“[W]e are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like”
While not specifically mentioning the SCOTUS Roe leak, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made a spot-on observation to a judicial conference in Atlanta: “we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like . . . . We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want.”
Following protests sparked by the leak of a draft U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating the justices are poised to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said on Friday that the court cannot be “bullied.”
The leak set off a political firestorm, with abortion-rights supporters staging rallies outside the courthouse and at locations around the United States, as well as an internal crisis at the nation’s top judicial body where an investigation into the source of the unprecedented disclosure is underway.
Thomas, one of the most conservative justices on the nine-member court, made only a few passing references to the protests over the leaked draft opinion as he spoke at a judicial conference in Atlanta.
As a society, “we are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like,” Thomas said.
“We can’t be an institution that can be bullied into giving you just the outcomes you want. The events from earlier this week are a symptom of that.”
He’s right, of course. In just the past few years, we have all seen numerous violent, illegal, intrusive, and morally-bankrupt attempts by the radical left to bully and coerce everyone from major corporations to juries to politicians to government bodies into providing their chosen outcome.
Andrew Sullivan, over at his substack, makes an excellent point about how hypocritical Democrats and the left are in constantly hammering the myriad “threats to our Democracy” they see under every rock and around every corner. Democrats, particularly the far left but up to and including Joe Biden, have no interest in democracy; indeed, they fear it.
What strikes me about all of this is not the emotive hyperbole — that’s par for the course in a country where every discourse is now dialed to eleven. What strikes me most in these takes is the underlying contempt for and suspicion of the democratic process — from many of the same people who insist they want to save it. How dare voters have a say on abortion rights! The issue — which divides the country today as much as it has for decades — is one that apparently cannot ever be put up for a vote. On this question, Democrats really do seem to believe that seven white men alone should make that decision — once, in 1973. Women today, including one on SCOTUS? Not so much.
Is this the case in any other Western country? No. Even the most progressive countries regulate abortion through the democratic process. In Germany, it’s illegal after 12 weeks of pregnancy — more restrictive than the case before the US Supreme Court that bars abortion after 15 weeks. European countries where the legal cutoff is even more restrictive: Austria, Spain, Greece, Italy, France, Belgium and Switzerland. Abortion enshrined as a constitutional right? Not even in super-progressive Canada.
The United States, in other words, has been an outlier in the past and, if Roe is reversed, will return to a democratic politics of abortion, in line with most of the Western world. And so I wonder: why is this so terrifying for pro-choicers?
. . . . So why the preference for terror, fear and rage on an issue where the public remains deeply conflicted? I have two thoughts. The first is that many Democratic elites really do not trust the American people. They have a resilient belief that a huge segment of this country is rotten, bigoted, racist and, yes, deplorable. Here’s the president today: “I’m not prepared to leave [abortion policy] to the whims of the public at the moment in local areas.” Whims of the public! We used to call that democracy.
Read the whole thing.
There is nothing wrong with working to try to change/repeal/overturn laws, even High Court rulings, with which we disagree. In a functioning Constitutional Republic, that is what we do to affect the changes we seek to public policy, laws, regulations, etc.
There is everything wrong with showing up at the homes of justices (and elected officials) with whom you disagree in order to bully and intimidate them into bending to your will. There is everything wrong with rioting, burning, looting, and murdering when you don’t get your way. There is everything wrong with an administration that refuses to condemn these divisive, destructive, damaging tactics.
Doocy: "These activists posted a map with the home addresses of the Supreme Court justices. Is that the sort of thing this President wants?"
Psaki: "I think the President's view is that there is a lot of passion."
Disgusting that the White House is refusing to condemn this. pic.twitter.com/i5ErEBZ25X
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) May 5, 2022
It’s past time to put a stop to the radical left public menace and to restore sanity to the political and judicial process.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.