A huge Supreme Court decision you never heard of
One of the things that separates leftists from normal people is their passion for political power. It is all-consuming. Among other things, this gives the Left the ability to plot and plan well in advance. This is clearly evidenced by leftists' patient march through American institutions. This was done not in one fell swoop, but step by step through the years. In solidifying their gains, the liberals are hyper-vigilant to any regression from what they've achieved in a way conservatives can only envy.
A recent little noticed U.S. Supreme Court decision illustrates this latter point. This was Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. In it, the Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Constitution doesn't permit a state to be sued by a private party without its consent in the court of a different state. So what's the big deal? The big deal is that the Franchise Board v. Hyatt overturned a 1979 Court decision to the contrary in Nevada v. Hall.
What puts more bite in the Franchise Board v. Hyatt decision is that Chief Justice John Roberts assigned Clarence Thomas to write the majority opinion. Thomas is an originalist more than he is a conservative. A Court conservative, at least how liberals would define one, would honor the principle of stare decisis. This means that once a decision is made, it stays made. Thomas instead approaches cases according to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. He believes if an initial decision was wrong per the original intent of the Constitution, it should be overturned.
This has the four Court liberal dissenters — Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — in a tizzy. What has them and their soul mates throughout the liberal establishment in panic mode is not the particulars of the Franchise v. Hyatt case itself, but the fact that it overturned a precedent. As Justice Breyer said: "Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next."
Putting flesh on the bones of that complaint is Erwin Chermerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Berkeley Law School. Chermerinsky was the one who argued the case for Hyatt, the loser. He wrote that the decision was really about "how the Court is going to treat precedent when issues like abortion, affirmative action, and gay and lesbian rights return to the court."
The always alert liberal hive is reacting.
"The Right-Wing Supreme Court Is coming for Roe v. Wade," is the headline on Splinter.com. The Liberals are "warning us" that Roe is in "mortal danger," booms the Washington Post. The New York Times is rushing out an op-ed piece by a law professor. "The Supreme court made clear on Monday that Roe v. Wade may soon no longer be the law of the land," it begins.
There you have it. Liberals see much of the radical and anti-democratic social structure they forced on the country through the Court's blatant overreach threatened. This fear is compounded by the fact that the Left knows that President Trump is likely to have the opportunity to make two and perhaps three more appointments to the Supreme Court before he leaves office.
Most of the attention to Donald Trump's MAGA policies focuses on the revitalizing of America's economic base. But through his court appointments at various levels, the president is helping to make America's soul great again, hopefully returning us to normalcy.