The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.
Interesting how those of the lefty persuasion suddenly know what a woman is now.
It's nice to read what an actual civil rights lawyer has to say about civil right rulings.
"This by-now-reflexive discourse about the Supreme Court ignores its core function."
Thank you. Now, let's examine why the "party of the people" Democrats never pushed to codify abortion rules in 49 years, eight** of them with an executive + both-legislative-houses trifecta.
**Possibly nine, if you include the current president, House, and split Senate.
Note also that Democrat attempts to codify abortion would have also addressed the opposition, by engaging them, and leading -- eventually -- to a properly-derived, democratic-republic result.
We're all part of a show, people! One that treats addressing our interests (and even solving our desperate needs) as completely secondary and optional.
Thank Glenn, as always, a common sense (plug for Bari) explanation of the facts regarding this controversy.
We have a faction of the country that has abandoned any interest in staying within the lanes, not just ethically, but legally, in order to achieve their ends. They have strong allies in media and the permanent government who amplifies their messages and distorts the percentage of the country that believes in their causes. The midterms can't come soon enough, nor can the '24 elections.
Well said. It's also worth noting the reason that the original Roe decision was so flawed. The Court tried to invent a right which was and is nowhere in the Constitution. That was legislating from the bench, just as was Robert's contortionist ruling on Obamacare.
That which the court gives, the court can take away.
Also, after the rantings of the left demanding vaccine mandates, I find myself unmoved at this point by their bodily autonomy arguments. They seem only to like killing babies as they scream and yell endlessly about “bodily autonomy” for a procedure that, when successful, kills another human being 100% of the time, but simultaneously want a 19-year old college kid banned from society and “higher education” for failing to get THREE experimental injections the kid doesn’t need, that protects no one from anything, and despite a terrible short term side effect profile combined with unknowable long term repercussions. The left clarified for me they just really hate babies (and kids - note our public school system controlled by the activist left that openly advocated child sterilization and genital mutilation).
As a matter of personal preference, I support early choice (up until 10-12 weeks). I place bodily autonomy above the right to life of another. However, recognizing it is another human life taken in abortion, I would restrict it once the mother knows, or should know, she is pregnant and can thus make the decision on carrying any child. After that point it’s about the child’s body, not the mom’s, and killing an innocent baby for real or perceived imperfections is too close to outright eugenics for my moral compass. I’m also not swayed by needing “more time” to decide. We have seconds on the interstate everyday to make decisions, which left unmade, can result in death. Lots of indecisive squirrels end up dead in the road. Just because a decision is hard does not give one extended periods of time to make it.
If I have to choose between no abortion and supporting the killing fully developed babies (about 6,000-8,000 a year after 20 weeks, and 97% for convenience, not severe fetal abnormality, according to planned parenthood’s own research), I’ll choose the side innocent babies. An unwanted pregnancy may feel insurmountable, but only death is actually so.
The story is not this. The story is of the leak... or the fact that what has been leaked is fabricated by the Democrats to help them stop the destruction coming in November.
The story is the culture war and we should have had it by now and working to identify and neutralize those terrible people graduating from Yale then infesting our institutions of law.
First off, excellent piece.
Second, one minor quibble.
> Such laws can never be validly enacted.
Not entirely true. Such laws can be validly enacted via Constitutional Amendment. Our system does not protect against the tyranny of the 80% or 90%. It protects against the tyranny of the 51% or 52%. If 80% or 90% of the country supported a law, an Amendment would be rather easy to pull off.
Nearly 50 years Roe existed as a precedent and no attempt was made to formalize it in the Constitution as is proper.
Again, minor quibble. Excellent article, as always. I continue to be proud to subscribe to your efforts here.
This entire episode is the fault of cowardly legislators that want the court to make decisions that properly belong to the legislature. It's much easier to rail against the supreme court and raise funds than actually going on the record and voting yes or no on a law. Going on the record in a vote might upset voters and that is one thing politicians want to avoid at all costs. Much better to blame the court.
It’s nice to read at least one person who has a clear understanding of words, the Constitution, our actual history vs manufactured history, and can explain his points in a clear and concise way. Thank you, Glenn!
THIS IS JOURNALISM. I have no clue how you feel Glenn about abortion and frankly it doesn’t matter to me. What I read here is clear and precise presentation of both sides and more importantly the reasoning behind the historical thought process on lawmaking. Thank you for being one of the few real journalists left.
I'm afraid the blather, which Glenn rightly calls out as absurd, about overturning Roe being an attack on democracy just confirms my view that when Democrats say "democracy" they do not mean rule by the δῆμος, they mean rule by Democrats.
It’s absolutely the right decision. Contentious issues that are not enumerated in the constitution should be decided at the state level. Roe created an unenumerated constitutional right based on a tenuous link to privacy. It was always an untenable standard with a moving goalpost.
“Seven unelected white men” isn’t accurate—Thurgood Marshall was on the Court at the time of the Roe decision.
My concerns are 1) that someone at the Supreme Court leaked a very private document; and 2) that news media such as Politico would even for a moment consider publishing it, given how damaging this is to the integrity of the Court.
The flaw in this article's reasoning is that legislatures do not represent the will of the majority since elections are manipulated. So the Constitution's intent that the Supreme Court should prevent a tyranny of the majority is no longer relevant. The draft court ruling isn't an affirmation of democracy - democracy has long been dead. Rather, it is a decision that the people who manipulate elections, and not the courts, should have the right to decide public policy. Whether this is a good idea is debatable, but the Constitution and the majority have nothing to do with it.