In a September 28, 2021 article for Raw Story, Terry H. Schwadron reports:
[Jessica] Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School...explains that [Jonathan] Mitchell, who now runs his own one-man law firm, is dead set against both Roe and the cases governing same-sex rights because "they're based on judges, well, judging."
The same Jonathan Mitchell who is seeking termination of abortion as legally valid argues in his Mississippi abortion case challenge due for hearing in December that women can have no protected right to abortion because it was never written in the Constitution.
The metaethical question implicit here — as always, when discussing Constitutional fundamentalism — is this: Is it relevant that the Constitution itself is based on Madison, well, maddening, and the Founding Fathers, well, foundering? Or, are those human sources infallible or otherwise not to be questioned, and the only human infallibility that matters is judges, well, judging?
If you'd like to learn more about my work, I've published books. Also, I write for Medium. There, readers with a paid membership don't have to worry about the paywall.
Here, Kristi Noem uses the term "activist" as an insult against a judge to explain why she doesn't have to follow the judge's orders.
(While we're here, think about what it means when they call anyone else an activist. It's just a word they use to delegitimize that person and whatever power they may have.
KARL: Did you know about the judge's order when you issued your order for the planes to continue? KRISTI NOEM: This is an activist judge. We comply with all federal orders that are lawful and binding.
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) November 30, 2025 at 11:28 AM
[image or embed]
They’re simultaneously arguing that soldiers have to follow all orders from the president, legal or not, but they get to ignore orders from a federal judge if they feel they’re not legal.
— Kevin M. Kruse (@kevinmkruse.bsky.social) November 30, 2025 at 12:43 PM
[image or embed]
No comments:
Post a Comment