“That’s it! You got it, honey, the case cracker! Me in the shower!”
Such was the outburst from fictional lawyer Vincent LaGuardia Gambini upon viewing a stack of photos presented to him by his fiancé, Mona Lisa Vito, towards the final act of the 1992 comedy classic movie, “My Cousin Vinny.” In the moment, Gambini was going over evidence -- or the lack of it -- that could exculpate his clients in a murder trial with extremely high stakes for his own family (Vinny’s nephew Billy and his best friend were on trial for a crime they didn’t commit).
It turns out Vito’s otherwise innocuous personal pictures did contain the crucial clue that ultimately won Gambini the case, but Vinny’s flareup and subsequent closer examination of the content was what triggered his conclusion, not the particular snapshot where he was shown mostly concealed behind a shower curtain. The lesson: not everything is as it appears on first glance, a truism in politics as well as in effective cinematic storytelling.
Democrats seem to be experiencing a similar bout of delusion these days as opinion poll after opinion poll shows their electoral fortunes probably going down the tubes in the upcoming federal midterm elections. Undeterred by reality, liberals continue searching for a magic “case cracker” of their own, hoping to find the single issue or attention-grabbing politician who would galvanize voters across the nation and force them to forget skyrocketing inflation, a non-existent southern border (teaming with illegal aliens yearning to jump the line and get gobs of free dough from hapless Uncle Sam’s bankrupt treasury) a foreign war and questions about senile president Joe Biden’s fitness for office. Biden apparently figured the specter of diminutive Russian leader Vladimir Putin would be sufficient to get Americans restive enough to want to keep Democrats in power. It hasn’t worked out so well for them. Not content to sit idly by as evidence mounts of voter fury, some Democrats look to the conservative originalist Supreme Court majority to provide the requisite spark for the party base to rise up and defy the odds in a little less than seven months. The high Court will soon announce its decision in the potentially republic altering case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which very likely could include a long sought reversal of Roe v. Wade, the tragic 1973 decision legalizing national abortion which has led to the deaths of tens of millions of unborn babies.
Hopeful leftists think five or six Justices ditching the terribly out-of-date Roe decision will open up Pandora’s Box of Democrat votes for them. Chronically-wrong Fox News commentator Juan Williams wrote at The Hill:
“A ruling drastically weakening, if not overturning, abortion rights is sure to be a polarizing issue stirring up this year’s midterm elections. Expect plenty of Democratic ads to feature [Justices] Barrett, Kavanaugh and Thomas as a reminder of the ongoing threat to those rights...
“Last week, Florida, Oklahoma and Kentucky advanced laws restricting abortions. The Kentucky law is written along the lines of the Mississippi abortion law now before the court that could result in overturning Roe. Conservatives lost the confirmation battles over Bork and Jackson. But in the current battle over constitutional protections for abortion rights they are likely to score a win given the court’s 6-3 right-wing majority.
“The next battle will feature liberals trying to claw back abortion rights. Soon-to-be Justice Jackson will be a leader of that movement.”
Soon to be Justice (hasn’t she been sworn in yet? I guess not until Breyer officially leaves.) Ketanji Brown Jackson doesn’t strike me as a leader of any movement other than the typical “You were mean to a black woman by asking her questions about her beliefs and record! How dare you!” Democrat grievance causes. The woman hasn’t even been a judge at the federal appellate level for a year, yet liberals like Juan Williams still itch to anoint her head of the save-abortion movement. Some leader.
Did Juan and those similarly ideologically inclined suddenly declare, “That’s it! The case cracker! Abortion in the Supreme Court!”, and, “That will send those rascally Republicans to defeat in November because they think a gestating fetus is an actual human being with a right to life! Let the minions hit the streets!”
