Conservatives, Stop Looking for Champions in the Supreme Court

Conservatives, Stop Looking for Champions in the Supreme Court December 10, 2018

I’m going to go ahead and preface this piece by reminding everyone that I stood up for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during the debacle that became of his confirmation hearings.

He had his childhood brought up and had to face the full fury of the hypocritical, “woke” left, who have suddenly deemed dumb kid antics as proof that someone will grow to be a monster.

He was accused of being a drunk and a violent rapist, even though his main accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford couldn’t remember a thing about what happened, except that he was involved.

Others came forward, and in short order, they all were proven to be liars with political agendas.

The agenda was to stop President Trump from appointing another SCOTUS judge, and if they had to lie and feign outrage over teen drinking and rowdiness, then so be it.

Kavanaugh would not have been my choice to fill an empty Supreme Court seat. There were far more conservative judges to choose from.

And no, I didn’t care who nominated him. My concern was that he was being railroaded with lies. His life, and that of his family was being disrupted, and it wasn’t fair. It was partisan hackery at its worst.

Now that it’s over, and he is seated into his lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, however, we can look and see his work, and make a determination as to if Donald Trump delivered a win for conservatives here.

He did not.

All the evangelicals who were exalting the name of Trump for appointing Brett Kavanaugh can go ahead and sit down, now.

On Monday,  Kavanaugh joined with Chief Justice John Roberts, along with the four liberal jurists, to reject attempts by several states that wished to kick abortion providers off of their Medicaid programs.

This would have been a biggie for the pro-life crowd, and they sided with the left.

To be fair, Roberts has been disappointing us for a while, but Kavanaugh was supposed to be different, wasn’t he?

Well, I didn’t figure he would be.

The case turned away was Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. It was one, out of a pair of petitions presented by Kansas and Louisiana.

Justice Neil Gorsuch (a halfway decent Trump pick – maybe because he was picked by someone else), joined with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in dissenting, with Justice Thomas, once again, delivering the commonsense and clarity that the courts reject with frequency, these days.

Thomas, suggesting the court was wary of taking a case with “Planned Parenthood” in the title, asserted the cases weren’t about abortion rights but whether individuals have a right to challenge a state’s decision to eliminate a Medicaid provider.

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

Go ahead. Call it cowardice. You wouldn’t be wrong.

This isn’t even the first time the court has refused to at least hear the cases. Others have been presented this year – after Kavanaugh was confirmed – and each time, they kick the can.

So having a “conservative majority” on the courts isn’t turning out to be the boon we were told it would be, is it?

And yes, Planned Parenthood is taking a victory lap.

“We are pleased that lower court rulings protecting patients remain in place,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Leana Wen in a statement. “Every person has a fundamental right to health care, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn.”

They could get everything Planned Parenthood [allegedly] provides, minus the abortions, from a community health center. That’s the part that the infanticide crowd always brushes over.

The cases in Kansas and Louisiana, filed earlier this year, ask whether patients can sue states for excluding Planned Parenthood from state Medicaid funding.

In February, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that Kansas was wrong to end Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding, writing that states can’t cut off funding for reasons “unrelated to the provider’s competence and the quality of the healthcare it provides.” Four other appeals courts have ruled that Medicaid patients have the right to access the provider of their choice.

However, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that states do have the right to terminate a provider’s Medicaid contract and that residents have no right to challenge that decision.

Are they not making abortion the issue, outright,  or are they allowing it to hover in the darkened corners of the cases?

Just say you want to put more federal funds towards community health centers – which are available in pretty much every county in the nation (whereas Planned Parenthood targets poor and minority communities, in some insidious act of eugenics-as-healthcare scam) – as a means of streamlining already stretched budgets.

Call abortion an unnecessary service, as it relates to healthcare (because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTHCARE), and fiscal responsibility dictates those services not be publicly funded.

Planned Parenthood likes to push the notion that abortion isn’t their main gig, but the bulk of their financial health consists of ending any chance of a healthy life for unborn children.

Chew on that one, for a bit.

It was always folly to think seating a majority of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court would fix what is wrong with this nation, based on the very history of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that made abortion a blood-stained patch on our national tapestry.

In that case, a 7 to 2 majority – at a time when Republicans held the majority in the Supreme Court – decided that abortion was to be the law of the land.

Justice William Rehnquist was joined by Justice Byron White in dissenting.

The legal community, at that time, even considered it an extreme case of judicial activism.

What a transformation. Judicial activism now seems to be the norm.

If you want to see the scourge of abortion ended in this world, it’s going to take a change of heart in the people. It’s going to take men and women to become proactive and responsible in their life choices.

The Supreme Court is not our savior nor our master, so lower your expectations.

