The Unborn And You, 2020 Edition.

The legal structure of the United States never ceases to surprise those who come from different legal systems. Compared to every European Country, it is, in many issues, rather atomised due to the existence of 50 States, each with their own very extensive legislative powers. This is why, even if Roe vs Wade were to be reversed (it will be one day), the battle would only be half won, as many States would run to implement State legislation allowing the killing of babies. It is only when the Supreme Court declares abortion not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, that the legislative powers of the States will be neutralised.

The same happens with the phenomenon of “sanctuary cities”. In Europe there are no “sanctuary cities”. The concept itself is foreign to the legal system. If, say, the Italian region of Lombardia decided that, within its territory, illegal immigrants are welcome and the local authorities are ordered to disobey or to obstacle law enforcement, people would start going to jail pretty fast. It is obvious that this does not happen in San Francisco or Los Angeles, where – the way I understand it – the battle against sanctuary cities is fought with federal lawsuit and with the threat of withholding federal funds, not by sending the FBI to simply arrest people (legislators, and enforcers) for subversive activity.

It works, fortunately, both ways. I am following with interest the phenomenon of the “sanctuary counties” in Virginia, vowing to defend the Second Amendment rights of their citizen against the tyrannical attitude of their own State legislators. The most recent development I have read about is the one of the eleven Texas cities banning abortion.  The linked article is interesting not because it indicates a way to get around Roe vs Wade (it is obvious that the legal ground is extremely shaky here; which, if it was not the case, would allow for the vast hollowing of every unwelcome judicial decision in States like, say, California or New York), but because it moves the battle against abortion to the public opinion via the courts.

It is clear to me that this lawsuit is not meant to result in a victory. It is meant to result in a discussion. It is meant to, as they say in today’s parlance, “raise awareness”. It is the expression of a local, pacific revolt of decent citizen, choosing to fight through the courts against the iniquity of a Constitution willingly and unashamedly bent to the will of the leftist mob by politically motivated activists.

If you think that cities can decide to not follow Supreme Court precedent, you can keep dreaming at your leisure. But if you think that these initiatives amplify the discussion about the evil of abortion, you might be on to something.

Still, the way towards an abortion-free United States (which, make no mistake, will in time result in an abortion free Western Europe) does not go through “sanctuary cities”. It goes through sound judicial appointments both in the higher courts and in the Supreme Court.

In 2020, just as in 2016, it is vital that Trump be reelected in November, and that a working majority in the Senate allows the President to keep doing the excellent job of appointing dozens, at this point actually hundreds of sound thinking judges.

Look at the age of the Supreme Court Justices, add to Breyer and RBG the diabetic Wide Latina and realise that Trump’s second term can be, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, just as explosive as the first; actually more so, if the great, 72 years old Clarence Thomas felt sure enough of the soundness of his successor to resign, allowing Trump the appointment of another judge like him, but 30 years younger.

Like 2016, 2020 is an extremely important battle in the war for the defence of the unborn.

Please hammer the concept in the head of your tepid relatives, or colleagues, or friends, whenever they start moaning that Trump is not nice enough, and his tweets are oh so unkind.