Executive action and Roe v. Wade

Imagine the uproar if a Republican president issued an executive order overturning Roe v. Wade.  Liberal heads would explode.

The propaganda arm (media) of the Democrat (Socialist) Party would be running nonstop pieces on the president’s overreach.  “The president does not have the ability to make law.  Only Congress can make law.”

The logic in reversing the “subject” of a court case (or any issue) is helpful.  Is this a just ruling?  Would it be just, even if it went against my ideological leanings?

If you answered that it doesn’t matter, then we are no longer speaking about the rule of law, but the bald advance of my, or your, ideology.

So today we have liberals bemoaning the Court’s stay of a lower court’s ruling against Barack Obama’s executive order on illegal immigrants.  While it is not hard to rationalize liberal attitudes (they’re liberal, after all), it is interesting to note the ruling of the Court’s four liberal justices.  Surely they pondered the logic presented above.  Does an executive have the ability to “make law”?  Would they have voted the same way if the matter had been an executive order banning Roe v. Wade?

Of course not!

Thus, we have half the court abandoning law, and instead advancing their (liberal) ideology.

Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, with three distinct branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), checking the other two.  They also understood though that our system could only function if each branch served its intended function.  If the executive can make law, the Supreme Court rubber-stamps the executive’s action (if it serves their ideological leaning), and the legislative branch demurs from opposition, then we, as a Republic, are doomed.

In a separate decision, the Court upheld the use of race in college admissions decisions – citing diversity.  Would the Court have protected said litigant if, say, they sued to allow “religious conscience” as a criterion for diversity?  Again, of course not!

Lady Justice is supposed to be blind.  She is supposed to rule, independent of “the subject” of the case in front of her.  The liberal-wing of the Court have abandoned the rule of law.  They are blatantly advancing the executive's liberal agenda.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”  Sorry, Ben  we appear to be the generation that allowed tyranny to supplant liberty in America.

Imagine the uproar if a Republican president issued an executive order overturning Roe v. Wade.  Liberal heads would explode.

The propaganda arm (media) of the Democrat (Socialist) Party would be running nonstop pieces on the president’s overreach.  “The president does not have the ability to make law.  Only Congress can make law.”

The logic in reversing the “subject” of a court case (or any issue) is helpful.  Is this a just ruling?  Would it be just, even if it went against my ideological leanings?

If you answered that it doesn’t matter, then we are no longer speaking about the rule of law, but the bald advance of my, or your, ideology.

So today we have liberals bemoaning the Court’s stay of a lower court’s ruling against Barack Obama’s executive order on illegal immigrants.  While it is not hard to rationalize liberal attitudes (they’re liberal, after all), it is interesting to note the ruling of the Court’s four liberal justices.  Surely they pondered the logic presented above.  Does an executive have the ability to “make law”?  Would they have voted the same way if the matter had been an executive order banning Roe v. Wade?

Of course not!

Thus, we have half the court abandoning law, and instead advancing their (liberal) ideology.

Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, with three distinct branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), checking the other two.  They also understood though that our system could only function if each branch served its intended function.  If the executive can make law, the Supreme Court rubber-stamps the executive’s action (if it serves their ideological leaning), and the legislative branch demurs from opposition, then we, as a Republic, are doomed.

In a separate decision, the Court upheld the use of race in college admissions decisions – citing diversity.  Would the Court have protected said litigant if, say, they sued to allow “religious conscience” as a criterion for diversity?  Again, of course not!

Lady Justice is supposed to be blind.  She is supposed to rule, independent of “the subject” of the case in front of her.  The liberal-wing of the Court have abandoned the rule of law.  They are blatantly advancing the executive's liberal agenda.

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”  Sorry, Ben  we appear to be the generation that allowed tyranny to supplant liberty in America.