Supreme Court Justice Teaches Liberals An Unwelcome Lesson On The Constitution

Looks like leftists are getting an unwelcome lesson in Constitutional matters.

Courtesy of the vast legal wisdom of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who effectively shredded the opposition in the ongoing Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart provides insight into this case, arguing that the Supreme Court should be a neutral entity in the debate over abortion, which means that local legislatures should have the power to pass their own respective legislation regarding abortion.

In addition, Stewart also argued that Constitution places implicit trust in Americans themselves to make vitally important decisions regarding abortion legislation.

He also noted that the Constitution has no written allowances for Roe v. Wade, contrary to leftists’ vehement arguments.

“Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey haunt our country … They have no basis in the Constitution …The Constitution places its trust in the people … On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work …

Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us, not a judgement by just a few of us. When an issue affects everyone, and when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people.” [Source: The Blaze]

Stewart, in other words, is wisely approaching the debate from a constitutional perspective, rather than the preferred perspective of leftists: the emotional perspective.

And during Wednesday’s oral arguments Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the pro-choice U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Preloga quite intensely on the constitutionality of abortion, even using a clear example to help guide her response.

Noting that the “right to bear arms” can be directly correlated to the Second Amendment, Thomas demanded which amendment pertains specifically to abortion.

“Would you specifically tell me, specifically state, what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?” [Source: The Daily Wire]

Preloga’s response was about as compelling as Psaki’s standard response, in that it said absolutely nothing.

“The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas … But I think it promotes interests in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty, and equality. I think it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy whether to carry that baby to term.” [Source: The Daily Wire]

“The liberty component?” Interesting.

Needless to say, the Fourteenth Amendment does not declare that citizens “have the right to have an abortion,” which is precisely the type of explicit wording that Thomas was looking for.

And subsequently demanded after Preloga’s non-response.

“I understand we are talking about abortion here … But what is confusing is that we — if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we are talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about … What specifically is the right here that we are talking about?” [Source: The Daily Wire]

Needless to say, Preloga opted to prattle on in non-specific generalities, further underscoring the extent to which the right to abortion is not present in the Constitution.

“Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the court in those other contexts … has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the Constitutional guarantees … And it has done so through a variety of different tests that implement First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, and Fourth Amendment rights.” [Source: The Daily Wire]

In other words, a whole bunch of nothing.

Which is why Thomas finally got straight to the point, as he wisely realized that Preloga, like Psaki, would just keep spinning.

“So the right, specifically, is abortion?” [Source: The Daily Wire]

Preloga unwisely answered yes, in spite of the fact that pro-choice advocates have long argued that the “right to privacy” somehow can be interpreted as the “right to an abortion.”

In other words, Preloga just made pro-life Stewart’s case exceptionally easier.

Justice Thomas is not the only one who is unconvinced by the arguments of the left, as Brett Kavanaugh also pointed out the inherent conflict of interest in abortion, namely between the mother’s life and the baby’s life.

“You can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem. And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time. And that’s why this is so challenging.” [Source: Townhall]

Exactly.

With Supreme Court Justices like Thomas and Kavanaugh, it is no surprise that Salem radio host Hugh Hewitt remarked favorably upon the ongoing debates in the Supreme Court, remarking upon how “informed” they have been.

“This entire argument is one of the most accessible, informed, civil discussions of abortion and the Constitution I’ve ever heard.” [Source: Townhall]

Meanwhile, the Democrats are apparently uninterested in being “civil,” never mind “informed,” as evidenced by recent commentary from Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, another perennially angry Democrat.

“I think if you want to see a revolution, go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is.” [Source: Townhall]

Well then.

Something suggests Justice Thomas is not terribly impressed by Shaheen’s “contribution” to the debate …

Author: Ofelia Thornton