“F*** Clarence Thomas” is a lousy argument for abortion on demand

After the Supreme Court’s decision saying that abortion is a matter for state legislatures to sort out, and not something addressed by the Constitution, as I predicted many months ago, the hard-left mayor of Chicago in a public speech spat “f*** Clarence Thomas!” (Devoid of any self-awareness, days later this same Democrat mayor bemoaned the toxicity of current political discussions.)

Note that this is not some bomb-throwing, Antifa/Democrat hoodlum, but is the mayor of one of the biggest cities in America. (OK, I’ll admit that she could be both.)

The mayor didn’t bother to tell us what part of the Constitution guarantees abortion on demand. But, no matter. For saying that none did, “f*** Clarence Thomas.” The mayor’s “analysis” was echoed by many other Democrats including most of their media allies.

Of the six Justices that formed the majority in the abortion case, Justice Thomas was singled out even though he wrote only a concurring opinion and not the opinion of the Court. The left routinely singles him out for special hate because he’s black. The left sees black people who won’t side with them as not just wrong, but uppity and possibly worthy of lynching. Who gave them permission to leave the Democrat plantation?

What was conspicuously absent from the left’s histrionics about the Supreme Court decision saying the Constitution does not address abortion was any contention that it does. I suppose that’s to be expected because . . . it plainly doesn’t.

Even the three dissenting liberals on the Supreme Court did not seriously contend that the Constitution grants abortion rights. Their dissenting opinions can be summarized as follows: It should.

OK, maybe it should (and maybe it shouldn’t). But there’s a remedy for things the Constitution should address but doesn’t.

The remedy is called a Constitutional Amendment enacted by Congress and ratified by two-thirds of the people’s legislatures of the states. There have been 27 of them.

The first ten Constitutional Amendments – the Bill of Rights – are quite dear to Americans. The First guarantees free speech and the free exercise of religion. The Second guarantees the right to bear arms. The others are in a similar vein – they guarantee rights of the people by limiting the power of government over them.

In returning power to the people and their elected representatives, the Supreme Court is on quite a roll these days. In another case, they said that they and the rest of the federal courts are not the arbiters of draconian clean air standards – regardless of whether such standards are a good thing or a bad thing – and neither is the unelected EPA. The Court said Congress is.

The Supreme Court is engaged in a regular reverse coup d’état. They refuse to allow legislators to relinquish their power to the courts or to unelected administrative bureaucrats.

But Democrat legislatures don’t like having power returned to them. They prefer to pass vague and toothless legislation, and let the administrative agencies make the politically difficult decisions of construing and implementing it. In other words, they don’t like the heat in the legislative kitchen.

In the EPA case, liberal Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent specifically accused the majority opinion holding that Congress alone holds the power to enact draconian clean air rules, of impinging on the power of Congress.

Such is the tortured logic of the left. If the outcome is contrary to the liberal agenda, conservative Supreme Court Justices are guilty of seizing power when they exercise power, and of seizing power when they refuse to.  

But that may be putting too fine a point on it. The real – and only – rule of the left is simply that conservatives are wrong. The rest is just a temper tantrum of rationalizing, shouting, name-calling, protests, obscenities and threats.

The reason these one-trick donkeys are angry is because they’ve grown accustomed to getting their way with the courts over the last few decades. What they couldn’t achieve legislatively, and couldn’t achieve in the court of public opinion, they achieved with a complaisant Supreme Court.

Those days are over. The left now must do the hard work of passing legislation by using the power of persuasion with legislators and the public.

But the power of persuasion is one power that they just don’t have. “F*** Clarence Thomas” is not a highly persuasive argument.

19 thoughts on ““F*** Clarence Thomas” is a lousy argument for abortion on demand

  1. It shows the entire Democrat Party really are racists, bigots, misogynists, homophobes, Islamaphobes, etc. when it comes down to it, based on their own definitions. In reality, Democrats are purveyors of equality… they hate everyone equally who can’t, or won’t, be used to further their Marxist cause.

  2. Actually, it’s a perfectly good argument, sadly.

    Like many of us that say Fuck Joe Biden and double for Obama and Pelosi, it’s the norm now.

    We live in a cult of personality, not issues.

    Thomas was the ring leader of overturning a 50 year old precedent, and he deserves the accolades, both negative and positive

    I believe the only major effect this decision will have is to give the previously down and out Demo-Communists an issue to rally a base again.

    As for your comment about liberals and conservatives and abortion , it only applies to the lunatic fringe.

    The vast majority of the public favors legal abortion. That includes a significant number of both Republicans and Democrats.

    Giving the legal abortion platform to the Demo-Communists is just what they hope you do. It’s a trap that certainly worked on you.

    • You’re surmising things that sound plausible but are not supported by the data.

      Thomas was not the “ringleader.” Note that the decision was written by Alito. And note that Thomas as your “ringleader” did not get even one other Justice to join in his opinion.

      The “lunatic fringe” you mention apparently includes the Dem mayor of one of America’s biggest cities. Though I suppose that, unfortunately, that doesn’t mean she’s not part of the lunatic fringe.

