Kamala Harris and Israel

I was not happy that both VP Kamala Harris and Republican VP candidate J.D. Vance failed to attend the speech given by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a joint meeting of Congress on July 24.  Harris' absence was more significant, as she would have jointly presided over the meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson.  And, Harris is a nominee for president, not vice president.  Axios estimated that approximately half of the Democrats in Congress (the House and Senate) failed to attend the speech.  Shameful!  Israel is our major ally in the Middle East, and one of our best allies in the world, and is in a fight for its existence.  Yet all those Democrats couldn't be bothered to attend?  Well, Harris did have to speak at a sorority convention, which of course takes precedence over NOTHING!

Harris did meet with Netanyahu the next day, after which she spoke to the press from previously written remarks.  I will say, she has learned how to read her speeches without her previous unserious demeanor.  And without the ridiculous laughter.  Harris:  "I also expressed with the Prime Minister, my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza.  Including the death of far too many innocent civilians.  And I made clear my serious concern about the dire humanitarian situation there."

If she had bothered to attend Netanyahu's speech, she would have heard him say that Israel has allowed over 40,000 aid trucks to enter Gaza, delivering half a million tons of food.  According to Netanyahu, that amounts to over 3000 calories a day for every man, woman and child in Gaza.  Except, of course, that we don't know how much Hamas steals and gives to their own leaders and fighters.

Harris:  "The images of dead children, and desperate hungry people fleeing for safety...We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies.  We cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent."  If that's the best you've got, Madam VP, I wish you would shut up.  Yes, war is terrible.  Yes, images of dead children are especially heart wrenching.  But I think we can all be grateful that you were not leading the country during WWII.  I can only imagine how much you would have fretted over the deaths of Germans.  Would you have told Eisenhower to stand down, because too many Germans might die?  I won't even discuss the bombing of Dresden. 

After saying there was a deal on the table, Harris said this:  "It is time for this war to end.  And end in a way where Israel is secure, all the hostages are released, the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza ends, and the Palestinian people can exercise their right to freedom, dignity and self-determination."  Is it time for the war to end before Hamas is eradicated?  Or, do we let Hamas remain in power, even though they have promised to commit another October 7 type raid on Israel over and over and over again?  

How will you make sure Israel is secure, Madam VP?  How will you make sure all the hostages are released?  Did you ever talk about the suffering of Palestinians before October 7, having to live under the dictatorial rule of Hamas?  Because, in your speech you told Israel what it must do.  What must Hamas do?  It would have been nice if you said Hamas must lay down its arms and agree to an unconditional surrender.  But I guess not.  

With a rather strident tone, Harris admonished Netanyahu:  "It is time to get this deal done!"  And:  "To everyone who yearns for peace, I see you and I hear you...And ultimately, I remain committed to a path forward that can lead to a two state solution."  You think that the Israelis don't yearn for peace.  In their short 76 years since declaring independence, Israel has had to fight war after war after war.  Since this current war began on October 7, 2023, it is estimated that up to 100,000 Israelis have been displaced from their homes, some in the North (because of Hezbollah's missiles, thousands of which have been launched since October 8) and some in the South (since Hamas invaded Israel).  Where is your sympathy for that humanitarian crisis?  

Madam Vice President, either you are incredibly naive, or you believe that the bad guys of the world should be appeased.  Which is what Obama and Biden believe.  Maybe you ought to take a lesson from Winston Churchill.  Recall the Munich Agreement, when in 1938 British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed that Germany could take over the Sudetenland.  In believing he had avoided war, Chamberlain returned to England and announced "peace for our time."  But Churchill knew better:  "You were given the choice between war and dishonor.  You chose dishonor, and you will have war."  Which is exactly what Biden's and your appeasement of Iran has accomplished.  War.   

