On Monday, the Supreme Court overturned the Texas law which required abortion clinics to abide by basic safety regulations. Ensuring the safety of the women trying to murder their babies? Totally unconstitutional.
I swear, they make this stuff up as they go along.
However, not everyone on the High Court has lost it. Justice Clarence Thomas penned a scathing dissent, slamming the Court for “bending the rules” to essentially create the “putative right to abortion.” It’s worth a read. Or seven.
“Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue,” he wrote.
“Today’s decision creates an abortion exception to ordinary rules of res judicata, ignores compelling evidence that Texas’ law imposes no unconstitutional burden, and disregards basic principles of the severability doctrine,” he continued. “I write separately to emphasize how today’s decision perpetuates the Court’s habit of applying different rules to different constitutional rights— especially the putative right to abortion.”
It’s true. I’m so glad he’s pointing this out. The Court absolutely has the tendency of applying a different set of rules to different “rights.” (I use the term loosely, because I don’t think murdering your unborn child should be considered a “right.”
“Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavoring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution,” Thomas continued. “But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. Unless the Court abides by one set of rules to adjudicate constitutional rights, it will continue reducing constitutional law to policy-driven value judgements until the last threads of its legitimacy disappear.”
“I remain fundamentally opposed to the Court’s abortion jurisprudence,” Thomas concluded.
Thomas’ dissent is powerful, not just because he addressed the absurdity of the ruling, but the entire direction the Court is headed. They’re picking and choosing. They’re essentially legislating from the bench, and it needs to stop.
h/t Life News