NY Times Sucks Life Out of Constitution?

NY Times says Founding Father’s never intended Sup Ct to have “dominant” influence over issues like abortion. A** backwards? Key role Founders gave Justices WAS to be absolute CHECK on constitutional abuse by exec & pols …

It's like the WH flack insisting the other day that the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v Wade was “unconstitutional.” Da. The Justices, who ALWAYS have the sole & final say on the Constitution, finally overturned its earlier Roe ruling after 50 years BECAUSE it was a liberal abuse aka judicial rewriting of the Founding Fathers’ Constitution to suit a particular political agenda rather than its original legal principles … much like the monstrous Dred Scott decision making slaves “property” instead of human, which had to be rectified by a Civil War. As the Justice's majority opinion in Dobbs had emphasized, such welfare issues as abortion were constitutionally and wisely left up to the States to decide. As it turns out and as referenced in the Times piece itself, Kansas voters indeed just "voted overwhelmingly ... to keep abortion rights as part of the state's constitution." So, what's the beef now?

The Kansas referendum result notwithstanding, the Times piece had the gall to “show how progressives can confront the Supreme Court” going forward, including, by the tired-old ploy of packing the Court “or passing a law declaring any subject to be off limits from Supreme Court review.” The author David Leonhardt opines, “both, of which, to be fair, have happened in previous centuries.” So, our MSM and politicians are going to tell the US Supreme Court what is and what isn't "constitutional"? Without an Amendment? Good luck with that redefinition of fairness, logic & reality, David.

Davd Soul