Kamala Harris

Yes, I know she was anointed.  Biden had the right to run as the Democratic nominee by getting enough delegates following his primary victories.  But, following his disastrous debate performance, he was forced out.  Even the New York Times opined that he had to go.  My first thought was that the Democrats would have an open convention, as the the delegates previously bound to vote for Biden were now free to vote for whomever they might want.  I was interested in seeing who might jump in.  But the Democratic power brokers would have none of that.  They did not dare risk a contentious convention - not after seeing how unified the Republicans were at their convention.  

The Democrats could not even tolerate the usual floor vote at the convention, announcing in advance that the delegates had voted and Harris won.  I'm old enough to remember the talk of the "smoke filled backroom deals," when party bosses had a say as to who the nominees for president and vice president would be.  But today's Democrat Party is the party that is going to save our democracy.  Just don't ask them to participate in the democratic process.   And, of course, there's the money.  The $200 million Biden war chest that would pass to Harris because she was (would be) on the ticket with Biden.  

Yes, J.D. Vance had previously made a ridiculous comment about "childless cat ladies."  But does anyone seriously expect the Democratic Mainstream Media Complex to tell us about what Harris has previously said?  Let's take a look.  December, 2017, she expressed her irate concern about illegal immigrant children this way:  "How dare we speak Merry Christmas!" when these children are suffering.  On it's face, it may sound nice.  A concern for the kids.  But is it?  Some kids are suffering in various places around the world at all times.  Does that mean we should take all the joy out of life?  Dennis Prager says happiness is a moral imperative, as happy people make the world a better place.  But, if you prefer to be miserable, I would choose the meme my daughter sent to me:  "If you replace your morning coffee with green tea, you can lose up to 87% of what little joy you have left in life."

On various occasions, and on September 11, 2022, Harris said this:  "The border is secure."  Maybe that depends on what your definition of "secure" is.  But if you watch Fox TV, you would see the daily hordes crossing into our country from countries all around the world.  But she won't watch Fox.  And the border czar isn't interested in going to the border.  But just ignore this, or you might think that Harris is a liar - and we know that only Trump lies.   

August 16, 2019:  "We're not gonna treat people who are undocumented (who) cross the border, as criminals."  Well, except that federal law says it is a crime to enter into the U.S. without authorization.  But, hey, Biden doesn't care about the law either, as he has kept up with his student loan forgiveness plan even after the Supreme Court said he had no power to do so.  Democrats - the party that will protect democracy.  Remember?

Speaking of power.  On September 4, 2019, Harris said this:  "As President of the United States I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a green new deal."  Just curious, how does the President have the power to change the Senate's filibuster rule?

Harris likes to remind us that she was a prosecutor.  She's tough.  Well, not on illegal aliens.  Or on those arrested following the riots after George Floyd was killed by a police officer.  Here was Harris' post on Twitter:  "If you're able to, chip in now to the MN Freedom Fund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota."  She said the protesters would not stop, and they shouldn't stop.  Although, she did condemn the violence and looting.  I see.  So, on January 6, 2021, when Trump said the various things he said, and also said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," that didn't count?  Harris get a pass for supporting rioters by saying she condemns violence.  Did Trump get a pass for his support for the January 6 protesters, by saying to protest "peacefully and patriotically?"  Of course not.

And this tough prosecutor said this on September 22, 2020:  "It is wrongheaded thinking to think that the only way you're gonna get communities to be safe is to put more police officers on the street."  That's funny.  It is so lacking in common sense that it must have been meant as a joke.  Cities across the country tried this defunding the police nonsense, and then reversed course when crime spiked.  Crime on NYC subways got so bad that the Governor ordered National Guard troops to assist the police.  Right, who needs cops on the street.

Here is something that Harris said that should offend all Americans.  She was speaking at a Los Angeles mosque:  "We must have the courage  to object when they use that term, "radical Islamic terrorism," which ignores how Muslims have overwhelmingly been the greatest victims of terror."  Listen up, Madam VP, it was RADICAL ISLAMIST TERRORISTS who killed nearly 3000 Americans (and others) on September 11, 2001.  How dare you suggest otherwise!  In fact, law-abiding and America loving Muslims should have also been offended by that comment, because I would think that they would want to distance themselves from the radical Islamists.  And, if Muslims have been the greatest victims of terror, it has been at the hands of radical Islamists.   

