Advertisement

Columnist Exposes Dems Hypocritical ‘Attack On The Supreme Court’

Advertisement

OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion


A prominent legal scholar has made a stellar argument exploiting the hypocrisy behind Democrats’ plans for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an op-ed for the National Review, Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, detailed how Democrats are launching “preemptive strikes on the legitimacy of today’s Supreme Court” ahead of the 2022 midterm elections and 2024 presidential election.

Loyola cited a piece from a liberal law professor who argued that in order to protect the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, one of the conservative justices should step down so Democrats can fill the seat.

Advertisement

Douglas wrote:

And just as we might hope that a person who, through no fault of their own, has come into possession of a good not rightfully theirs, would return that object, Coney Barrett and Gorsuch could do the right thing for the nation by agreeing that one of them should step down.

Loyola exposed the hypocrisy behind this argument:

Douglas argues that one of the two justices’ seats is “not rightfully theirs” because, “if presidents do not get to replace justices in an election year, then Coney Barrett’s confirmation is illegitimate; if presidents do, then Gorsuch’s is illegitimate. You can’t have it both ways.”In fact, both confirmations complied with constitutional requirements.

The Constitution provides that Supreme Court seats are to be filled by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate. This assignment of roles can get confusing, but it’s not rocket science. Critics have argued that Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland was the same as Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett: Both occurred in an election year, and Mitch McConnell should have brought both of them up for a vote.

A new report reveals that the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval rating has dipped down to one of its lowest points in recent years.

A Gallup poll found that Americans’ opinions of the Supreme Court have plummeted to 40%, down from 49% in July, Above the Law reported.

At the same time last year, a whopping 58% of Americans approved of the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

The poll comes after the conservative-majority Court issued favorable rulings to Republicans on cases involving abortion, immigration, and evictions — and liberals are not happy about it.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is not happy about the court refusing to block Texas’ six-week abortion law.

According to The Hill, Sotomayor has called it “catastrophic” that Texas’ abortion ban law has not been stopped.

In a seven-page written rant, Sotomayor not only attacked her conservative colleagues, she sensationally claimed that the court “cannot capture the totality of this harm in these pages.”

Advertisement

“But as these excerpts illustrate, the State (empowered by this Court’s inaction) has so thoroughly chilled the exercise of the right recognized in Roe as to nearly suspend it within its borders and strain access to it in other States,” Sotomayor wrote. “The State’s gambit has worked. The impact is catastrophic.”

“None of this is seriously in dispute. These circumstances are exceptional. Women seeking abortion care in Texas are entitled to relief from this Court now,” Sotomayor wrote. “Because of the Court’s failure to act today, that relief, if it comes, will be too late for many.”

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges to a controversial Texas abortion law.

In briefs filed before the nation’s highest court, Texas officials argued that justices should reconsider the legality and constitutionality of the highly debated Roe v. Wade decision from 1973 in which the Supreme Court at the time struck down laws against abortion in all 50 states.

Advertisement

In September, abortion advocates and providers in the Lone Star State appealed to the high court to hear their arguments against the Texas law, SB 8, before there was a final judgment in a lower federal court “because of the urgency of the harm” the law allegedly causes.

Last Monday, the high court agreed to hear that quickened appeal.

“In response, Texas officials said that the Supreme Court should deny that request, noting that the 5th Circuit of Appeals is due to hear arguments in the case next month,” NBC News reported.

The Justice Department, which has filed suit against Texas over the law, asked justices on Monday to vacate a lower appeals court ruling that allowed the law to stay in effect while it is being litigated. The department’s brief also sought to have its legal challenge to be added during this term for briefings and arguments.

Advertisement

In response, Texas officials argued that the law ought to remain in effect and said that the Justice Department does not have standing in the outcome that allows for their lawsuit.

In its previous one-page decision, the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals set aside a lower court ruling that placed a temporary halt on enforcement of the law.

Senate Bill 8, signed into law in May, bars abortions in the state after fetal heart tones are detected, generally around six weeks. It empowers private citizens to sue anyone involved in providing an abortion after the establishment of heart tones.

Advertisement
Back to top button