More On Media Disinformation To Confuse The Public About Roe And SCOTUS

I finally ditched my expensive print subscription to the Times, but old sections and articles are scattered hither and yon. One is an April 10 Sunday Review section that has one of Jamelle Bouie’s columns. It has proven enlightening in the wake of the subsequent freakout over the impending reversal of Roe v. Wade.

Facts Don’t Matter to Bouie, who has toned down his brazen anti-white racism a tad since moving to the Times from Slate, where he was the resident race-baiter. (His Ethics Alarms dossier is here.) Now and then, as in this case, he even writes about something not exclusively racial. His April 10 column included a revealing paragraph in his attack on the concept of judicial review, which, if it were banned as today’s Democrats appear to fervently wish, would allow a sufficiently totalitarian-minded party in control of Congress and the White House to ignore the Constitution and pass laws “for the greater good” that violate it.

Bouie wrote in part,

What is interesting to consider is that in the hands of the current conservative majority, the court will most likely remain a defender of minority rights that adjudicates social and political conflict. But rather than marginal and oppressed minorities, this court will turn its attention to the interests and prerogatives of powerful political minorities — you might call them factions — that seek to dominate others free of federal interference.

Americans fighting to defend their voting rights or reproductive rights or the right to live free of discrimination will not find many friends on this Supreme Court. Large corporations, right-wing activists and conservative religious groups, on the other hand, will approach the court knowing a majority of justices are almost certainly on their side.

Much as it may frustrate the many Americans who think the court is too influential, judicial review is not going away. It may not be in the Constitution, but it is an emergent property of our constitutional order with deep roots in our colonial history.

The best we may be able to do, then, is to restrain judicial review — to place it under greater democratic control and remind our power-hungry Supreme Court that it exists within the constitutional system, not above it.

Bouie is not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar. He cherry-picked from various outlier arguments against judicial review being considered “in the Constitution,” but if Bouie were discussing climate change, he’d dismiss similar non-conforming opinions as failing to disprove a “consensus.”

Judicial review, the power of an independent judiciary to determine whether the acts of other components of the government are in accordance with the Constitution, with the power to check or limit the legislative and executive branches by preventing them from exceeding constitutional limits, is deemed by most scholars to be essential to the existance of our republic. The concept was at the core of the nation’s founding, based on the constitutional governments of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York as well as others among the original 13 colonies. Judicial review, though not mentioned explicitly in the U.S. Constitution, it is generally believed to be implied by Articles III and VI.

Article III gives the federal judiciary power to make judgments in all cases pertaining to the Constitution, statutes, and treaties of the United States. Article VI strongly implies that the judicial power of the federal courts of law must be used to protect and defend the supreme authority of the Constitution against acts in government that violate or contradict it, stating,

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United Sates which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI also states that all officials of the federal and state governments, “including all judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States; shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution.”

Bouie’s contention that the Constitution does not endorse judicial review is a self-serving lie repeated by those who find the document inconvenient to their liberty- and rights-steamrolling plans. The Times is complicit in misleading its readers to their eventual abuse by publishing such sinister rot. (Twitter, of course, does not ban “misinformation” like this, which is “good misinformation.”

But I am especially amused by the inclusion of Bouie’s accurate contention that SCOTUS exists to be “a defender of minority rights,” followed by the smear that “rather than marginal and oppressed minorities, this court will turn its attention to the interests and prerogatives of powerful political minorities — you might call them factions — that seek to dominate others free of federal interference.”

Is there a more marginal or oppressed minority than unborn human beings? Is there a more vocal or brutal “powerful political minority” than the forces of abortion on demand well past fetal viability right up to the moment of birth?

If Bouie had integrity—and, as an ideological activist, he doesn’t—he would admit now that returning the question of abortion to the states is an example of the Court supporting the democratic process and the power of the legislative branch, and that Roe was a flaming example of the abuse of judicial review when an activist Supreme Court invented a “right” that wasn’t even hinted at in the Constitution (and, I would argue, expressly denied in the Declaration) to block the democratic process from resolving a difficult problem of law and public policy.

9 thoughts on “More On Media Disinformation To Confuse The Public About Roe And SCOTUS

  1. When did Democrats become so totalitarian? If they don’t get their way politically, they outright want to riot and change the system. It doesn’t matter if they haven’t offered a viable alternative institution; they just want to win. The goal of progressives is an omnipotent and omniscient government. Limits aren’t real.

    • My theory? The Left was confident that the nature of things inevitably favored them. Holding the line is impossible; they want a socialist, European-style nanny state, and assumed they would get it soon using Constitutional means. But US culture is stronger and more resilient than they thought (confirmation bias strikes again!) and the Constitution helps keep it strong. Impatient and frustrated, they now want to burn it down, and in the process, are exposing their true colors.

      • That makes a lot of sense to me. When I was a liberal, conversations were often about the “inevitability” of the European nanny state. Eventually, we would get universal health care, universal college, a giant safety net that rained food stamps and free housing, a completely unionized work force, abortion on demand, etc. The question was just how long it would take old people to die off (pretty great stuff right?).

        You also get the Thomas Frank wing of liberals who don’t even believe in cultural issues as a real thing and believe Republicans just use them to get votes. The unenlightened poor Republicans would vote Democrat if they could see it was in their own interest. I look back on that book and see how condescending the whole thing was.

        “If you understood me, you would agree with me.” No. Many conservatives understand the liberals well enough and still don’t agree. That’s life in a large society. I see why more reasonable liberals believe what they do (even though I disagree). Liberals increasingly can’t even see why conservatives or even moderate voters on the right believe what they do.

      • The arc is long, but it bends toward justice, right? Unfortunately the left translate “justice” to mean “everything we want.” They thought Obama was the leader to get us well on the way to that place (he would have gotten us farther if the GOP congress had gotten on the right side of history and passed his agenda), and that President Hilary would get us the rest of the way. Now the election of Trump threw everything off, and it looks like not only the GOP, but the Supreme Court is going to keep getting in the way of any movement toward this goal, and now the GOP stands poised to stop their agenda cold for at least two years. This is unacceptable, and at this point they are no longer willing to even tolerate the other side. Grudging tolerance of those who thought differently morphed to annoyance at stick-in-the-mud conservatives who just didn’t get it and that morphed into deadly hatred of racists and murderers. At this point they are willing to trash the Constitution to win, but the next step is to start a direct attack on those who disagree with them.

        • Obama has turned out to be an extremist. Michelle Obama is now spelling woman womxn. A lot of conservatives saw that he was fronting and was really more liberal than he let on. Michelle Obama’s statement about never being proud of her country until Obama was elected, along with Obama attending Jeremiah Wright’s church for YEARS should’ve been enough.

          I dismissed all of that criticism as right-wing disinformation because I was in my early 20’s and on the liberal college train. I was a polysci major at the time, and everyone around me loved Obama.

          I even thought his apology tour was a great exercise in diplomacy. The follies of youth…

  2. I am just supposing here, but when did the concept of checks and balances in the government become passé? Without judicial review would Brown had been decided, or Dred Scott, both of which overturned passed laws due to their unconstitutionallity?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.