Tyranny of the minority: Liberal law profs urge Biden to defy the courts and the public

“I shall resist any illegal federal court order.”

When “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is egregiously wrong,” the president should refuse to follow it.

Those two statements were made roughly 60 years apart. The first is from segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D). The second was made by two liberal professors this month.

In one of the most chilling developments in our history, the left has come to embrace the authoritarian language and logic of segregationists in calling for defiance and radical measures against the Supreme Court.

In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.” Thus, in light of the court’s bar on the use of race in college admissions, they argue that Biden should just continue to follow his own constitutional interpretation.

We live in interesting times.

Prepare appropriately.

The press’s war against free speech

The injunction barring federal agencies from communicating with these firms was blocked from going into effect by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 14. But no final judgment in the case has been entered, and, whatever the ultimate result, the wisdom of government speech suppression — and the bizarre and outspoken support thereof by large parts of the press — remain continuing issues.

Doughty’s 155-page opinion cites allegations that White House and other government officials have “significantly encouraged” and “coerced” social media firms Facebook, Google, and Twitter to suppress information not just occasionally, but repeatedly, and often in peremptory and threatening tones. Those allegations have been backed up by the “Twitter Files” investigations of liberal writers Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger.

The bewailing at this opinion came in loud and clear. The Washington Post, as columnist Mary Katherine Ham pointed out, lamented that Doughty’s decision “could undo years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies.” The New York Times worried that Doughty’s decision “could force government officials … to refrain from notifying the platforms of troublesome content,” and “could curtail efforts to combat disinformation.”

When the only information you have access to is that which is approved by the government it is time for the 2^nd to defend the 1^st. The case referenced must be decided in favor of the plaintiffs to head off some seriously bad times.

All the opposition to the case does accomplish something. The enemies of freedom are self identifying. That is never a bad thing.

Via email from John S. we have this article on how, as John put in, “Trump’s plans to massively consolidate power under the executive branch.” John stated:

Surely even hard-core Trump fans don’t want that?

Not that you’re a hard core Trump fan. I’m more referring to some of the folks who comment on your posts who clearly are. It’d be interesting to hear both your view and theirs on this issue.

It’s behind a paywall but I managed to capture the text with a quick select and copy. I then pasted it into a text editor for reading.

Just as there is with sources which favor Republicans, strongly suspect the New York Times has engaged in more than a little hyperbole to make Trump look bad.

That said, I am opposed to congress, presidents, judges and regulatory agencies which exceed the scope enumerated in the constitution. That 99.9%, or more, of those regulatory agencies even exists is repugnant to the constitution and to me. That congress “gives”* agencies the authority to create new law as long as they call it a “regulation” instead of a law is just wrong. If a president would consolidate all that power and destroy it, and “salt the earth” where those weeds flourished I would probably give him a pass on doing a task he didn’t have the enumerated power given to him by the Constitution to do such a thing, simply because congress didn’t have the power to create such a powerful agency in the beginning.

But that’s not reality. Hence, I’m sort of “meh” about the claims of doom and gloom. It is sort of like voting when the only options on the ballot are Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao.

* I don’t see where the U.S. Constitution gives congress the ability to delegate their lawmaking authority to any other entity.

Wherever and whenever there is a demand the market will supply the product:

Now that a year has passed since women lost the right to abortion, we can assess how our neighbor Idaho’s near-total ban on it is faring.

In short: It has accomplished next to nothing.

You can’t say categorically that the Idaho ban hasn’t stopped a single abortion. But the data suggests that is essentially the case – that the whole thing is a burden, cost and danger to Idaho’s own women, but hasn’t met the anti-abortion goals that supposedly informed it.

We know this now because clinics in the Pacific Northwest have started releasing data on where women come from to use their services, both back when abortion was legal nationwide, and now that it’s not.

Idaho women are simply fleeing.

Bans didn’t stop alcohol consumption, minors from getting tobacco, or other recreational drug use. They didn’t stop criminals from getting handguns. And it should be no surprise it didn’t stop abortions. Just as there were abortions when they were banned prior to Roe v. Wade. I knew a high school classmate who traveled from Idaho to Washington get an abortion. And women are doing it again.

Reduction and even elimination of abortions is a worthy goal. But I can’t see the legal system making a significant change in the total numbers. It has to be cultural change.

Legal bans only work when you have an adversary party involved which has the ability to support the legal action.*

* In the case of murder you have friend, relatives, and dedicated detectives to “speak” for the victim. The aborted fetus/child is unable to speak for itself and without a dependable voice from those who know what happened.