Dobbs and the revitalization of Democracy

December 16, 2022. Despite the progressive narrative going in the opposite direction, Dobbs served to restore democracy. And, in any case, the Supreme Court was meant to be independent of public opinion and, instead, mandated to rely on the Constitution. Claims of a "antidemocratic, counter-majoritarian, and contemptuous of public opinion"are naive to ignorant, and certainly incorrect. By returning abortion to the states and the legislative process, democracy strengthens, if only by the debate around the issue that will ensue. As Mark Steyn has claimed, "Progressives don't want to win the debate; they want to shut down the debate." And that is a clear case of violation of both basic democracy and of the Constitution. The United States is a constitutional republic, not a "pure" democracy of votes from the national population. A republic recognizes and respects states' rights.

First, here is the claim (below):

Matthew Continetti writing in the December issue of Commentary:

The left has treated the affirmative-action cases as racial analogues to last term’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which the Court reversed the Roe v. Wade (1973) decision and restored abortion law to the states. After Dobbs, the media portrayed the Court as antidemocratic, counter-majoritarian, and contemptuous of public opinion. And they had half a point. The polls really did show that the public was against overturning Roe v. Wade. For Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, the Students for Fair Admissions cases, like Dobbs, have been taken up by a “heedless” Court eager to embroil itself “in some of the most inflammatory issues confronting the nation” after a “cataclysmic” term. There’s a problem with this analysis, however. . . . Americans support general efforts to promote opportunity and inclusion. But they oppose the explicit use of race as a criterion in college admissions, hiring, and promotion. The Court won’t be risking a backlash if it ends affirmative action. It will be on the side of the people.

And here is my well-received rebuttal of such an arrogant, fatuous claim: