The U.S. Supreme Court has proven (again) that it cannot be trusted to preserve liberty in the 50 states.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal bloc of the court this week to strike down a Louisiana law that required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Whatever you believe about the merits of the case, two things are clear.
First, the ruling restricts the rights of Louisiana residents to govern themselves. The law was legally passed in the state legislature, which better represents the will of Louisianans than a far-away Supreme Court. The federal government has (again) flexed its muscles at the expense of self-governance.
Second, Roberts' justification for his ruling is, in the words of the Cato Institute's Ilya Shapiro, "capricious."
In 2016, Roberts voted in favor of a Texas law that was nearly identical to the Louisiana law. He flipped his vote, he argued, because the Supreme Court has a duty to uphold previous decisions, an idea known as stare decisis.
There's just one problem: stare decisis isn't absolute, and the "precedent" was one case decided only four years ago.
Shapiro explains:
Chief Justice Roberts’s capricious application of stare decisis is startling. After all, stare decisis didn’t stop him from overturning precedent in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), Janus v. AFSCME (2018), and Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), cases in which the precedent was much older and more entrenched, but a very recent close decision in which he dissented apparently carries more weight.
Common sense can pretty easily explain Roberts' real motivation. In the Texas case, the ruling was 5-3, so his vote would not have tipped the scales in favor of liberty. In this case, he recognized that his vote would be the deciding factor, and he wasn't willing to follow his conscience and risk the disapproval of the Twitter mob.
If you're relying on men like Roberts to stand up for freedom and self-governance, you're barking up the wrong tree. Instead, we have a better idea: an Article V Convention of States.
A Convention of States doesn't require the approval of the Supreme Court (or Congress or the President). It's called and controlled by the states, and has the power to propose constitutional amendments. These amendments can limit the power, scope, and jurisdiction of the federal government (including the Supreme Court). They can impose fiscal restraints on Congress and mandate term limits for all federal officials (including Supreme Court justices).
It takes 34 states to call such a Convention and 38 states to ratify any amendment proposals. Right now 15 states have called for such a Convention, and millions of Americans have voiced their support.
If you're tired of banging your head against the walls of the Supreme Court, join the Convention of States movement by signing the petition below!