What about Harris and Israel?  Please see the next post.  

"I don't view the Dems with the same fear as I do Trump."

So said a dear friend who is a reader of the blog.  I believe he is a registered independent, and describes himself as center-right.  I know he agrees with much of what follows - which is why I frequently said "I think you agree."  After an exchange of some texts, and upon seeing the above from him, I replied as follows:

"I almost don't know what to make of that.  The Left (Democrats) has ruined every institution that they have gained control over.  They ruined our education system, turning it into leftwing America hating and Israel hating and now Jew hating bastions of propaganda.  I think you agree.

They ruined the mainstream media, which only challenges power when it is exercised by Republicans.  They act as a mouthpiece for Democrats.  That is not healthy for our democracy.  I think you agree.

They ruined Hollywood, too, which is now just another leftwing propaganda machine.  I think you agree.

Much of our federal and state bureaucracies are infected with leftwing woke bullcrap and DEI.  I think you agree.

The Democrats have ceded American sovereignty to the drug cartels, in the hopes that all those illegals will become Democrats.  I think you agree.

The Democrats seek permanent power, as occurred in California.  End the filibuster, add states to get extra Senate seats, now the latest Supreme Court "reforms."  You know as well as I do that Biden would not be saying that SCOTUS is a threat to our democracy if all nine justices were leftwing.  I think you agree.

Support for Israel from the Democrats has been waning for some time.  I think you agree.

Leftwing DAs, defunding the police, have made many cities unsafe.  I think you agree.

But you fear Trump.  You and I did not like his words or deeds on January 6.  But, he didn't ask the military to keep him in power.  He left the White House without being thrown out.  The Left has always exaggerated what Trump would do.  Before he took office, they said he would start WWIII.  Just the opposite.  The Abraham Accords.  Russia did not invade Ukraine, as with Obama and Biden.  Hamas didn't attack Israel, as with Obama and Biden.  He didn't appease Iran.  He enforced sanctions so they wouldn't have money to support terrorism.  He killed Soleimani.  There is only peace through strength - from Washington to Kennedy to Reagan to Trump.  Appeasement brings war.  

He's not going to end NATO.  He may not support Ukraine the way you and I would like.  And I've said for decades that neither party watches out for the people's money.  You, my dear friend, are more concerned about a bunch of "what ifs" over "what is."

I am sure that I told you about the best phone call to talk radio that I ever heard.  A self described Jewish woman called (conservative talk radio host) Dennis Prager, and said her father loves Prager, always listens to his show, and always agrees with him.  Prager very knowingly asked:  how does he vote?  I was in my car, and before she could answer I blurted out:  Democrat, I'm sure.  Yep, Democrat.  You are that woman's father.  Your self identity is so ingrained in being a Democrat (I don't care how you're registered), in having a Democratic way of looking at the world, that you are unable to escape it.

As Rome is burning all around us, you will vote for the most radical presidential candidate in history, someone who just may help bring about the end of Israel, and the end of America as you and I have known it.  Because, Trump might start WWIII."

I gave my friend the opportunity to reply to any or all of the above, indicating I would post it as his rebuttal without further comment by me.  He declined.    

The Attempted Assassination Of Former President, And Current Presumptive Republican Nominee For President, Donald Trump

Some were not surprised.  After all, ever since riding the escalator down within Trump Tower in NYC on June 16, 2015, Trump has likely been the most persecuted person in U.S. history.  Type into the search bar of the web version of the blog:  "The Deposing of an American President," written on March 12, 2017.  That's right.  Less than 2 months into his presidential term, Democrats were looking for ways to get Trump out of office.  Because, you know, they care about democracy, as they constantly tell us.  Unless, the democratic vote results in a Donald Trump elected to the presidency, in which case he became an "illegitimate" president, and democracy be damned. 

