JORDAN SEKULOW, ACLJ
The Supreme Court ruled against life today.
On today’s Jay Sekulow Live, we discussed the Supreme Court’s latest ruling against life. Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote.
In yet another 5-4 Supreme Court decision, the Supreme Court struck down a law that was similar to a Texas law that the court struck down in 2016. There was a major flip in one of the justices. That was the Chief Justice. When the similar Texas law which was actually broader, came before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts had no problem siding with Texas and life as a dissenter.
The Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law which required abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges within thirty miles of an abortion clinic.
In this case, you see something very different from Chief Justice Roberts as he had exactly the opposite opinion on the Texas law. This is not so shocking with him because of what happened with the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). He did that same thing that he’s done in the past where the case itself, he didn’t agree with the reasons, however he agrees with the outcome so he made up his own way to get there.
The difference between their activist judges and our conservative judges is usually the activist judge already has in their mind where they are going to be in a ruling. They then just come up with a reason to get there. Conservative judges arrive at a decision by using reasoning process. In this case, he didn’t follow the reasoning; he followed the conclusion.
My dad, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, made the following point:
I think this is the issue that we have to be very cognizant of. Chief Justice John Roberts three years ago said the law was constitutional, a law that was much broader than this particular law. This was a more narrowly tailored law. Four justices dissented. Then of course, you had the switch of justices. What happens here? Chief Justice Roberts says I don’t agree necessarily with the reasoning of the majority, but because of stare decisis I am going to stick with that opinion.
Now, if that was the case, Plessy v. Ferguson, which was “separate by equal,” would still be the law of the land. There are times when stare decisis, the courts realize things were wrong. Korematsu, where the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, that case today would not be followed.
Chief Justice Roberts had an easy way to say I thought it was wrong then and I think it was wrong now, but he didn’t go that way.
ACLJ Senior Counsel Andy Ekonomou gave his analysis when he said:
That is very disappointing. Stare decisis simply means that cases have been decided one way the Supreme Court or any court should continue to follow precedent because it’s binding on a subject. Sometimes old decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu are wrong and you have to say they are wrong. You can’t rely on stare decisis, which is judicial precedent to say that they are right. Justice Roberts disappoints yet again by having the opportunity to do what he did in the Texas case in the Louisiana case. He didn’t do that. He joined with the majority and again disappoints, once again, those of us who are pro-life and believe in the sanctity of human life.
The full broadcast is complete with more discussion by our team of the recent Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a pro-life law in Louisiana.
Watch the full broadcast below.
Used with the permission of the American Center for Law and Justice.
Jordan Sekulow is an attorney and host of Jay Sekulow Live! and Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice’s (ACLJ) weekly television broadcast. Mr. Sekulow has served as a liaison between the ACLJ and its international affiliates. In 2014, he was appointed a Visiting Fellow of Oxford University at Harris Manchester College and served as a member of the Summer Research Institute at Oxford from 2014-2016. Sekulow is a graduate of Regent University School of Law, where he served as co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Regent Journal of Law and Public Policy.