Opinion: It’s de ja vù all over again with recent court decision

As was done in Dred Scott, the judicial branch’s idiotic logic pushes our society to the brink.

“Well, my oath of office requires that I enforce all supreme court decisions, even those I don’t agree with.”

So said the sincerely ignorant conservative icon Ronald Reagan, decades ago, when asked about Roe v. Wade. It was recently echoed by another constitutional ignoramus, Donald Trump. It is reinforced constantly by governors like Michael Dunleavy, who refused to halt court-ordered abortion subsidies, which placed the courts in total defiance of the Legislature.

The 5-4 Supreme Court June v. Russo decision just handed down regarding the Louisiana “pro-life” law was utterly predictable. This column could have been written months ago when Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio and a host of other states passed laws severely curtailing and even completely outlawing abortion. Borrowing a page from the absurd and childish 1992 Casey decision, the court under Chief Justice John Roberts declared itself an interested party in preserving Roe v. Wade. “State decisis” basically means that the court cannot correct errors made by other past justices because it would make them look inconsistent.

Thus, the court makes itself even more ridiculous.

So much for the self-inflated pride of the allegedly neutral referee, which with its media cheerleaders and constitutionally ignorant conservatives believes that one, the judicial branch is a co-equal branch with the executive and legislative; two, they are meant to be the final arbiters on the meaning of the Constitution; and three, their decisions must be obeyed under penalty of violating the oath all federal office-holders must take to the Constitution.

Once again liberals are given a hair-breadth escape from reality. Once again unborn children, large and small, will be snuffed into oblivion under vicious techniques that no one wants to see or hear of because of squeamish sensibilities. Once again, the basic building block of society, the family, will have hardhearted and psychologically scarred harpies screaming triumphantly in the face of cameras, men will again be reduced to irrelevance and the legitimacy of the federal government will suffer.

And as has been said often enough, the constitutional solution to bypass the courts exists right now, today, with an executive or legislative branch that merely requires the will to do so. The president need not enforce the decision and under Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, Congress can exempt the courts in this or any other matter. And as an extra added attraction, the states ought to ignore the ruling, nullify it, and proceed with their prolife laws and start shutting down abortion clinics.

Anti-slavery states nullified federal law in the 1850s on the return of runaway slaves. The Left has already been exercising state and local nullification with “Sanctuary Cities,” “Nuclear Free Zones” and state marijuana laws. Some prolife municipalities have already declared themselves “Sanctuary Cities for the Unborn” and “Abortion-Free Zones” on their own. Any state legislator with an iota of intellectual curiosity needs merely consult Thomas Woods online explanation of nullification, its history and constitutionality and skip having to read his 2010 best-seller “Nullification.”

The federal union and domestic tranquility hangs by a thread. As was done in the Dred Scott case of 1857, the judicial branch’s idiotic logic pushes our society to the brink. The scintilla of understanding regarding not only the Natural but also Constitutional Law, demonstrated by certain states in resisting federal tyranny by passing these laws, now needs to be taken to the next level.

This writer issues a challenge, never yet accepted, to debate the proper constitutional authority of the courts, anywhere in the state, to any elected or appointed official or qualified citizen. The proper venue could be chosen by a local media outlet under Lincoln-Douglas Debate format. In these days of rampant confusion, a scholarly debate on vitally important principles would be a welcome relief and allow the citizens to think for themselves on the issues.

Bob Bird is a 43-year Alaskan, was twice a candidate for the U.S. Senate, former president of Alaska Right to Life and is a talk-show host for KSRM Radio on the Kenai Peninsula. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Here’s how to submit a My Turn or letter.

More in Opinion

Opinion: Fear of president’s immature tweets

Recent evidence suggests evidence debilitating fear of Trump’s twittering thumbs.

Opinion: Earnings comparisons are fair game

Stockholders got billions that should’ve been retained to cover ferries , schools and dividends.

Opinion: Now’s the time to make your plan to vote

Fellow Alaskans, please make a plan for voting this fall.

Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

Opinion: Southeast Community Services Center strengthens Juneau

The need for improved services in Juneau is real.

Opinion: It’s de ja vù all over again with recent court decision

As was done in Dred Scott, the judicial branch’s idiotic logic pushes our society to the brink.

Opinion: Supreme Court appointments will become the key issue in 2020 election

The 2020 Presidential election will soon become a single issue campaign.

Most Read