I also suggest taking a look at my June 16, 2018 post, "The Left's Non-Stop Hate."  More recently, we know that the Democrats and President Biden have repeatedly called Trump a threat to our country and our democracy.  And, too often, there have been those who have equated Trump with Hitler.  What a disgusting comparison.  As one friend and reader texted me about the way he heard Biden's comments:  "I am so glad to hear that Donald J. Hitler, aka 'son of Satan' is okay."  Dark?  Yes.  Disturbing?  Yes.  But hard to miss his point.  

Here was Biden in January of this year:  "Whether democracy is still America's sacred cause is the most urgent question of our time...that's what the 2024 election is all about."  And this:  "Now these MAGA voices who know the truth about Trump on January 6th have abandoned the truth and abandoned democracy."  

In case there was any doubt, here was Biden's deputy campaign manager:  "Our campaign believes that it is a moral obligation that we paint the picture of the threat that Donald Trump and the Republican Party pose to America."  There it is - the Republican Party is a threat to America.  They've said it enough that many now believe it.  I am curious as to how referring to half of the country as a threat to the country is in any way unifying, as Biden assured us multiple times, that he would be.  (No, I am not, and have not, excused the bad things Trump has said.  But he was the one who was shot, so I'm looking at those who may have motivated this shooter.  And, if Trump's own words turn out to be the motivation for the shooting, I will report that.)

But, I digress.  What we do know is that the shooter was a 20 year old resident of Pennsylvania.  As of now, we do not have his motive for the shooting.  And I have repeatedly said, that when it comes to these political shootings (it's political by its very nature, even if politics was not the motive) we should always blame the shooter - the perpetrator.  We know that at age 17, the perpetrator made a small donation of $15.00 to a Democratic PAC.  At age 18 he registered to vote as a Republican.  He was also described as a loner, as many of these shooters often are.  

It has also been reported that bombs and/or bomb making material, were found in the shooter's home and vehicle.  We also know that there was a major security failure that allowed the shooter to take up a position with a rifle on the roof of a building about 150 yards from where Trump was speaking.  Why was that site left unsecured?  It was also reported that a police officer climbed up the side of the building, but retreated when the shooter pointed his rifle at the officer.  Shades of Uvalde.  I can understand ducking down, but why not raise your hand with your weapon over the top of the roof and start firing?  Even if the officer missed, the shots would have alerted the protective detail and they could have removed Trump from the stage.

I was very impressed by the agents surrounding former President Trump, shielding him with their own bodies.  And while the female agent also did the same, it was quite obvious that she was considerably shorter than Trump, making it difficult, if not impossible, for her to protect his head.  I heard or read that thanks to DEI, the Secret Service had a goal of having 30% women.  Not really the best idea.  But were there no tall women available to protect Trump?  

Sadly, a 50 year old man, Corey Comperatore, was killed by the shooter.  Corey used his body to shield his daughters, and in doing so suffered the fatal wound.  May G-d bless his soul, and his family, and may his memory forever be a blessing.  Two others were wounded and originally listed in critical condition.  Thankfully, they are both now described as being stable.  

Tonight, President Biden spoke to the nation from the oval office.  Biden:  "...while we may disagree, we are not enemies.  We are neighbors, we are friends, coworkers, citizens, and most importantly we are fellow Americans.  We must stand together."  Again, it is still unknown if any of the heated political rhetoric played a role in motivating the shooter.  And Biden's comments are 180 degrees away from his earlier statements.  Now let's see if he, and others, follow through with what he said.

Presidential Immunity - Part III (Let's Get Real)

In a July 2 Wall Street Journal editorial, reported online, they referred to something called the "Empirical SCOTUS" blog.  According to that site, 45.8% of the cases decided in the 2023-2024 term were unanimous.  Yes, I know.  Unanimous decisions often result from cases with less controversial issues.  Nevertheless, unanimity is unanimity.  And all nine justices agreed that states could not decide to keep Trump off the ballot.  And, all nine refused to give standing to pro-life doctors who wanted to sue the FDA and keep the abortion pill mifepristone off the market.

The paper notes that 22 cases were decided by a 6-3 decision; but only half of those were along ideological lines of 6 conservatives vs. 3 liberals.  Then, of course, there were the 8-1 decisions and 7-2 decisions.  So, let's get real with regards to the Democrats' self-professed panic mode.  They are the ones undermining the legitimacy of the Court for their own political ends.  

In dissent, Justice Sotomayor gave the most extreme possible examples of the abuse of presidential power, and then claimed a president could get away with it.  Such as a president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, or organizing a military coup.  Please.  Notwithstanding his protestations about the fairness of the 2020 election, Trump left office with doing no such thing as a military coup.

The New York Post's July 1 editorial had it right.  "The best course now would be for Smith to drop the (January 6) case altogether and for prosecutors, and their Democratic patrons, to swear off the use of further lawfare to take down political foes once and for all."  And:  "All that continuing this prosecution does is continue to sow division and weaken the nation's already shaky political institutions."  

What the Democrats and the left ignore are all the remedies still available to protect the country from a power hungry president.  A president can be impeached by the House, and if convicted by the Senate, is removed from office.  I fully acknowledge that those voting must be people of good will - but that's a problem with the Congress, not the presidency.  A president may also be removed from office by a vote of the people.  It's called an election.

And, in their July 2 editorial in their paper, the Wall street Journal noted:  "Another principle is that the burden is on the prosecutor to show that an official act doesn't deserve immunity."  They were referring to a quote from Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion:  "At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."  An exception to every rule.  

In reply to Justice Sotomayor, the Chief Justice opined:  "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."  I am, curious, however, as to which of her fellow justices she believes would find that using Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival (no, I cannot imagine any president doing that) to be beyond prosecutorial reach.  I wish she had shown the courage to have named them. 

Presidential Immunity - Part II (The Elected Officials)

Democrat elected officials were no better in their comments.  Here was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:  "The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."  What is she talking about?  "Today's ruling (on immunity) represents an assault on American democracy.  It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."  You want to defend our nation - protect the border!  "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

Impeach who?  All 6 of the conservative leaning justices?  Because you disagree with their decisions?  Just another example of the Democratic left's threat to democracy - change the makeup of the Court in order to get the "right" decision.  The ends justify the means.  Make no mistake, Ocasio-Cortez is no isolated member of The Squad.  

Here is Hakeem Jeffries, the Minority Leader in the House, and future Speaker if the Democrats gain control of the House:  "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme far right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."  "Extreme far right?"  Always the name calling by the left.  "Brought into compliance with the Constitution?"  How's that exactly?  The Court is a separate and co-equal branch of government.  The Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution.  What's the plan - threaten justices who don't conform their opinions to left-wing ideology?  Oh wait, Schumer already did that when he threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over the abortion decision.  

Speaking of Schumer, the Majority Leader in the Senate, he called the decision "disgraceful."  Schumer:  "This is a sad day for our democracy.  The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law.  Treason or incitement to insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president."  Okay, but Trump was neither charged with treason nor incitement to insurrection.  

Schumer:  "This decision undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court, and suggests that political influence trumps all in our courts today."  Wow!  That's what Jews call chutzpah!   The Democrats are doing everything in their power to undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court with their non-stop attacks.  Just because they disagree with some of the Court's decisions.  And they do it intentionally, hoping to scare the voting public into thinking that everyone is going to lose all their rights, unless a Democrat is always in the White House, always able to appoint left-wing justices.  Clearly, the Democrats have no respect for the Constitution's separation of powers.

Here is Senator Richard Blumenthal, (D-Conn):  "My stomach turns with fear and anger that our democracy can be so endangered by an out of control Court.  The members of (the) Court's conservative majority will now be rightly perceived by the American people as extreme partisan hacks - politicians in robes."  Isn't that nice and respectful?  Calling Supreme Court Justices "partisan hacks," simply because you disagree with some of their decisions.  Again, just another Democrat seeking to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, while at the same time trying to frighten the voting public.