 

"The lawsuit accomplishes 3 things: 1. He wants Twitter to give up the names of ..."

Devin Nunes Lashes out at Twitter ..."
"Hey - the "poor me - I'm the victim" pity-party approach has worked pretty well ..."

Devin Nunes Lashes out at Twitter ..."
"Maybe it's less about hurt feelings and shutting down parody accounts than an attack on ..."

Devin Nunes Lashes out at Twitter ..."
"If Nunes can prove damages from people believing that his cow is really Tweeting, to ..."

Devin Nunes Lashes out at Twitter ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Politics Red
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • chemical

    From Susan:

    Planned Parenthood likes to push the notion that abortion isn’t their main gig, but the bulk of their financial health consists of ending any chance of a healthy life for unborn children.

    That’s because PP does a lot more than abortions — family planning and other women’s health issues. Besides, it’s actually illegal for tax dollars to subsidize abortions (this may vary by state, IANAL, but is definitely the case in my home state of Texas). So if you get an abortion from PP, you pay full price, else you get your medical care discounted. Even if you’re strict anti-abortion, you should still support PP as they will provide low cost medical care for pregnant women who want to give birth instead of getting an abortion.

    In Houston, there is a Planned Parenthood clinic and an actual abortion clinic, that only does abortions. It might as well be called Abortions-R-Us. Guess which one the pro-life crowd routinely protests.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    Have you ever heard of PR campaigns? Because PP like many other organizations with questionable histories want to say they do other things, but it turns out they get their biggest thing from the thing they downplay.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    PP only SAYS they do “other things” (like mammograms & “family planning” – though PP generally uses the “family planning” label as a euphemism for “abortion”- but the reality is that PP actually passes out references to places that actually DO do mammograms or counseling once they’ve determined the patient/victim is not really there for the purpose of abortion.

    PP themselves admit (when pressed or when not in front of cameras) they don’t do mammograms, pap smears, or other clinical work other than abortions in-house.

  • chemical

    Yes, I have. I’ve also heard of smear campaigns, which are PR campaigns by people with an axe to grind.

    PR campaigns don’t explain why there are protesters outside the PP clinic, but not Abortions-R-Us.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Perhaps PP is seen as the bigger threat and the more dangerous place to protest if there are limited resources. After all, is not the purpose of a protest to call attention to a perceived injustice ? How can that be done better by protesting a local or small-time, no-name clinic – particularly one that may be in legal compliance with all laws an regulations and have a relationship with a local hospital, only doing abortions for medical necessity or one that does not take public funds when protesting a national, big-name, deep-pocket organization like PP and their taking of public funds, lack of referral authority to local hospitals (in come cases), public lies, and history of hypocrisy generates so much more publicity ?

    You should not be trying to defend PP – their entire history and continuing actions reeks of even more hypocrisy than Donald Trump supporters.

  • Marcion

    Abortion is absolutely a healthcare issue. Pregnancy is a medical condition, one that is debilitating and potentially lethal. One of the ways to treat this condition is abortion, so abortion should be treated the same way we treat other medical care.

    As an aside, if you want to maintain the pretenses of anti-Trump conservatism you should really stop defending the Kavanaugh nomination. If Trump is as bad as you say he is then any nominee he chooses should be viewed the same way you Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen: as an extension as Trump’s corruption and malevolence, who would corrupt the court for as long as that justice serves. Supporting his supreme court nominees means you support letting Trump have more power, which is practically admitting that your horror is aesthetic and you don’t mind his actual governance. Supporting Trump nominees because liberals got mad also legitimizes the same spite-based politics that created Trump in the first place.

  • clanhamilton

    That is not true. I got a 2 pregnancy tests, birth control, and a referral from PP. I never got an abortion, never asked about abortion, and was never spoken to about an abortion. NEVER.
    They helped me.
    You’re ignorant and worse, trying to pass your BS as truth.

  • Ellen Elmore

    Thank you Susan, You are one of the very few people that will address this issue of the Supreme Court decision today. I am so glad you wrote about it. I would guess that 99% of Evangelicals do not know about this terrible decision that favors Planned Parenthood. They don’t watch any news other than Fox News who will never report this because they are an arm of the Trump administration. I didn’t want Brett Kavanaugh to be the SCOTUS nominee because I thought his record was too liberal. Plus we didn’t know for sure which side of the abortion issue he stood. Now we know. This was Trump’s pick so the blame should go on him.

