BASED: Justice Thomas Lays the Smack Down on Libs

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case challenging Mississippi’s 2018 15-week ban on abortion has finally reached the Supreme Court of The United States and the greatest fears of pro-abortion leftists were immediately realized when the voice of Justice Clarence Thomas rang clearly through the court like a clarion call. In his first question for the US Solicitor General, it became clear that he was not intent like his more moderate fellow jurist Chief Justice John Roberts to potentially uphold Mississippi and Roe v. Wade at the same time. No, it became immediately clear that Justice Thomas would lead his more conservative colleagues in systematically dismantling Roe v. Wade one false premise and poor legal interpretation by one. Even Justice Samuel Alito who stunned court watchers by upholding past Stare Decisis rulings on abortion took a jaw-dropping stab at the precedent. But by far and away, Thomas has firmly established himself as the most ‘based’ Justice on the court today.

For those not in the know, according to UrbanDictionary,

A word used when you agree with something; or when you want to recognize someone for being themselves, i.e. courageous and unique or not caring what others think. Especially common in online political slang.

The opposite of cringe, some times the opposite of biased.”

Here’s the breakdown of Thomas’ amazing interactions during the hearing.

Justice Thomas: “Would you specifically tell me, specifically state, what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?”

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar: “The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas. But I think it promotes interests in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty, and equality. I think it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy whether to carry that baby to term.”

Justice Thomas: I understand we are talking about abortion here.

But what is confusing is that we — if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we are talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we’re talking about because it’s written. It is there. What specifically is the right here that we are talking about?

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar: “Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the court in those other contexts, with respect to those other amendments, has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the Constitutional guarantees. And it has done so through a variety of different tests that implement First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, and Fourth Amendment rights.

I don’t think there is anything unprecedented or anomalous about the right that the court articulated in Roe and Casey, and the way it implemented that right by defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability and providing that’s the moment when the balance of interest tips and when the state can act to prohibit a woman from getting an abortion, based on its interest in protecting fetal life.”

Justice Thomas later took a different trajectory asking Prelogar,

”Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother?“

US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar replied with a non-answer, “That’s not what this case is about, but a woman has a right to make choices about her body.” and the blood was clearly in the water.

The Left And The Right React To ‘Based’ Justice

The right and independent media cheered and showed almost universal approval to the critical and robust challenges levied by the Justices, as the left-wing media and activists seethed throughout the day, calling for an end to the filibuster, expansion of the court and for Senators Manchin and Sinema to accomplish both.

Related Posts