RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2022/06/abortion-politics-at-a-late-stage/

“The Supreme Court’s decision to accept Alito’s draft has handed a lot of painful moral decisions to all the voters and legislators in fifty states. Many surprises lie ahead. But most Americans seem unlikely to endorse post- and partial-birth abortion with the nearly unanimous alacrity of the Senate Democrats.”

Now that the US Supreme Court has adopted Justice Alito’s leaked draft judgment and overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade precedent that found a constitutional right to abortion in the ‘penumbras’ of the US Constitution, it will be a revolution in American life. It will be a democratic revolution too, because it won’t outlaw abortion—as pro-choice protesters angrily claim—but instead transfer decisions on it from the US federal judiciary to the voters and legislators of the fifty states.

Doubtless that will bring us many, various and unpredictable legal surprises. For, though you would never guess it from the media, neither most Americans nor other Westerners think or know a great deal about abortion law. Sixteen years ago, I described my experiences when the topic was raised over dinner tables in Washington and Paris:

Washington liberal: “Mr O’Sullivan, our American obsession with abortion is so embarrassing. Why can’t we be like Europe? They’re much more sophisticated. It’s not even a political issue there. Please pass the blue sweetener.”

Myself: “Well, that may be because the laws in most European countries are much stricter than those in the US. Women have no constitutional right to an abortion. In Britain, for instance, except in cases of severe handicap, abortions are not permitted after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy.”

Washington liberal: “What! That’s barbaric.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-not-prosecute-judicial-intimidation-department-of-justice-supreme-court-justices-glenn-youngkin-larry-hogan-11656108679?mod=opinion_lead_pos3

Protests erupted Friday in Washington after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and bigger disruptions are possible. Yet so far the Justice Department has refused to enforce federal law to keep the peace at the personal homes of the Justices. That’s despite a request by Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan.

“Hundreds of demonstrators have recently chosen to picket Supreme Court Justices at their homes in Virginia and Maryland,” the two Governors wrote last month to Attorney General Merrick Garland. As they pointed out, there’s a law that prohibits attempting to influence federal judges by picketing “near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge.” Violations are punishable by a year in prison.

“It seems clear this federal code is applicable,” the Governors wrote, given the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion on Roe v. Wade. The protesters were trying to influence the final ruling. Messrs. Youngkin and Hogan cited comments such as: “If you take away our choices, we will riot.” They asked Mr. Garland to “ensure these residential areas are secure” and to “enforce the law as it is written.”

We’ve obtained the Justice Department’s reply, which is about as responsive as a wet blanket. “Your letter,” it says, “suggests that some individuals may have violated federal criminal law. We appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter. Longstanding policy and practice of the Department prevent us from discussing this information with you further or confirming or denying the initiation or existence of any investigation.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/abortion-goes-back-to-the-people-supreme-court-roe-v-wade-dobbs-v-jackson-samuel-alito-11656107148?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Can America still settle its political conflicts democratically, and peacefully? We’re about to find out after the Supreme Court Friday overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the profound moral issue of abortion to the states and democratic assent, where it has always belonged.

Critics say the Court’s 6-3 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is rule by unelected judges. But Roe was the real “exercise of raw judicial power,” as Justice Byron White put it in dissent in 1973. That’s when seven Justices claimed to find a constitutional right to abortion that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and had no history in American common law. The Court on Friday finally corrected its mistake, which has damaged the legitimacy of the Court and inflamed our politics for 49 years.

The Justices in the majority deserve credit for sticking with their convictions despite the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in May. The leak was probably intended to create a furor to pressure the Justices to change their mind, and it has led to protests in front of their homes and even an apparent assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh. By holding firm, they showed the Court can’t be intimidated.

***

Justice Alito’s majority opinion hews closely to his draft, and it is a careful, thoughtful survey of abortion law and its history in the constitutional order. His opinion takes apart, brick by logical brick, the reasoning of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the other main abortion precedent the Court overrules in Dobbs.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-6-23-progressive-utopian-vision-versus-the-constitution

It’s already been a bad week in the Supreme Court for progressive shibboleths. Just today, the key provision of New York’s gun restriction regime — under which the authorities had discretion to deny you a gun permit if they thought the reason you gave for wanting one was not good enough — got struck down under the Second Amendment. For what it’s worth, I’ve long thought that that provision was obviously unconstitutional, and that the Second Circuit’s decision upholding it was not a good faith application of existing Supreme Court precedent. In practice, the authorities denied almost all requests for gun permits except from politicians, big political donors (to Democrats) and celebrities. The decision has caused a good deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth over in the precincts of the Left.

And there’s plenty more to come. Without doubt you are already familiar with the case involving Mississippi’s abortion law, likely to spell the end of the long reign of Roe v. Wade. But today I’m going to focus on another high-impact case, West Virginia v. EPA. This one was argued back in February, but the decision still has not been issued. They tend to issue the decisions in the most important cases at the very end. In the West Virginia case, there is significant potential that the Supreme Court could significantly rein in the regulatory assault that the Biden Administration is currently waging against the fossil fuel industries, and maybe some other regulatory assaults as well.

You can tell that there is concern over this one because the New York Times is not waiting around for the decision to start its parade of hit pieces. On Monday, the lead story, occupying about half of the front page, dealt with this case, with the headline “Republican Drive to Tilt Courts Against Climate Action Reaches a Crucial Moment.” The byline is Coral Davenport.