Fred Weinberg: By Booting Texas' Suit, SCOTUS Created the Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century
The Supreme Court’s disposal last week of Texas’ lawsuit against four swing states was, in my humble opinion, the Roe v. Wade case of the 21st century.
The difference is that in 1973, it is safe to say that the court only angered perhaps less than 25 percent of the nation’s voters, while in this case perhaps half the voters are seriously upset.
Until now, the court — no matter who was sitting on it — has been the most respected part of our government.
I doubt that will continue.
You just can’t tell almost 74 million voters to go screw themselves and expect them to continue to respect you. To put this in perspective, Texas filed suit against Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin challenging the way they conducted the 2020 presidential election.
The court nearly immediately rejected the complaint, saying that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” Which is a nice way of saying that the Supreme Court has decided not to get involved in elections, period. There were no oral arguments.
Seriously?
Considering the Commerce Clause in Article 1? (Section 8, Clause 3: “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”)
[firefly_poll]
So if New York is run by, say, the mob, and a state such as Nevada is directly affected by that mob, then Nevada doesn’t have standing to sue New York? It had no “judicially cognizable interest” in Meyer Lansky sending Bugsy Siegel to take over Nevada?
Tell that to Estes Kefauver, who held Senate hearings into the matter. The mob in Vegas never rose to the level of suits between the states because Congress got interested, as did — eventually — the Department of Justice. But it could have. Fortunately for us, there was so much mainstream media interest that a guy named Rudy Giuliani put many mobsters — including John Gotti — in the supermax prison. Nevada never had to sue.
Now, Roe v. Wade was a case that allowed the legal killing of babies in the first two trimesters of pregnancy. It was, we think, largely decided that way because the members of that court read The Washington Post. It was decided by a 7-2 majority of the Warren Burger court, which found it necessary to discover a “right” to privacy and twist itself into a legal pretzel in order to decide the case.
Ever since the decision, America has been divided, and, as the court has shifted, there has always been an assumption that a similar case would be reargued. No less than the best TV lawyer of all time, Denny Crane, weighed in during a 2008 episode of “Boston Legal.”
“You pro-choice people, you need Roe v. Wade. You’re desperate for it, not because you’re sure of your opinion, but because you’re not. You need to cling to that ruling as moral validation for a position you’re not entirely comfortable with deep down.”
Since the case was decided, 60 million babies have been killed, although the actual yearly toll has decreased, which would seem to make sense of Mr. Crane’s suggestion. It would seem Americans are not sure that killing babies is a great idea.
Perhaps Americans are also not sure that states do not cheat when it comes to counting votes.
The problem with the 2020 election is that there have been statistical anomalies large enough to drive a FedEx truck through. The pleadings that the court dismissed were probably correct.
The very high probability is that Joe Biden will be sworn in on Jan. 20 and will spend the next four years waking up every morning to get beaten up by the Muhammad Ali of politics and his 74 million supporters.
Assuming the Republicans hold the Senate in Georgia, Biden will be under the same siege Donald Trump was for four years. He’s not nearly as smart as Trump, and he’ll be weighed down by his criminal son, Hunter.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
