Newspaper Page Text
June 29, 2022
JUST THE WAY IT IS by Sloan Oliver
^Reporter
Page 8C
SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade
L ast weeks Supreme
Court decision,
Dobbs v. Jackson
was a HUGE vic
tory for human life, for mo
rality, for civility,
and for federalism.
Dobbs overturned
the horrible, Su
preme Court deci
sion Roe v. Wade
(1973) that granted
cart blanche access
to abortion.
Hallelujah!!!
That 1973
decision
was an unconstitutional
overreach by the Courts be
cause it seized power from
the states, and said every
state must allow unfet
tered baby killing during
the entire nine months of
pregnancy.
arms, etc. But what is
meant by a right to privacy
and how is it enforced? I
don’t agree with the man
ner in which the SCOTUS
arrived at that right
to privacy. The Roe
decision was based
entirely upon seven
justices who discov
ered something, in
the Constitution,
that nobody else
had found in
JWlQW the previous 186
years. They did
so by a process
called “judicial activism”
based on the idea of a “liv
ing constitution.” Judicial
activism is one reason Roe
was a terrible decision. The
process to amend/change
the Con-
■rA
laws to stand when those
laws clearly violate the 2nd
Amendment. These “activ
ist” judges will even use
laws from other countries
to somehow argue the
Constitution doesn’t mean
what it says. Activist judges
claim a living constitu
tion must change with the
times. To argue for a living
constitution is to argue
for a document that will
change each and every time
the “will of the people”
changes. That’s NOT what
a constitution is or should
be. A constitution must be
like a building’s foundation
- stable and unchanging,
able to withstand capricious
whims and winds; and be
the bedrock of law.
For 49 years, the argu
ment that our immoral
Dems used to prevent Roe
being overturned was the
legal concept of “stare deci
sis” or “stand by things al
ready decided.” Stare decisis
means that if a previous
court made a legal deci
sion, that decision must be
upheld - forever, because
it was previously decided.
Most of the time stare de
cisis is good because it pro
vides stability and predict
ability to the legal process.
Other times, bad decisions
must be overturned. An
example of a terrible SCO
TUS decision was Plessy
v. Ferguson (1896). The
Court’s Plessy decision le
galized “separate but equal”
(for Blacks). Segregation
and discrimination were a
direct result of separate but
equal. For 58 years, segre
gation was the law. If stare
decisis was always followed,
we’d still have segregation.
Plessy was a horrible and
unconstitutional decision
that was finally overturned
by Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954. Fast
week, Roe was overturned
because the Court’s 1973
decision was horrible and
unconstitutional.
So, what happens with
abortion? Fast week’s
SCOTUS decision restored
federalism. That means
the individual states will
regulate abortions, no dif
ferent than states regulat
ing most crimes - murder,
assault, shoplifting, etc. and
activities - businesses and
licensing.
Final Thought: Accord
ing to the Babylon Bee,
after last week’s SCOTUS
decision, the Dems paused
their January 6th hearings
and called for insurrection.
Sloan Oliver ofBolingbroke
is a retired Army office who
writes each week in the Re
porter. Email him atsloanoli-
ver@earthlink.com.
Based on the Supreme
Court’s Roe decision,
Fibs, Progressives, Feftists,
Dems, and similar extrem
ists claimed the Constitu
tion gave women the right
to murder her child in the
womb. NO, it doesn’t; it
never has. Rights (capital
R) come from God, not
from man. In the Roe deci
sion, the Supreme Court of
the United States (SCO
TUS) discovered the Con
stitution provides a “right
to privacy’ And based
on that newly discovered
right to privacy, SCOTUS
claimed a woman has the
right to do whatever she
wants with her body, to
include killing the baby de
veloping in her womb. Hey,
you evil Dems, “God didn’t
give you a Right to murder
a child in the womb.” The
Constitution guarantees
and codifies our God-given
Rights to Fife, Fiberty, and
Happiness which include
- free speech, free press,
free to worship God or any
god, the right to assemble,
to petition the government,
a right to self-defense, the
right to a trial by jury, and
several others. Your Rights
(our Rights) are valid as
long as they don’t infringe
on someone else’s Rights.
The argument that a wom
an has a “right to choose”
an abortion certainly
infringes on the baby’s
Right to life. Abortion isn’t
a right of “choice”; abortion
is the killing of an unborn
baby. Murder is not a Right.
Murdering unborn babies
is an evil travesty created by
despicable people, cloaked
in a lie called “women’s
choice.”
The Feftist Cabal never
tried to explain the con
voluted logic required to
argue their “privacy right”
to kill a baby. For example,
if a pregnant woman was
killed by a drunk driver,
that driver could, and
usually was, charged with
a double homicide. So, she
could voluntarily abort/kill
her own child (and was ap
plauded by Dems for doing
so), and it wasn’t murder;
but if someone else caused
that same baby to die it was
murder. Another example,
a pregnant woman could be
charged with child en-
dangerment if she abused
drugs or alcohol during her
pregnancy, and the baby
had a birth defect. Yet, she
could kill that same child
and Dems would celebrate.
A final example - a woman’s
body is hers to abort her
child, and nobody’s allowed
to tell her otherwise; yet
the same Feftist Cabal, that
said we must glorify her
privacy right to kill a baby,
disregarded our privacy
right and forced us to get
vaccinated against our will.
I agree that we have a
Right to privacy, just like
we have a Right to free
speech, to worship, bear
stitution
is (and
should be)
long and
arduous.
Amending
the Con
stitution
requires
two-thirds
vote of
Congress
(both
houses)
and 75%
of the
states to
pass/adopt
an amend
ment,
not seven
“activists”
justices
doing so
in private
chambers.
What is
judicial
activism?
Judicial
activism
is when a
judge (or
judges)
decides
to change
existing
law by
substitut
ing his/her
feelings
into what
they think
the law
should be.
Judicial
activism is
dangerous
because
it violates
the entire
legislative
process.
Simply
put, it’s
getting the
courts to
do what
someone
couldn’t
convince
state (or
federal)
legislatures
to do.
They do so
by find
ing judges
who will
overturn
laws (or
impose
new laws)
that activ
ists dis
agree with.
Activists
seek courts
with radi
cal judges
knowing
those
judges will
often over
turn a law
or impose
a new one.
Perfect
examples
of judicial
activism
are the
judges that
allow gun
control
THANK YOU
AMERICA
FOR HONORING
AND PROTECTING
MY LIFE AGAIN!
SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE
JUNE 24, 2022
orter