  • BryantIII

    The issue of funding of Planned Parenthood is contentious due to the fact that the funds for Medicaid are from the Federal Government. It would take a act of Congress to remove that funding. States cannot restrict or takeaway funds designated by the Federal Government to Planned Parenthood. States can limit or takeaway funding for Planned Parenthood when they state funds are used, but NOT Federal Government funds.
    It is a similar argument regarding the term limits for members of Congress (Senators and Representatives). It would require a Constitutional Amendment to reduce or limit the terms of members of Congress.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    The mainstream media does everything it can to kiss it’s butt.

  • Brian Orion

    Trump and his swamp are about as pro-life as Margaret Sanger so of course he would appoint a phony-right justice who is not truly against abortion.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Incorrect on both counts.

    Term limits for Congress can be set at the state level with a simple legislative action. Congressional members represent the state they are from as their first official duty. All it would take is for a state to decide that no representative to Congress can serve more than _____ terms (ether consecutive or lifetime).

    As to “takaway funds”, the State can simply refuse the portion of federal funds due to the federal strings attached. The federal government cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the State. The medicaid programs (because they use State tax money and because the federal government is simply not large enough) are all administered by the State. Should a state wish to not fund PP, that is totally at their discretion as long as they are willing to risk foregoing the federal medicaid money. But then again, if the feds were to try to “pull strings” and force the states to take action based on accepting federal tax dollars for a federal program, the state could simply opt out of ALL medicaid programs and divert it’s tax money to its own (alternate) aid program…..

    Basically the only hold the feds have over the states to force compliance is the threat of withholding federal tax dollars – and they’d probably lose if that were forced in court. The individual states are sovereign entities regarding any programs that are contained solely within their borders.

  • Stephen

    I detest abortion. But do we really want government to control this? Governments do act immoral at times. China has mandated abortions. Our own government involuntarily sterilized people and not that long ago. As well as medically experimented on people without their permission or knowledge. James Marion Sims is known as the father of gynecology. He gain that knowledge by experimenting on black slave women. With out anesthesia. All legal at the time.

    I do not trust my government with the power over abortion not to use it to reduce unwanted babies of minorities. Especially if white nationalist gain control of the government which we are now struggling to prevent. Culture in most countries accept abortion , including our own country. Our best strategy is to do things to reduce them like birth control, help getting kids adopted out and benefits to help moms who want to keep their children. All the while working on changing our culture.

    Trump picked Kavanaugh because of his views on how much we can hold the president accountable for criminal behavior. Trump does not care about abortion except where it can get useful idiots to vote for him.Most of his life he was officially for them. Besides if one of his mistresses need one he can fly them somewhere where it is legal and that undercover.

    The main reason I vote for Bill Clintion the first time was because he said he would rein in the deficit. I have always been a fiscal conservative. He did do that. The second time he ran I did not vote for him because he failed in another promise to make abortion legal, safe and very rare. His welfare reform ran counter to doing that. But that idea is still our best option in my opinion considering the imperfect world we live in.

  • Stephen

    You are correct. It was a con job from the start. We need to make it easy as possible for his supporters to see this and stop supporting him.That is why I am careful of ridicule or harshness in dealing with them.

  • frrolfe

    So: Partisan SCOTUS good if it follows my ideology. Partisan SCOTUS bad if it doesn’t?

  • IllinoisPatriot

    That’s pretty much the approach taken by both sides of the Unibrow party.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    Abortion is absolutely a healthcare issue.

    This is true – especially for the fetus that is being aborted.

    Why do abortionists never consider the healthcare needs of the fetus (baby) in their whining and attempts to cloak killing in the guise of “healthcare” ?

    Does not dismembering of live children count as “healthcare” from the stand point of that child ? If you attempt to claim that the child being dismembered is not a living human being, explain why there is a market for the baby-parts for human research “parts”.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    So you went to PP and got a home-pregnancy kit you could have bought from the supermarket or drugstore, you got free pill you could have bought from the pharmacy and you got a referral (NOT actual medical services – only a referral).

    Big deal. You got bupkis that could not be found on the open market elsewhere, but you got it for free because other people’s taxes were giving to PP based on their excuse that they do all these “wonderful” things for people like you.

    You have still not addressed WHY PP is providing services that no one else can provide, thereby justifying being the only abortion providers getting federal funding. You have still not addressed WHAT PP provides that is not already being provided on the open market by other companies that do NOT receive hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars.

    What I see is that you (for your own selfish reasons) are attempting to justify taking for free what Congress has decided ALL of us have to pay for through our federal taxes. I reject your attempt at justifying PP and their free giveaways just because you got some free stuff.

  • RebeccaSusanWright

    Isn’t government controlling it already, by funding it?

  • Stephen

    Actually not.
    “In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape. … The original Hyde Amendment was passed on September 30, 1976, by the House of Representatives, by a 207–167 vote.”