Executive action and Roe v. Wade
Imagine the uproar if a Republican president issued an executive order overturning Roe v. Wade. Liberal heads would explode.
The propaganda arm (media) of the Democrat (Socialist) Party would be running nonstop pieces on the president’s overreach. “The president does not have the ability to make law. Only Congress can make law.”
The logic in reversing the “subject” of a court case (or any issue) is helpful. Is this a just ruling? Would it be just, even if it went against my ideological leanings?
If you answered that it doesn’t matter, then we are no longer speaking about the rule of law, but the bald advance of my, or your, ideology.
So today we have liberals bemoaning the Court’s stay of a lower court’s ruling against Barack Obama’s executive order on illegal immigrants. While it is not hard to rationalize liberal attitudes (they’re liberal, after all), it is interesting to note the ruling of the Court’s four liberal justices. Surely they pondered the logic presented above. Does an executive have the ability to “make law”? Would they have voted the same way if the matter had been an executive order banning Roe v. Wade?
Of course not!
Thus, we have half the court abandoning law, and instead advancing their (liberal) ideology.
Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, with three distinct branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial), checking the other two. They also understood though that our system could only function if each branch served its intended function. If the executive can make law, the Supreme Court rubber-stamps the executive’s action (if it serves their ideological leaning), and the legislative branch demurs from opposition, then we, as a Republic, are doomed.
In a separate decision, the Court upheld the use of race in college admissions decisions – citing diversity. Would the Court have protected said litigant if, say, they sued to allow “religious conscience” as a criterion for diversity? Again, of course not!

Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. She is supposed to rule, independent of “the subject” of the case in front of her. The liberal-wing of the Court have abandoned the rule of law. They are blatantly advancing the executive's liberal agenda.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.” Sorry, Ben – we appear to be the generation that allowed tyranny to supplant liberty in America.
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- New York Greenlights Quarantine Camps
- Reality Check for Democrats
- A MAGA Siege of the Democrats’ Deep State
- Why Incel and 4B Culture Matter
- Defending Donald Trump: A Response to Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic on the Signal Leak
- Are Judges Complicit in Lawfare?
- Deep Dive: The Signal Chat Leak
- Mark Steyn’s Reversal of Fortune
- Where We Need Musk’s Chainsaw the Most
- Trump Is Not Destroying the Constitution, but Restoring It
Blog Posts
- This Tuesday, Wisconsonites must vote for Brad Schimel for the State Supreme Court
- Democrats should get a clue from the Palestinians who are now marching against Hamas
- Trump takes on Fauxahontas's brainchild
- Consumer Sentiment Survey: This too shall pass
- If they only had knife control....
- Newsom and Walz struggle to appear normal
- Anti-Trump lawfare: yes, it's a conspiracy
- Criminal attack? You're on your own.
- Amid disaster, watch Bangkok clean up and rebuild
- Katherine Maher shoots herself, and NPR, in the foot
- A visit to DOGE
- You just might be a Democrat if ...
- Yahoo Finance writer says Trump’s tariffs will see America driving Cuban-style antique cars
- Kristi Noem and the prison cell
- Dividing the Democrats