If they want to challenge the witnesses in the hearings nothing is stopping Trump, Meadows, Eastman, even Michael Flynn from testifying under oath and put their side of the argument. The problem for them is that they will have to testify under oath. None are apparently serious enough or confident enough in their honesty to actually testify and defend their claims.
Hullbobby is never troubled by the facts not aligning with his fantasy because the fantasy is just so fun.
So many people who have no excuse think that our Constitution exists to please them by giving them everything they desire.
Our highest law is a set of principles not personal values that change with the shifting sand.
Tell us, hullbobby, was cross-examination allowed with the Select Committe that went after Hillary Clinton re Benghazi? I don’t think so. And, she appeared and testified for something like 11 hours, unlike the fat slob you defend, who refuses to cooperate. But then, given the evidence that has been uncovered, the most-devastating of which comes from Republican insiders, it’s easy to see why. What testimony of Ms. Hutchinson has been proven to be a lie? Do you have testimony, under oath, proving otherwise, or, as usual, are you just regurgitating the slop you heard on your alt-right media sources upon which you rely for daily affirmation when they claim that someone disputes what she said?
DO WE SEE THE FOREST YET?
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Natacha, yes, the Benghazi committee had Democrats on it and cross was allowed. You are dumb!
Svelaz, we all know that it is a hearing and not a trial, but name another congressional hearing that had no chance for two sides to partake.
Anonymous, always just ad hominem attacks and never a rebuttal, the sure sign of a moron.
Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice. – HL Menken
“Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.” – HL Menken
(OT — sort of)
Theocrats slither out of their medieval ooze:
“I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk.” “The church is supposed to direct the government.” (Rep. Lauren Boebert, R, CO)
She’s dumb, undereducated on our system and wrong yet infinitely smarter than Maxine “Taking It To The Streets/Get In Their Faces” Waters, Hank “Guam Gonna Tip” Johnson and Shelia “I’ m a Queen” Jackson Lee
No she’s not…, Bobo Skanks is headed for a reality show.
You spelled Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wrong.
Allhysteria O’crazio Corkheads
Hilary wants another crack at Donald. Dejavu all over again. Why doesn’t this witch just go away and leave us alone.
Russia, Russia, Russia. Abortion, Abortion, Abortion.
Here’s the Democratic party spokes”devil” being interviewed about their recent losses. Enjoy!
“…with Roe on lock down for 50 years…”
America went unconstitutional in 1860, PROGRESSED, and never looked back; when will the SCOTUS rescind, not one, but three improperly ratified amendments and the illegitimate effects of that era?
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.
Sounds like an insurrection to me. It takes balls to assert the January 6th events to be a threat to our democracy, but calling the court illegitimate, threating to impeach justices, pack the court, assassinate justices, defy court rulings, and on and on are deemed within the constitutional order. Of course the Democratic party is having a crisis of faith, but it’s not in the stability of our constitutional order. It’s in their inability to take total control of power. They were this close to achieving it with a Clinton win. For them, Dobbs wasn’t about abortion choice, it’s about the loss of centralized power. Same with the NY CCF decision. Same with religious prayer ruling. If West Virginia wins its case vs the EPA, the progressive’s stranglehold of the administrative state will set the Democrats quest for total power back nearly a century. Democrats are too narcissistic to wait for the “slow-moving” democratic process to give them the power they lust for. They’ve gone “all in” on an unconstitutional order and they are hellbent on not letting the midterms get in their way.
“[T]he growing attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court . . .”
When the Court violates a woman’s individual right to her life, body, happiness, then it deserves to lose respect — i.e., to be considered illegitimate, on *this* issue.
(For the hard of reading: I’m not endorsing any of the nonsense proposals by AOC, et al.)
So Sam, your not endorsing AOC but you say the exact same words that she says. Sam says, look I’m not as crazy as AOC, But I repeat her talking points word for word. Perhaps there is a hair of separation between you and AOC but it is a vey fine hair indeed. A moderate in AOC (sheep’s) clothing.
I think Sam IS AOC.
“. . . but you say . . .”
You can make a comment fool proof, but you cannot make it dishonest fool proof.
This the America we face. A generation raised with no respect for anything, no understanding of American institutions, and no understanding of what Professor Turley has laid out so well. Apparently an organization is now only “legitimate” if it turns out “progressive” product that is consistent with the latest mob rule.
Sad, that institutions that have served us so well for more than two centuries are being so irresponsibly attacked. Hopefully the patriotic majority will stand fast.
Said it before, I’ll say it again, Turley. The best plan to pack the court was the one you came up with awhile back. The worst plan to do it is how Mitch McConnell actually did it. Court packing isn’t what’s needed now…, court *unpacking* is what’s needed…
The Dobbs case, especially stacked up against the Bruen case, showed the court’s hypocrisy. Dobbs, with its ‘abortion isn’t in the constitution, send it back to the states’ red herring basically showed the court was willing to let religion intrude on the constitution and to let judicial activists make medical decisions in place of medical professionals.
Abortion, indeed, is not in the constitution. That’s true also of any other modern medical procedure as well, but those other procedures don’t have the religious and political weight of abortion. I’m frankly staggered by the fact you’re willing to take a stand for subsets of women not economically and locationally blessed having a civil right ripped away from them. It’s almost medieval as a matter of fact. I mean, my god, you have daughters for crissakes. What’s up with that???
