Does Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) know anything about the history of the Supreme Court ?
Given the former speaker's recent comments about the Supreme Court issuing a ruling that goes against the precedent of a previous case, it’s a legitimate question to ask. Her remarks suggested she was not aware of court rulings reversing precedent or that it had done so in some of the court’s landmark decisions.
Moreover, using Pelosi’s logic about court precedents and her disapproval of them, it would seem that she would have disapproved of its 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, a decision that reversed the precedent of the discriminatory “separate but equal” established by the dourt’s 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Consider Pelosi’s words from an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday night.
While speaking to Cooper, Pelosi lamented the court’s decision in the landmark Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. She accused the court of “going rogue” when Cooper asked her if she had any confidence in the Supreme Court.
“No, I think they’ve gone rogue,” Pelosi said. “It’s most unfortunate. But it’s unfortunate further to see what the other justices, what happened to the chief justice? Did he go weak, or did he go rogue? I don’t know. And that’s the same thing with these members of Congress if I can take it back to that. … So no, I don’t have confidence in the Supreme Court.”
Then, without any factual details or explanation, Pelosi asserted that the court’s conservative justices committed some violation of sorts and put political ideology ahead of the law with the Dobbs decision. It was the kind of egregious calumny Pelosi has become known for during her last two decades in office.
“If they have a point of view about a woman’s right to choose, OK,” Pelosi said. “But that’s not what they’re there to do, to advocate for a point of view. Run for Congress. They’re there to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”
Pelosi continued her attack on the conservative justices by claiming that ignoring court precedents was an example of going rogue. She cited some of their testimonies during their confirmation hearings.
“Many of them said in their hearings for confirmation ... that they supported the precedents of the court," Pelosi said. "The precedents of the court supported the privacy in the Constitution. And what did they do? They vote their opinion on policy rather than the oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”
As mentioned above, Brown v. Board of Education was a decision against the court’s precedent to correct a tremendous wrong. So, too, did Dobbs. Overturning bad decisions from yesteryear is fundamental to the country’s democracy. I would give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt and say she knows this. She knows she is being deceitful, dishonest, and misleading in her performative rant. But those traits never mattered to Pelosi in her thirst for political power. So, instead of being honest during her interview, she resorted to the hyperbolic hysteria and fearmongering that has become an integral part of contemporary Democratic politics.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Pelosi disapproved of it because that decision ran counter to her beliefs. In essence, she was doing the very thing she accused the court’s conservative justices of — prioritizing political ideology ahead of the Constitution of the United States. The court has reversed precedent before. It is nothing new or unique to the current Supreme Court.
It is just sour grapes by Pelosi. For a politician who has condescendingly remarked about the need to protect democracy over the last few years, she sure gets flustered and angered when democracy doesn’t go her way. Her response resembled that of a Soviet statesman rather than a former speaker of the House in the United States. What the court ruled in Dobbs was democracy in action. Arguing anything otherwise is, for all intents and purposes, a threat to our constitutional republic.
Most Popular
Comments / 0