      It’s not true that “the vast majority of the public favors legal abortion” if you’re referring to abortion on demand for all three trimesters. Most Americans — like most Europeans — favor restrictions in the second and especially the third trimester. Moreover, even unsophisticated voters now seem to recognize that the Court has not outlawed abortion, but has instead returned the matter to the states. To most people, including myself, that doesn’t sound radical.

      Your suggestion that the Court has handed the Dems a valuable campaign issue is not supported by the polls. The polls show little if any bump for the Dems subsequent to the Court’s decision.

  3. It’s unlikely that Clarence Thomas’s high school yearbook nominated him as “Most likely to succeed at implementing reverse coups d’etat against lying, dog-faced, one-trick donkey soldiers.”
    It would take the witches in Macbeth to prophesy such a future . . . .

  4. Great article, Glenn. These latest Supreme Court rulings are stunningly pro Constitution and something I didn’t think possible anymore. In particular, the ruling against the EPA, though still somewhat vague, that puts all these bureaucracies on notice that they are “unelected” and have way out kicked their coverage.

    It’s been said that our country has literally had Divine Intervention at critical times in our history. I think it can not be understated just how transformative and fortuitous it was to get 3 Republican appointed judges to the Supreme Court during Trumps Presidency. Love him or hate him, and I do both, it changed the direction and future of our country.

    • The other thing is that the often-despised George W. Bush promised to appoint reliable conservative justices and did so. Roberts is a sometimes exception, but that may be because as C.J. he is trying to play the role of middle child in a factional institution.

      The liberals whine about how the Republicans gained two appointments by blocking Merrick Garland and because Trump appointed Amy Barrett late in his term. Consider though, that the liberal agenda has succeeded in the Supreme Court over many decades because of turncoat Republican appointees. The notables are William Brennan (Eisenhower), Harry Blackmun (Nixon) and David Souter (G. Bush). Without Brennan and Blackmun, no way would Thurgood Marshall have been able to have the same malignant influence.

      The liberals ought to consider that the Dobbs v. Jackson decision returning control over abortion law to the states is their firewall, not a barrier to them. The concept behind “Dobbs” envisions giving the states control over many things. The liberal and progressive states will be able to legislate as they wish provided their legislation does not contradict the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Well, as Prince Hamlet once said in another context, “Ah, there is the rub.” How can you have a social and cultural dictatorship with that pesky constitution standing in the way?

  5. Another great essay. I would love to see you on Tucker Carlson or Greg Gutfeld. I am praying that this ruling does not lead to another amendment or our Constitution would resemble Colorado’s which has allowed anyone with a wild hair to change it.

  6. One quibble. The Constitution can be amended of 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the states propose an amendment. It takes 3/4 of the stated to ratify.

  7. I read years ago that when you use profanity as your argument that it shows a tired mind and the abortionists sure do have tired minds.

  8. Well said old man!!!! The return to Federalism has been a long time coming. The Courts have been used to legislate for way way to long and children are completely clueless of this important issue. The Left shouts about OUR Democracy yet if the People vote “Other-ways” it’s off to the courts, that is how we got Gay Marriage, it was voted down on every ballot. Not to be anti-gay, I think civil unions would have solved the issue and let the Traditional Folks have something, instead they were crushed then they moved on, the Left snipes at their heels with “HATERS” no they just believe in Tradition and do not need voluminous word salads to “splain tings” to you.

    • I agree with your “civil unions” remark. I don’t think it is anybody’s business except the participants whether or not they get married, BUT the state has to know what’s going on for legal purposes, especially in the case of a divorce or death. However, that notification to the state can be given by signing the application for a marriage certificate. Change the name to Civil Union Certificate and drop the term marriage. With that done, if the couple still wants to get “married” they can do it on their own. Since it is nobody’s business, there is no need for anyone to sue anyone else over whether or not a third party wants to have anything to do with a “marriage”. The government stays out of it.

      • I think we’re on the same page here. Young Ben Shapiro had a similar thoughts to make all marriages Civil Unions then the Marriage part could be done within the churches etc. My beef as well is redefining words. Now there are 2 wives or 2 husbands in a marriage. Close to what, 3000 years of established tradition undone because? The argument could be made that the institution was in decline in the first place but I do not see this salvaging it since it’s inception. It’s also my understanding that it is language in the Civil rights Act that gives grounds to sue somebody who does not want to be involved in a gay wedding, they really go after that Baker in Colorado…..poor guy just trying to make a living..

  9. Given that the crazed Furies in the streets (a.k.a. “mostly peaceful protestors”) are chanting “We love killing babies,” I think we can conclude that such concepts as “persuasion” and “argument” are not what animates their hearts and minds. Indeed, given their view that reason itself is a construct of “colonizing” whiteness, your whole commentary, Glenn, is clearly part of the problem rather than the solution.

  10. “F*** Clarence Thomas” appears to work for the intellectually lazy and misinformed.
    As for me, I’ll strive to be reasonable and informed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s