Comedian Jon Stewart blasted the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on his podcast Thursday, arguing that the ruling was based in ideology rather than constitutional reasoning.It should say the former comedian Jon Stuart Leibowitz, as that is his real name, and he hasn't done any comedy in seven years.
“In my mind, the idea that this was based in any kind of reasoned debate or philosophical education — the Supreme Court is now the Fox News of justice in my mind,” Stewart said on an episode of “The Problem with Jon Stewart.”
“It is a cynical pursuit in the same way that Fox News would come ou with ‘we’re fair and balanced’ under the patina of what would be a high-status pursuit to the betterment of society, journalism. They are a cynical political arm,” the comedian argued.
When he did have a TV show, he was much less fair and balanced than Fox News. He was Jewish Leftism, all the time.
[Justices] have been criticized for dodging questions about the landmark 1973 decision or saying they regarded it as an important precedent during the confirmation process.Every nominee if either party refused to answer questions about deciding future cases. All nine just wrote or joined opinions saying that the 1973 decision was an important precedent.
“I think the thing that struck me was, you know, ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ Right? And I think we’re all sort of steeped in that ethos. What you don’t realize is there is a goodly amount of individuals who are trying to bend it back.”Now we get to the real issue. He has no criticism of the actual legal reasoning. He merely has a Jewish Marxist belief that Leftist political gains should never be reversed. He does not believe in Democracy.
The pro-abortion Jewish Atheist moral philosopher Peter Singer writes:
Yet I find it hard to disagree with the central line of reasoning of the majority of the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established a constitutional right to abortion. This reasoning begins with the indisputable fact that the US Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and the possibly disputable, but still very reasonable, claim that the right to abortion is also not implicit in any constitutional provision, including the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The reasoning behind the decision in Roe to remove from state legislatures the power to prohibit abortion was clearly on shaky ground. Justice Byron White was right: The Roe majority’s ruling, he wrote in his dissenting opinion in the case, was the “exercise of raw judicial power.” ...
The lesson to draw from the Court’s decisions on abortion, campaign finances, and gun control is this: Don’t allow unelected judges to do more than enforce the essential requirements of the democratic process.