Op-eds that make American dumber shouldn’t be published. There is an op-ed in today’s New York Times by Jamelle Bouie, adding another fact-free rant to the current freak-out over the so-called Texas freak-out law. Bouie chooses to repeat a theme of his from other columns, that the case proves that the Supreme Court “has too much power.” Bouie was first spotted by Ethics Alarms as Slate’s resident race-baiter, a job at which he was embarrassingly bad. Naturally, this qualified him to be added to the New York Times stable of socialists, fantasists and Trump-Deranged fanatics, since one incompetent and biased black columnist (Charles M. Blow) wasn’t enough in these times of “diversity and inclusion.”
Bouie, on the topic of the Supreme Court, literally (which I mean literally) doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is not a lawyer, and if he ever read a whole Supreme Court decision (or had someone knowledgeable explain one to him), I’ve seen no evidence. of it. Guess which of the (incompetent) dissents to the SCOTUS majority decision not to suspend the Texas law when there is no procedural precedent for doing so. Come on, guess! Why Sonia Sotomayor, speaking of “diversity and inclusion,” of course. She was a cynical choice for the Court by Barack Obama, using approximately the same identity-based standards that made Kamala Harris Vice-President.
Non-lawyers love to quote Sotomayor, because she seldom makes legal arguments, just emotional ones. “The court has rewarded the state’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the state’s own creation,” she wrote this time, in a snippet being repeated by other pro-abortion hysterics. That’s because the Court doesn’t strike down unconstitutional laws until the government tries to enforce them. What Bouie cites as an example of the Court having too much power is in fact proof that its power is limited.
Poor Jonathan Turley has had to spend so much time debunking illiberal policies and misinformation from his own side of the ideological divide that he is being drummed out of the club as a “fascist.” In his post about the reaction to the SCOTUS call that it could not block the law, he wrote in part (Do you think Bouie bothered to read an analysis by a Constitutional law pro? Nah!):
“The order actually addressed a serious flaw in the challenge brought by pro-choice advocates to the Texas law. The drafters of the law were creative in leaving enforcement of the law to private parties rather than state officials. It allows private individuals to bring lawsuits against anyone who either providers or “aids or abets” an unlawful abortion and allows for an award of $10,000 if successful in such a challenge. Of course, such a lawsuit will not immediately end Roe v. Wade. It will be challenged on the very grounds cited by advocates. That includes the question of whether Texas is using private citizens to curtail a constitutional right. Those cases will also lead to judicial review. In the meantime, if any state official tries to curtail constitutionally protected rights, they can be enjoined pending any decision. Federals courts enjoin people, not laws, when there are actions that are being taken to violate the Constitution. This order concerns whether a court can enjoin the law before any final review on the merits. Any challenge to the law could be expedited on appeal.
“The problem is that the challengers to the Texas law picked defendants (a state court judge and a court clerk) that do not enforce the law. Indeed, they appear virtually random. That is why five justices did not issue the emergency order. However, they expressly stated “The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they have not carried their burden.” Even Chief Justice John Roberts who voted for an injunction with his liberal colleagues admitted that this is a serious procedural hurdle and it is unclear “whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law.” One can honestly disagree with how insurmountable this issue is for the Court, but it is ridiculous to say that it was some manufactured excuse for a partisan ruling. Nevertheless, liberal professors and commentators immediately pounced and declared that this was just a procedural trick or excuse…”
Other objective analysts have made the same points a Turley. Never mind! The Times wants progressives to freak out. Did the paper do a legal “explainer” making the points Turley (and Ann Althouse, among others) has? No, of course not. Instead, it chose a legally ignorant activist to misrepresent the issues.
Turley noted, introducing his essay,
“Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced that the Supreme Court just “overturned” Roe in the order. The mainstream coverage ranged from the outright death of Roe to its being rendered to a vegetative state. Even more reasoned analysis asked “Is this how Roe v. Wade dies?” The answer is no. This is how legal analysis dies.“
It’s also how democracy dies, with a public being made more ignorant by the news media rather than more informed. The title above is, once again, a reference to the 2003 science fiction thriller/satire “IQ 83” by Arthur Herzog. A DNA experiment goes horribly wrong, and the U.S population finds its median IQ plummeting, resulting in an ungrammatical, misspelled Times headline. Ignorant and stupid people are easier to fool, manipulate and dominate. The Times may not be getting “dummer,” but by giving a platform to writers like Bouie, it is doing its best to make the rest of us useful idiots.