Radical Left Melts Down Over Supreme Court Argument in Major Abortion Case

 

L

Radical Left Melts Down Over Supreme Court Argument in Major Abortion Case

By 

Jordan Sekulow

|

December 2

PRO LIFE

Now that the Left has had some time to digest the oral arguments at the Supreme Court yesterday in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, they are in panic mode. 

https://youtu.be/Rn1Lx63YQAQ

This case regarding the 15-week abortion ban that could overturn Roe v. Wade – or give the power to the states to determine their abortion laws – could give new life to other pro-life legislation around the country in the courts as well.

ACLJ Senior Counsel Andy Ekonomou gave his take on the oral arguments:

The Left is going into a meltdown. 

Okay, I will concede to them the three liberal Justices – Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor – they’ve got them. 

I think Breyer came out of the chutes saying right away there is stare decisis, why should we change this? So, he’s not going to change his mind. But the questioning that was posed by the other Justices indicate a shift in my direction that is pro-life . . . 

I’m very impressed with the way the Court I think is going to proceed. You can’t predict, but it looks like we are going to get a favorable result somehow.

There are many cases that the Court has had to go back and change or overturn. Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed this out:

History tells a somewhat different story, I think, than is sometimes assumed. If you think about some of the most important cases in this Court’s history . . . there’s a string of them where the cases overruled precedent. 

• Brown v. Board outlawed separate but equal. 
• Baker v. Carr, which set the stage for one person, one vote. West Coast Hotel, which recognized the state’s authority to regulate business. 
• Miranda v. Arizona, which required police to give warnings . . . about the right to remain silent . . . 
• Lawrence v. Texas said that the state may not prohibit same-sex conduct. 
• Mapp v. Ohio, which held that the exclusionary rule applies to state criminal prosecution.

Even with examples of times that the Court got it wrong, left leaning Justice Sonya Sotomayor thinksthis is still just a religious view and should not be overruled:

How is your interest anything but a religious view? 

The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It is still debated in religions. 

So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that is a religious view, isn’t it?

ACLJ Senior Counsel CeCe Heil pointed out how this is not exclusively a religious view:

They don’t have an argument, so they want to shame and try to belittle anybody who could think that protecting a life is worth doing. 

There . . . are doctors that say when life begins. It is medically proven, it has nothing to do with religion, it is a scientific fact. But she is trying to distort it, to make the abortion distortion that abortion is such a right that we can’t get rid of it.

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely be in June. We’ve already filed three briefs in the case, and are hard at work in our next case for the unborn. 

Tomorrow, we’re filing a critical brief in federal appeals court in defense of life and on behalf of a governor and state against Planned Parenthood. 

This could very well be the next big abortion case at the Supreme Court.

While the Biden Administration is fighting the pro-life movement across the country, they’ve let the border situation get completely out of control. 

In fact, the Biden Administration is readopting former President Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy starting on Monday. This comes after President Biden stopped this policy on his first day of office and referred to it as “bad policy.”

ACLJ Senior Military Analyst Wes Smith explained this move by the Biden Administration: 

There’s a lot of disingenuousness about this whole issue with the Biden Administration. Part of the background though and the reason they are restarting it is that a court ruled . . . (Missouri and Texas sued the Biden Administration over canceling this program. . . . )

The judge has said okay they did not go through the proper administrative hearings . . . so they have ordered him to reinstate it. . . . 

In reality, they realize we have a real issue here, this is a crisis, and this actually worked. 

This is why we do the work that we do. 

We submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get information about why the Remain in Mexico policy that was working was ended in the first place. We are grateful that a court order is forcing the Biden Administration to put this policy back in place – it’s a win for us and the American people.

Today’s full Sekulow broadcast is complete with even more analysis of the oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and President Biden’s reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy.