Roe decision shows Supreme Court is 'reining in its activism': Brett Tolman
Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman joins 'Life, Liberty & Levin' to weigh in on the Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, and what the decision means for the Constitution.
The Supreme Court returning the question of abortion to the states ignited a firestorm from liberal commentators across multiple platforms. One piece from The Washington Post Tuesday linked the abortion ruling to "voting rights" while blasting the court.
The "Perspective," written by Leah Litman, Melissa Murray and Kate Shaw, said, "It’s no coincidence that the court is making our democracy less democratic at the very moment it returns the issue of abortion to the political process."
The piece even went so far as to claim that the Supreme Court "has made several decisions that have hobbled the infrastructure of democracy."
BLOOMBERG OPINION PIECE SAYS ENDING ROE V. WADE IS ‘INSTITUTIONAL SUICIDE’ FOR SUPREME COURT
A general view of the exterior of The Washington Post Company headquarters in Washington, March 30, 2012. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
"What the court has done is to turn the issue of abortion over to politicians who are increasingly removed from the voters’ will, as well as increasingly extreme on issues of reproductive rights and women’s self-determination," they wrote, without noting that abortion had previously been handled by the Supreme Court, which is intentionally removed from the voters' will.
They appeared to imply that the court has been quietly ensuring conservative electoral victories by allowing "partisan gerrymandering" across the United States.
"Partisan gerrymandering allows politicians to, in effect, select their voters — and ensure that a particular party and its politicians remain in power even when a majority of voters want them out. By drawing voting districts in ways that advantage their own, political parties ensure their continued primacy — and artificially restrict the will of the majority," they claimed.
Outside United States Supreme Court June 25 (Fox News Digital/Lisa Bennatan)
TUCKER CARLSON: THE TRUTH ABOUT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE AND WHY DEMOCRATS WANT IT
No mention was made of how left-wing politicians are also gerrymandering and it is a practice historically used by both parties.
The piece did use maudlin rhetoric about identity politics, however, ranging from suggesting "the court is also poised to make it easier for states to dilute the voting power of racial minorities" to claiming their abortion ruling "allows states to treat women as less than full and equal citizens."
The authors asserted that "minority groups will have difficulties voicing their objections to abortion restrictions in electoral politics," even alleging that "the court blessed two voting rules in Arizona that disproportionately limit the votes of members of minority groups."
ATLANTA, GEORGIA - MAY 24: People use voting machines to fill out their ballots as they vote in the Georgia primary at the Metropolitan Library on May 24, 2022 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
"Given that the court has been steadily undermining democracy for the past decade, its recent appeal to democracy rings hollow — especially in the context of a decision that allows states to treat women as less than full and equal citizens," they concluded.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
By contrast, other commentators have praised the Supreme Court for giving power to the states rather than using power for the sake of activism. Executive Director of Right on Crime and former US attorney Brett Tolman remarked in an interview with Mark Levin that the Supreme Court appears to have "reined in" its activism for the first time in his living memory.