Democrats, in trend, warn of violence if Supreme Court rules against Roe v. Wade

Analysis by WorldTribune Staff, December 1, 2021

Analysts on both sides of the abortion debate are saying that oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday over a key Mississippi abortion case resulted in a huge victory for the pro-life side.

“The pro-life movement should rejoice with how the SCOTUS oral argument went,” said Roger Severino, a former Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official in the Trump administration. “I count six votes upholding the Mississippi law and 5 to 6 directly overturning Roe. Only Sotomayor defended the more extreme arguments of the pro-abortion side (and poorly).”

CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin tweeted: “If you believe that women should have the right choose abortion, today’s Supreme Court argument was a wall-to-wall disaster.”

Democrats warned before arguments in the case began that any decision that would damage the pro-choice cause could lead to violence.

“I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because — to go back to [reporter] 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,” New Hampshire Democrat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said on WMUR-TV. “Because I think that will not be acceptable to young women or young men.”

The case currently before the high court is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centers on the constitutionality of Mississippi’s 2018 law banning most abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation.

George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley noted a trend in “veiled threats” by lawmakers aimed at influencing court decisions.

“Sen. Shaheen is the latest member to issue a warning to the justices that they risk ‘revolution’ if they rule against Roe v. Wade,” Turley tweeted. “Such veiled threats are meant to influence how justices interpret the Constitution.”

Turley also cited Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who told The Hill in May that weakening Roe would “precipitate a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court.”

Last year, New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer laid a target on the backs of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, saying: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”

Turley said that the Constitution’s meaning “does not change depending on whether an interpretation is popular. Indeed, federal jurists are given life tenure precisely to protect them from this type of pressure and rhetoric.”

“If anything, such rhetoric may push justices to stand more steadfast in their role as interpreters of the Constitution,” Turley said. “They are supposed to be reading the law not yielding to popular demands or, worse yet, veiled threats.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton tweeted Tuesday that “Shaheen‘s unhinged comments threatening insurrection against the Supreme Court serves as a reminder that Schumer threats to the Supreme Court over abortion should still be criminally investigated.”

INFORMATION WORLD WAR: . . . . How We Win . . . . Executive Intelligence Brief