America, in case Democrats have forgotten, is a nation of laws, and chief among those laws is the Constitution.
From time to time, laws are made that conflict with that Constitution, and it’s the court’s job to determine when that has happened, and how to address those conflicts.
Being as we are all human, sometimes the Supreme Court itself makes bad decisions that need to be challenged and overturned in subsequent Supreme Court decisions. This is rare, to be sure, but it is by no means a new idea. We saw this play out with the Dred Scott case.
Now, the court is hearing a question that could touch a political third rail. The divided decision was controversial from the very beginning and its foundational/Constitutional logic has been criticized even by those who favor the consequences of the ruling. We mean, of course, Roe v. Wade.
Much has changed in the intervening decades between then and now, including the significant advances in our scientific understanding of human fetal development. But with an abortion case from Mississippi now before the court, abortion is, once again, a hot topic.
It’s fine to be passionate about your issue. But it’s never a good look to invoke ‘revolution’ if judges hearing the case might eventually decide to rule your favorite policy unconstitutional … especially if you are an elected official.
.@SenatorShaheen on new abortion restrictions going into effect in N.H. & the upcoming Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case: "I think if you want to see a revolution, go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is…" #NHPolitics #WMUR pic.twitter.com/O7weoVuOSk
— Adam Sexton (@AdamSextonWMUR) November 29, 2021
We all saw the summer of 2020. We know what a Democrat ‘revolution’ looks like. It’s ugly stuff. Nothing about it is ‘mostly peaceful’.
“I think if you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade’ and see what the reponse is of the public, particularly the young people.”
News flash, lady. The Supreme Court is a separate but equal branch of government. Threatening a riot if they don’t hold to your party line is what one might call ‘incitement of an insurrection’.
Also, did she not get the memo that even if Roe v. Wade gets struck down, individual states are free to define their own laws, the way New York and Vermont have? That’s called FEDERALISM, not authoritarianism. Try reading a book some time.
Here’s some more context for her incendiary statement.
Oral arguments will begin Wednesday in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns Mississippi’s HB 1510 law banning abortions from being committed past 15 weeks for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. The state is asking that the Court not only uphold the law, which prohibits abortion earlier than is currently permitted by the Court’s “viability” framework, but to take the opportunity to reverse Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which force all fifty states to recognize a “right” too abortion.
“I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because — to go back to Adam Sexton’s question — I think if you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is of the public, particularly young people,” Shaheen said Monday during a virtual event with WMUR reporter Adam Sexton and Shaheen’s colleagues in New Hampshire’s congressional delegation. “Because I think that will not be acceptable to young women or young men.”
I’ve lived the consequences of the pre-Roe era — I had friends in college who were forced to seek dangerous back alley abortions because women across the country were denied access to critical family planning services,” she declared in a separate statement, Fox News reports. “We cannot allow Republican lawmakers to turn back the clock on women’s reproductive health and rights, which is precisely what the Mississippi case seeks to do. It is time to sound the alarm. Roe v. Wade isn’t just a decision that impacts women, their health and their financial security — it also impacts generations of families.” –LifeSiteNews
For one thing, we’re calling Bullsh*t on her college friend story, because the guy who actually made those coathanger arguments in Roe v Wade has since recanted them.
Next, let’s revisit the Senator’s official statements after the second impeachment circus.
“One year ago, I voted for impeachment because I believed President Donald Trump violated his oath of office and was unfit for the immense responsibility that is required of the United States Commander in Chief. I believed it then and I believe it now,” said Senator Shaheen. “For months, the President used his platform and power to spread baseless claims of voter fraud that fanned the flames of dangerous conspiracy theories. His actions culminated with the attempted overthrow of the U.S. government. Donald Trump emboldened his supporters through a relentless campaign of lies and on January 6th encouraged a mob to march on Congress. His actions led to the murder of a Capitol Police officer and death of another. Bombs were planted around the Capitol; guns and Molotov cocktails were seized; and insurrectionists stormed Congress with zip ties prepared to take hostages. President Trump encouraged, and in the aftermath of the attack, reassured these terrorists.”
She continued, “Congress must act now to protect the Constitution and our nation from further insurrection and violence. The power to impeach is the most solemn and consequential power granted to Congress by the Constitution after the power to declare war. The House of Representatives has voted in favor of impeachment and now the Senate is required to fulfill its constitutional duty and hold a trial. I urge Leaders McConnell and Schumer to move swiftly.” –Shaheen Senate
Aside from asserting a variety of disproven claims involving Jan 6, she very clearly shows her opinion of an elected politician using his or her role to rally others to acts of political violence.
By the dictates of the very standard with which she has judged others, it must now be assumed that Senator Shaheen is entirely unfit for her office. For that reason, she should immediately resign.
Meaning no harm by it, obviously, cannot be a valid defense of such statements. Otherwise, she must have given the President the benefit of the doubt in that he explicitly called for his supporters to gather ‘peacefully and patriotically’.
If she, together with the other elected Democrats, fail to follow through on demanding her resignation, one must logically conclude that their hand-wringing about January 6th is nothing more than performative art. That it has nothing to do with the preserving of institutions and is everything to do with the timeless Democrat tradition of weaponizing the tools of government against rivals for political advantage.
If Federal Democrats care so very deeply about threats to the national institutions they were elected to embody and represent, it is clear that they can no longer allow their venerable institution to be sullied by someone who is, herself, emboldening and inviting future acts of politically-motivated violence.
Isn’t it time the Republicans start making these people play by their own rules?