Vox staffer is still pouting over recent SCOTUS rulings
Sean Illing, an interviewer for Vox, hosted a Harvard law professor for a conversation about the recent "extreme" rulings from our country's highest court, and it went exactly as you'd expect. With a title like "How to save democracy from the Supreme Court," one might suspect that Illing lacks a basic civic understanding — by the third sentence, he's already sharing misinformation:
Whatever your politics, and whatever you thinking of abortion, this much is clear: The Court made a choice to unsettle established law [emphasis added] and shake up the tectonic plates of American society.
He's obviously referencing the reversal of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 judicial decision that paved a way for abortion access across these United States. No law was ever passed that legalized abortion at the federal level, and neither is there a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a "right" to the procedure — this should be perfectly understood, as the Democrats have spent years fundraising off the promise that they would "codify" Roe v. Wade into law. The Court didn't "unsettle established law"; rather, it reversed an erroneous ruling.
After he snivels a bit about the need to "process" the trauma, he says he's decided to bring in an "expert" to process it a bit more. A former clerk for Sonia Sotomayor, Illing's "expert" is Niko Bowie, who provided testimony before Joe Biden's Commission on the Supreme Court on "potential ways to reform the highest court in the land."
Throughout the interview, Bowie refers to access to abortion as a right — yet he should know better. He's a law professor. The government doesn't grant rights; it secures rights. And nowhere does our founding document enumerate the "right" to murder the unborn, despite how many ways the left tries to twist and manipulate the language of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, it's not a right, and any legalization of abortion is merely a privilege.
When Illing asks Bowie to respond to the argument that reversing Roe v. Wade simply returns the abortion decision to the states, Bowie replies with this:
[T]o suggest that when a Court just returns an issue to the states as though state legislatures are the default forum for resolving these questions, I think begs the question: Why should state legislatures resolve this rather than Congress or the Courts?
First of all, the courts aren't legislative bodies, so they shouldn't be involved in the policy-making process — seems as though that should go without saying, especially to a Harvard academic. Secondly, the Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, at the moment, the decision to prohibit or legalize does default to the lawmaking bodies within the states. Now, on the flip side, Congress does have the authority to pass a law outlawing abortion, since it would be completely consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment's language dictating that no state can "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process or law"...
Illing and Bowie are indoctrinated, not educated, and they lack the ability to critically think or analyze the information — after all, Illing, a grown man, is still "processing" through the trauma of a SCOTUS ruling that baby murder is no longer sanctioned at a federal level (nearly two months after it occurred). Their illogical missteps continue but, for the sake of brevity, cannot be thoroughly addressed.