Democrats don’t want to hear it, but this needed to happen…

SCOTUS has become guardians of leftist microcauses

There are several reasons Roe v Wade got struck down. It was a flawed decision to begin with. First the decision had no basis in Constitutional Law. It was a reach to say that the right to privacy was somehow a link to abortion. Second, it was a violation of the separation of powers. The Supreme Court does not create law. That’s the job of the states and congress. However, that is what happened here.

Finally, and most importantly Roe was struck down because The Supreme Court was tired of being defined by this one issue. The job of the court is to interpret The Constitution. Yet, for fifty years, these nine justices have somehow become the guardians of leftist microcauses. All because of one case where they overreached, Roe v Wade.

Focusing on constitutional scholarship

Every senate judiciary hearing on the subject of certifying the nomination of a new justice, spends a minimum of 60% its time questioning that person on their stance on abortion, trying to get them to state exactly how they will rule on a myriad of hypothetical circumstances involving the procedure rather than concentrating on their qualifications as a Constitutional Scholar.

After having read the decision, it is clear that the court is tired of having to create and defend judicial legislation that should never have been made in the first place. The court needs to be able to conduct it’s business without the hinderance of constantly defending these tired old arguments. After half a century of being under that looming shadow, they correctly removed themselves from legislative process and left it to the people to decide.

Regardless of your stance on abortion, legally this was the correct thing to do. If the people really want to have a right to abortion, they will need to amend The Constitution. That is where our rights can be found. Not in the opinions of nine people who are not elected to the office they hold, and are not supposed to issue those opinions based on the whim of the prevailing sentiment, but by the constitutional merit of the argument alone. To do so usurps the intended function of the court.

Author Profile

Walter Jordan
Walter Jordan
Walter Jordan is a writer for NRN. He's an entrepreneur, husband, and father of five from Houston, Texas. He's closely followed governmental politics and policy for over 30 years. He has always seen conservative values and less government as the best way for our country to remain strong and keep its place as a leader in the free world. In college he studied constitutional law and follows the rulings of the Supreme Court regularly.

Kelly Offield is an investigative journalist and columnist for NRN, specializing on Big Tech's control of information. Click the red bell on the bottom left to turn on NRN's website notifications and watch Kelly Offield's author page to follow the developments of his column.