{"id":101793,"date":"2022-05-05T19:08:56","date_gmt":"2022-05-05T23:08:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=101793"},"modified":"2022-05-05T19:09:01","modified_gmt":"2022-05-05T23:09:01","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-wednesday-may-4th-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=101793","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Wednesday, May 4th, 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Wednesday, May 4th, 2022…but before we begin, here’s the Morning Jolt’s take<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a> on the utterly unprecedented but hardly unforeseen<\/span><\/em><\/span><\/a> leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning the indefensible SCOTUS decision in Roe v. Wade<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“…As for the decision itself, the decision illustrates why the leak is so abhorrent. In our government, the role of the Supreme Court is to determine if a given law violates the U.S. Constitution.<\/span> We, as citizens, are going to see Supreme Court decisions we agree with and decisions we disagree with \u2014 sometimes strongly. But we all agree to abide by those decisions.<\/span> A person\u2019s perspective on \u201cjudicial supremacy\u201d \u2014 the notion that the Supreme Court gets the final say, and cannot be altered without a constitutional amendment or a subsequent decision overruling them \u2014\u00a0often depends upon<\/a>\u00a0how they feel about the Court\u2019s decisions lately<\/a><\/em><\/span>. But our acceptance of the Court\u2019s authority isn\u2019t supposed to flip on and off like a light switch, based on how we feel about the justices or the president who appointed them.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

…<\/span>You may see abortion as an abominable crime. You may see it as a vital means of ending an unwanted pregnancy.<\/span> Or, like many Americans, you may come down somewhere in the middle, believing human life begins before birth but perhaps not at conception; wanting exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother; or finding sex-selective and partial-birth abortions barbaric without wanting to outlaw all abortions.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Whatever you<\/span><\/em> believe, you should recognize<\/span><\/em> that since 1973<\/em><\/span>, pro-lifers<\/em><\/span> have lived with a Court decision that, in their minds, legalizes murder<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> In the two generations since 1973, the U.S. has elected pro-life presidents and pro-life Congresses, as well as pro-choice presidents and pro-choice Congresses, and they have enacted a legislative tug-of-war about when, where, and why an abortionist may terminate a pregnancy.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

But pro-lifers were told that electing pro-life presidents, governors, members of Congress, and state legislators wasn\u2019t enough \u2014 that the practice that they saw as morally indistinguishable from murder must be allowed to continue, until a Supreme Court decision overruled<\/span><\/em>\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em>.<\/span> So over decades of effort, pro-lifers went out and did that<\/span><\/em> \u2014 with a lot<\/em><\/span> of setbacks. Under our Constitution, pro-lifers did<\/span><\/em> what they were supposed to do<\/em><\/span> \u2014 they supported judges who they believed would deem\u00a0Roe v. Wade<\/em>\u00a0wrongly decided.<\/span> Overturning\u00a0Roe v. Wade\u00a0does not ban abortion<\/span><\/em>; it returns<\/em><\/span> the decision of abortion\u2019s legality back to the state legislatures<\/span><\/em>. If this decision comes to pass, it is likely that many red states will ban abortion or strictly limit it, and many blue states will keep it legal.<\/span> And some<\/span><\/em> Americans may well vote with their feet<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

But now someone on the losing side<\/em><\/span> of this decision wants to reverse it before it\u2019s official by generating so much public outrage that one<\/em><\/span> of the five justices changes their mind<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

We wouldn’t be the least bit surprised were the source a certain wise Latina woman<\/em><\/span><\/a>; Still, we’re puzzled by John Roberts’s confirmation of the leaked draft’s authenticity<\/em><\/span><\/a><\/span>, as well as his call for the source of the leak to be identified by those least-qualified to find it.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regardless, here’s the juice: All the Progressive hysteria to the contrary notwithstanding<\/em><\/span><\/a>, the unfortunate fact remains the moment after the Supreme Court overturns Roe<\/em>, nothing…<\/strong><\/p>\n