Not surprisingly, President Biden chimed in as well.  "No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States...(with) today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.  For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do."  He's wrong, of course.  And he clearly has no appreciation for how the decision protects him from future prosecution.  Ordinarily, I would say it's the president's job to say something like this:  "While I disagree with the Court's decision, they have now ruled.  And under our Constitution's separation of powers, we need to be respectful of that - even when we disagree."  Didn't Biden promise to be the unifier?  Unfortunately, he has repeatedly acted as the divider in chief.  

  

Presidential Immunity - Part I (The Commentators)

The Supreme Court decision prompted the usual emotional and over-the-top reactions from Democrats and the left.  In a 6-3 decision, along ideological lines (mostly), the Court held that a president has absolute immunity in carrying out the core functions of the executive.  See Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution for those core functions.  The Court further held that a president has "presumptive immunity" from criminal prosecution for official acts that are outside of the core functions.  Finally, there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

I suspect that the Court was concerned about the extensive lawfare being conducted against former President Trump, with a possible tit for tat reaction the next time Republicans gained control of the White House.  Here is what the ACLU said in November, 2010:  "The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat."  Without immunity, Obama could be prosecuted for murder.  How about prosecuting Biden for failing in his duty to "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.)  

Biden has certainly not taken care that our immigration laws be enforced.  Wasn't it foreseeable that large amounts of illegal drugs, especially fentanyl, would be smuggled into our country - resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.  The Supreme Court had previously ruled that Biden had no authority to forgive student loans.  After all, someone ends up paying those loans - the taxpayers.  To come with that money requires an act of Congress.  Article I, section 7, states "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."  It is a simple separation of powers issue.  Yet, the Democrats and the left had no problem with Biden having that power, because they agreed with the policy.  And Biden ignored the Court's decision.  As always, the ends justify the means for the left.  

Laurence Tribe is a well known left-wing Professor (now Professor Emeritus) at Harvard Law School.  In a July 2 Op-Ed in the New York Times, he called the immunity decision an "outrage."  Tribe expressed his concern that if Trump returned to the White House, he would use "the Justice Department to engage in politically motivated prosecutions."  Isn't that ironic?  Recall that the New York Times had reported increasing pressure on AG Merrick Garland to prosecute Trump over the events of January 6. 

As reported by the New York Post in 2022, a front page article of the New York Times said:  "As recently as late last year, Mr. Biden confided to his inner circle that he believed former President Donald J. Trump was a threat to democracy and should be prosecuted , according to two people familiar with his comments.  And while the president has never communicated his frustrations directly to Mr. Garland, he has said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor who is willing to take decisive action over the events of Jan. 6." 

Isn't that interesting?  Biden tells his inner circle that Trump is threat to democracy.  He clearly wants to see Trump prosecuted.  How convenient then, that some aides then tell the New York Times what Biden said privately, and Merrick Garland gets the message.  This way, Biden can claim that he never directed his AG to prosecute Trump.  But Tribe is worried about Trump using the Justice Department to prosecute people...really?  Tribe's solution is awful.  He suggests a permanent and separate branch of government, "charged with investigating and prosecuting violations of federal criminal laws."  Then what would be the responsibility of the AG and the 93 United States Attorneys (and all the associate attorneys) spread out across the country?  Unless Tribe has in mind that this separate branch would target members of Congress and presidents only.  Also a terrible idea.  It would be the equivalent of round the clock special counsels, likely interfering with the president and the Congress carrying out their duties.

Erwin Chemerinsky was no better.  In his June 30 Op-Ed in the Los Angeles Times (not directly discussing the immunity decision, but indicative of left-wing thinking), he criticized recent SCOTUS  decisions as being "simply a matter of conservative justices imposing conservative ideology to come to conservative results."  Just an obvious attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, because he's just another leftist unhappy with there being a conservative majority on the Court.  And what was Roe v. Wade, other than liberal justices imposing liberal ideology to come to liberal results.  There was no constitutional basis for that decision.