Abortion advocates, gun-control activists, and public prayer opponents, rage against the opinions of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court. If you’re disgusted by Dobbs and other high court decisions this year, you’re anti-democratic and Constitutionally ignorant. We can fix that in 17 minutes.
Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle create 260 new episodes of Right Angle each year, thanks to our Members. You may join them now when you click the big green button above. If you’d prefer to make a one-time or recurring donation, use the big blue button. Either way, you have our gratitude.
9 replies on “The People’s Court: If You Hate the Supreme Court Dobbs Decisions, You’re Anti-Democratic”
It’s supposed to be a single chief justice, Bill. The word is singular and it was based on the old testament model of Moses and the elders that were assigned to aid him in judgements, which, if any were too difficult, were to bring it then to him to decide. Much like MANY of the provisions and statutes found and preserved in the law of this country.
The left doesn’t want ‘democracy’ they want autocracy with them as the autocrat.
Yielding to the principle of “process superior to result” requires an intellectual honesty that is precluded by the Leftist worldview. Hatred of our Constitution demonstrates a hatred of the CONCEPT of eternal principles, which itself demonstrates a hatred of the the Author of those eternal principle.
Also, the Left doesn’t “fail to understand the [proper] role of the ‘Supreme’ Court.” they REJECT the proper role of the “Supreme” Court.
One aspect of the Dobbs decision that those on the Right or conservative side of the abortion/prolife issue need to be careful about is trying to overreach on restricting the rights of people within their state or in other states. I have seen reports claiming some folks want to prevent pro-abortion adherents from even discussing or promoting (or educating about) the pro-abortion side of the legal situation – that is, they will end up violating federal level constitutional rights to free speech, etc.
Scott is clearly right when he asserts the core issue is one of “the heart”, about respecting potential human life and the view that potential human life begins at conception, such that potential human life has the same rights (of necessity) as post birth human life. If someone cannot be persuaded of this logic chain from potential human to full human, I am not sure how you convince them otherwise.
Perhaps it involves ignorance about genetics and conception, and the related biology of fertilization, growing the fertilized egg into a blastocyst, implanting the blastocyst on the uterine wall, with subsequent growth into an embryo and fetus, etc. In fact, this natural sequence and process is far from being assured to occur, or ordained to occur. I recently rechecked and relearned that somewhere between 10% (for younger women) up to 25% to 35% (for older women) of pregnancies miscarry, mostly due to genetic or developmental malformations of some form. Thus, “nature” has already been determining if and when some pregnancies are not going to result in a proper potential or actual human.
The strongest argument against “my body, my choice” is the “two persons, two bodies” assertion, but if that viewpoint is not recognized and accepted, no further discussion will achieve a change to a prolife stance.
I thought we were an autonomous collective…
Specifically, that would be an Anarco-Syndicalist Commune. Be specific, please!😝
Watery tarts handing out cutlery is no basis for a government.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony! I mean, if I went ’round saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
Help help I being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system.