They’re not handling it well, our friends on the left.  They have veddy, veddy serious people making veddy, veddy serious claims that now that the Supreme Court is (according to them) captured by the extremist far right.  The next things to go will be “interracial marriage, women in the workplace, and evolution.”

The title of the piece from MSNBC caught me right away: “How Democrats Can Weaponize the Supreme Court’s Recent Rulings.”  Of course, if Republicans simply litigate competently, that’s bad and evil weaponization, but when they do it, it’s a reluctant plea to be “willing to be aggressive and break norms” that they’ve “previously wanted to maintain.”

On what planet have libs honored “norms”?  Didn’t we just witness a former president hauled into four different courts?  On never-before-used “novel” legal theories?  That should give you some idea how gravity-defying the thinking in this absolutely remarkable piece is.

First of all, this writer, David S. Cohen, professor of law at Drexel University, clearly hasn’t ever — I mean, ever — spoken to a conservative.  I doubt he’s ever even spoken to just a garden-variety Republican.

Second, the sub-headline on the piece tells you what’s coming:  “[Progressives] need to force the court’s hand by using the conservative majority’s supposedly neutral rules to push their own agenda.”

He begins:

The conservative justices on the Supreme Court handed the Republican Party win after win. The court restricted nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump. ... It allowed parents to opt their kids out of public school education that offended their religious upbringing. And it let the state of Texas require age verification before anyone looks at online porn.

On the issue of nationwide bans issuing forth from federal district courts, he puts out a big fat straw man of a president issuing a “plainly unconstitutional order.”  Note that it’s not simply something someone might disagree with policy-wise.  He turns it all the way up to “plainly unconstitutional.”

He goes on:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor [wrote]: “... A different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”

Yeah, good luck with that.  Also, how quickly they forget.

Remember when Obama put forth a rule saying that if you are on Social Security Disability, you can’t have a firearm?  No “due process,” which the left is fond of talking about lately.  Just poof.  The One speaks, and it’s gone.  A fundamental constitutional right.

Or how about the scattered and several state COVID rules keeping liquor stores open but closing churches?  Remember those?

Happily, the former was legislated away and the latter aged out of public compliance in fairly short order.  I doubt very much that the people would be willing to comply with such tyranny again, and in case someone should try, it would most certainly go all the way to the Supreme Court.  It’s hard to believe that even the most wacky judge (or justice) would find that Muslims can’t gather at a mosque to pray, which is what any ruling on any religious gatherings would mean, and I can absolutely guarantee you that should that ball get rolling, there will be a cross-litigant making that argument, and fast.  Heck, it could be dogs and cats; you could see CAIR and the ACLJ arguing that one together!  It’s one thing to terrorize a poor baker about making a cake (which is bad enough).  But preventing people from gathering to pray?  No way that survives SCOTUS scrutiny.  Even that sage of the Court, KBJ, would join the majority on that one.

Cohen moves on to the opt-out ruling:

The conservative majority said that schools that teach books that burden parents’ religious beliefs violate the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion. In order to avoid this, schools must offer kids an opt-out so they aren’t forced to learn about gay marriage or trans people. Critics of the court’s decision worry that parents might cite their faith to push back against books that include depictions of interracial marriage, women in the workplace or evolution.

First of all, we don’t need schools to teach our kids that “gay marriage or trans people” exist.  Any kid who spends any time with any iPhone or iPad knows that.  It’s impossible to avoid.  We’re not talking about simply “learning about” them.  It’s the indoctrination they object to.

Second of all...interracial marriage?  Women in the workplace?  Are you kidding?  And yes, evolution was, at one time, a matter ripe for religious objection, but that was a century ago!  Got anything from, oh, say, the last fifty years?  Twenty?  Half an hour ago?

This is the fevered, truly deranged imagination of someone locked in an MSNBC bubble, not a normal human who breathes fresh air and touches grass.  Good grief.

He then moves onto age verification for viewing porn sites:

The conservative justices said that while adults have the right to view pornography, minors don’t. Thus, Texas is allowed to put what the majority of the court viewed as a minimal burden on adults — the online age verification process — in order to stop minors from viewing porn, even though some adults viewed the process as violating their privacy.

He suggests that maybe a test case would be if, for instance, California tried to require age verification to view websites that sell or advertise guns.

Look, unlike guns, you do not have a constitutional right to porn.  Also not sure how many hormonal teenagers are hiding in the dark looking at...gun sites, but I guess in the fevered imagination of Professor Cohen, that’s a real gotcha!  (And don’t think for one second that these age rules will keep kids from finding all the porn — or gun — sites they want online.  It’s a fool’s errand, sadly.)

You have to be truly insulated to think any of these progressive gotchas are tenable at SCOTUS.  Maybe spinning up tales of evil conservatives going to SCOTUS to undo interracial marriage is all the rage at your average Manhattan cocktail party, but not anywhere else.  

Might I suggest Professor Cohen talk to a Republican?  Any Republican.  Just one.  It’ll help.  He’ll feel better.  About life.  About everything.  Poor dear.  His imagination is working overtime.

Image via Pxhere.