Somehow, I doubt the nation’s reaction to the Supreme Court decision tossing out Roe will have the Democrats’ desired rage effect. Most sane people aren’t nearly so attached to a 49-year-old legal precedent that used flawed, outdated and stretched reasoning to establish a federal right for something that’s not even mentioned in the Constitution. Abortion would be the law of the land, unfortunately, if Congress passed a law establishing it (subject to Court review, of course!). But no such statute exists. The day that Roe is struck down -- I should say if it’s struck down -- abortion will still exist in states where legislatures have established such a “right”. Anticipating that the Roe ruse’s days are numbered, leftists are working frantically in many other liberal states to ensure that the abortion clinics will remain functioning uninhibited regardless of what happens at the federal level. I’m not wild about the idea, but it is part of federalism.
In the United States, we agree to disagree on a lot of things. For the rest, we pass Amendments to the Constitution. We haven’t heard much lately about a constitutional amendment for unborn life, but we probably will again in the near future.
Democrats aren’t content to allow pro-life states to make their own laws, tirelessly arguing that it’s a woman’s “right” to have a third person kill a burgeoning life. We shouldn’t be afraid of these awful activists. We have the moral momentum on our side. And with ultrasound images, we can see the baby inside the womb. It’s hard to argue. But liberals do it anyway.
Politically speaking, let the Democrats defend abortion. Not just speak halfheartedly about how it should be “safe, legal and rare” as Big Bubba Bill Clinton lectured all those years ago, but to actually justify the fully exposed procedure of dissecting a growing human child in a mother’s womb and then vacuuming out the parts to be disposed of… God knows how and where. It’s sick, and only the morbidly insane defend it.
It used to be Democrats and various other abortion backers could get away with claiming, “I’m personally against abortion but I wouldn’t deny a woman the right to make up her own mind as to whether to keep the child.” That soft and hypocritical notion is losing momentum, because it makes the speaker unable to defend either principle. You can’t be for half an abortion, can you?
What if someone said, “I don’t own a firearm and am opposed to shooting anyone but I still support the right to own a gun?” Would the abortion mongers take to such reasoning?
As would be expected from someone of his ideological predilection, Williams advanced the usual political arguments to beg for preserving abortion. He says abortion must be safeguarded because otherwise, financially strapped women and racial minorities will be disproportionately impacted. If poor mothers aren’t able to afford their babies, by logical extension, shouldn’t the federal government mandate that women below a certain income level either abort their child or give it up to someone with means who can support it? What is this, China? Heck, the Virgin Mary wasn’t exactly well-off. And she wasn’t married, either -- at least when she conceived her baby, yet she carried the child to term and her betrothed married her. Do liberals favor retroactive historical abortion too?
And if over fifty percent of abortions involve Hispanic and African-American women, shouldn’t Democrats argue that the practice is de facto discriminatory against them, that their populations won’t expand due to a federal custom that favors killing minorities at much higher rates than whites? If you state “Black Lives Matter”, then you should mean it!
Curiously, Williams also suggested that outlawing abortion would be contrary to the prevailing mood of corporate America, too. He added, “In the last few weeks, corporate heavy hitters including Apple, Citigroup and Yelp have announced they will cover travel costs for employees who must travel out of state to obtain abortions.” How is this relevant? Is Juan suggesting that Democrats will now flock to Apple, Citigroup and Yelp because they’re helping pregnant women obtain abortions against the laws of their own jurisdictions? What about the inevitable backlash against “woke” corporations interfering in the political arena? Do you hope Citigroup joins the culture war? How about Disney -- will they fly employees to California and New York so they can abort their babies legally?
“That’s it, honey! The case cracker! Send women to New Jersey for an abortion!”
This is no laughing matter. Democrats hope that a Court reversal of Roe will rouse leftists to vote in November, but don’t abortion lovers already vote for the liberal party by huge majorities? Like slavery in the early 19th century, abortion today is on its way out. The issue can’t be compromised, and defending the practice is getting that much harder to justify.
Democrats better start looking for some other cause to animate people this November. Abortion ain’t it.
Joe Biden economy
Democrat welfare bill
Build Back Better
13 House Republicans Infrastructure bill
Marjorie Taylor Green
2024 presidential election