This court’s legitimacy absolutely needs to be put under a microscope. Unelected judges on lifetime appointments just overruled fairly massive public opinion and are just like all ‘f you’ about it. Add it to opening the doors to unlimited dark money in politics and steps taken to blunt voting rights and it’s clear the system is broken. In the case of abortion rights, all that’s needed to prove the hollow lies the courts are leaning on is the fact that none of the states wanting the issue back in the states will actually open up a referendum in the upcoming election to gauge what their residents truly feel about abortion rights…., they’ll just lean on the scotus to take the rights away. It’s one of the greatest acts of hypocrisy in American history.
Sour Grapes. There is a difference between reaffirming the constitution and progressive activism masquerading as judicial reasoning.
Judges shouldn’t be making public health decisions. Religion shouldn’t be determining when life begins.
Judges shouldn’t be making public health decisions.
That’s correct and they didn’t. They made a constitutional “health” decision by restoring the issue back to the states where it belonged. The citizens of each state, through their state legislatures, will now debate what laws the want for their state. That’s called federalism and that’s within the constitutional order.
No. They won’t. The anti abortion states will just lean on Dobbs to block discussion.
The anti abortion states will just lean on Dobbs to block discussion.
Lean on Dobbs? Since the only thing Dobbs did was return the constitutional right of the citizens of each state and their legislatures to determine what laws they will enact, then leaning on Dobbs is leaning on the constitution. If they follow a process to enact laws that are consistent with the constitution, then they should have nothing to fear.
It isn’t. Human life begins at conception.
When does conception begin? What is conception anyway? Is it when your parents get that gleam in their eye? Is it the first thought a child has of being a parent? The first time of playing house? When a rapist picks their target? When a future SCOTUS judge loves beer and fantasizes about who he’d like to pin to a mattress and grind against?
Start with an easier question that you cannot answer. What is a woman?
Judges or religion should not make the determination. That is why we have a representative republic. The legislature will make short work of it.
Tell me how many abortion states with trigger laws have also put a referendum on abortion on the ballot for November. I’ll wait.
My bad…, *anti abortion states
Suddenly you are against democracy.
Relevance?
Zygote status after 24 hours of fertilization is SCIENCE – a zygote being the youngest form of a developing human being who will live an average 81.1 years, abortion notwithstanding.
This court’s legitimacy absolutely needs to be put under a microscope. Unelected judges on lifetime appointments just overruled fairly massive public opinion and are just like all ‘f you’ about it.
As a matter of fact, the people’s representatives in each state will legislate the degree to which abortion remains legal. If massive public opinion is pro abortion than one need not worry. The fact is abortion radicals are the authors of their woes. If abortion advocates were not trying to legalize abortion on demand at anytime and for any reason then it is likely States like MS would not have enacted restrictive policies that then got challenged. HRC as a classic example would not tell an interviewer if she disagreed with the legalization of abortions up until birth. Her only response was “it is a choice between a woman and a doctor”. So here we are!@
Revisionist, reductive and cliche.
In the same vein, we are governed by unelected bureaucrats who determine how laws that are poorly written by the elected officials are to be enacted. When a question arises about the legality or wording of the law,, it ends up going through the courts, eventually it may end at the Supreme Court for a ruling (not everything is taken up by the Supreme Court)..
Those hammer blows the Left have been taking are really doing a number on their psyche. They’re reminiscent of the last days of the Reign of Terror when everything seemed to go wrong for Robespierre. Faced with mounting loses and a grumbling gang of revolutionaries who believed the Reign of Terror was too terrible. Looking for a scape goat, he seized upon that old freind and crook, Georges Danton. Danton was a blood-thirsty leader of the Republic of Virtue and led the charge to depose the monarchy, but he had soured on gratutitous death and , turning to bribery from the French East Indian Company, as was ripe for the plucking. Aided by a hastily produced law that prevented any accused from speaking in his own defense, Robiespiere turned on his ally Danton and had him sentenced to the guillotine. Danton, now distraught and dteremined to defend himself, tried to rise the ire of the mob that he had once ruled with absolute authority. To no avail he was led to The National Razor and his head placed in the block. His last words were reportedly, “My only regret is that I’m dying before that rat, Robespierre.” Then, ever the demagogue, Danton added, “Show my head to the people. It is worth the trouble.” Robespierre met the same fate just 4 months later done in by Dantonists who were weary of the bloodshed. He was confined to Danton’s very cell before execution. Upon taunting by the mob ever loyal to Danton, Robespierre reportedly mocked them saying ““Cowards! Why did you not defend him?”
Here’s hoping history is a circle.
Mespo,
Posts such as yours are the reason I attend this Blog….and also for the commentary of Professor Turley….all of which I find enlightening and useful.
If I access to a “Like Button” I would be mashing it repeatedly for your post!
If ignored….history repeats itself….I sure hope the Democrats ignore the French and wind up having their own chance to repeat it….but only with a virtual National Razor.
Having seen the real thing in the Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi….I would not wish the use of that upon my worst enemy.
Well…on. second thought…..hmmmmmm?
Thanks, Ralph. I do love history. I told you before that I think I was there for some of it! 😀