Stopping a renegade, pro-abortion Supreme Court
The Supreme Court again today defied the Constitution and the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God in its egregiously bad ruling on abortion. Texas had enacted a law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and requiring every abortion clinic to meet the same health standards as every other ambulatory surgical clinic.
Both provisions were designed to protect women’s health, which we are always told is the holy grail of the feminist movement. But when the agenda is protecting the practice of pulling unborn babies apart limb from limb, liberals on the court are not about to allow things like common sense, consistency, morality, or the Constitution to get in the way.
Today’s ruling is horrible on every conceivable level, not the least of which is that it turns every abortion clinic into a runaway abattoir for infant sacrifices to the ancient god Molech.
This ruling confirms in grotesque fashion Lincoln’s observation in his second inaugural address that if the Supreme Court is allowed to be the final arbiter on important social questions, “the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”
The ruling is not only horrible from a moral standpoint, it is horrible from a constitutional standpoint. The Founders declared that the right to life is an unalienable right given to human beings by their Creator. Because it is an unalienable right, no man, no agency, no government, and no branch of government has the moral authority to take it away.
Consequently, they wrote, it is the job of government to “secure” such a right, to guarantee it, to protect it, and to punish those who would infringe upon it. The Court not only has failed to secure this foundational, non-negotiable right, it has now become the chief transgressor of this God-given right. May God have mercy on their souls.
But in addition to violating a foundational principle of both morality and justice, the Court is horribly wrong in even taking such a case in the first place. The Constitution gives no jurisdiction whatsoever to the Supreme Court to even accept a case like this, which is a legal dispute between the citizens of a state and its own state government.
Article III, Section 2 spells out the issues over which the Supreme Court has been given jurisdiction by “We the People,” and resolving a dispute between a citizen and its own state government is not among them.
The Supreme Court constitutionally has appropriate jurisdiction to accept controversies in which the United States is a party, controversies between states, between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of different states, when citizens are involved in a border dispute over land claimed by two different states, and between a citizen and a foreign government.
But nowhere is the Court ever given authority to adjudicate in a matter of state law. That, under the Founders’ Constitution, is a matter for the judicial system of each state. Since this is a dispute between citizens of Texas and the state of Texas over a matter of state law, it is precisely none of the Supreme Court’s business. As in none, nada, zip, zilch. The 5th Circuit was constitutionally wrong to accept this case in the first place, and it was constitutionally wrong for the Supreme Court to accept it on appeal.
What this case makes clear is that there is now a five-justice majority of morally compromised liberals who believe they have the right to dictate policy to the American people on the most important issues we face. And they will continue to do until somebody stops them.
What can be done? Three constitutional options are available. One, we can wait hundreds of years for the unlikely constellation of a filibuster-proof conservative majority in the Senate, a conservative president fiercely committed to the Constitution and to life, and enough vacancies on the Court to be filled with constitutionalists. While we wait for that to happen, America as we know it will likely vanish from the earth and slide into moral oblivion.
Or we can impeach these out of control justices, all five of them, for violating their oath of office through judicial activism. It’s time to start this conversation again, with our representatives and our senators. Every time we see them, we need to ask them when they will start impeachment proceedings against renegade justices. If it’s doable at all, it will require the election of 67 senators committed to the Constitution and the right to life. By the time we get to that point, America likewise will probably have already descended into an irredeemable abyss.The last time we impeached a member of the Supreme Court was 1804 and the effort failed.
The only other option, an option which has the advantage of offering an immediate antidote, is for governors and state legislatures to take their stand on the Constitution and refuse to submit to an obviously immoral, illegal,and unconstitutional ruling. Wisconsin’s governor and state legislature did this in response to the Dred Scott ruling in 1858, by simply declaring that the Dred Scott decision was null and void in their state.
Abraham Lincoln essentially agreed. Lincoln said he would accept the Court’s ruling as it applied specifically to Scott, but he adamantly refused to accept that it had any precedential value anywhere else in the Union. “This decision,” said Lincoln, “was wanting in any claim to public confidence, and it is not ‘resistance,’ it is not factious, or even disrespectful, to treat it as not having quite established a settled doctrine for the land.”
This last option, the Lincoln-option, may be as unlikely as the first two. But it was morally and constitutionally correct with regard to slavery and, in my view, would be morally and constitutionally correct with regard to the sanctity of human life.
If there is a fourth alternative, somebody needs to come up with it real soon, before it is too late and America is beyond recovery. The clock is ticking.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More