The Supreme Court declined to hear a case yesterday challenging a Pennsylvania school district’s policy allowing so-called transgender students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choosing based on the gender they identify with.
This was an obvious setback for morality and traditional values while chalking up another victory for the agenda of the pro-LGBT radical left. But I believe it also gives us an indication as to how the Court might handle the abortion issue following the passage of worthless abortion laws like those recently passed in Georgia and Alabama.
Why are they worthless? Because despite the pro-life hype, these laws were written in such a way as to do little-to-nothing to end abortion. The only reason these laws were passed was to make the GOP look like they’re pro-life — a classic election-season ploy — and to make yet another attempt at passing the life issue off on the Supreme Court. I believe their scheme will fail based on the transgender case mentioned above.
The Supreme Court has the discretion to accept or reject the cases it will review based on its own set of rules. Currently, the rules only require the vote of four of the nine justices to accept a case. This means the Supreme Court Trump and the GOP claimed to save failed to garner the four votes necessary in the transgender case.
Even if you take Chief Justice Roberts and the four “liberal” justices out of the picture, this decision means one of Trump’s “strict constructionist” justices refused the hear the case. The lower courts had ruled in favor of the LGBT and the Supreme Court let that decision stand.
Now, what happens when we change the issue is to abortion?
The Georgia and Alabama laws are guaranteed to be overturned by the lower courts, and an appeal to the Supreme Court is a given. Will the case manage to get four justices to agree to hear it, knowing the implications it will carry concerning Roe v. Wade? Not likely, even with Trump’s court-saving appointments.
Brett Kavanaugh testified during his confirmation hearing that he considered Roe v. Wade “settled Supreme Court precedent” and has been “reaffirmed many times.” And since joining the court, he has supported public funding of Planned Parenthood.
Neil Gorsuch lacked any history with the abortion issue, but when questioned about abortion during his confirmation hearing, he told pro-abortion Senator Diane Feinstein that a good judge “stays with precedent and does not try to reinvent the wheel.” I’ll leave it up to you as to what that means about his position on the Georgia and Alabama laws.
The Founding Fathers never intended for the judiciary to wield the power the cowards in Congress have given it. But with Republicans and Democrats more concerned about protecting Republicans and Democrats than they are the Constitution, that’s not likely to change any time soon.
That’s bad news for the Constitution, and it’s bad news for unborn Americans who will continue to be denied their unalienable right to life.
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His politically incorrect and always “right” columns are also featured on NOQReport.com.
His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.
Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.
Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS
2 comments for “Supreme Court’s transgender decision is a bad sign for ending abortion”