Cognitive dissonance: Liberals try to defend Roe and ‘democracy’ in the same breath

This is a flawed and self-contradictory argument because the people making it are, in fact, dedicated to preserving the court’s power to overrule the democratic branches of government.

In addition to not knowing what “majority” means, Pete Buttigieg doesn’t seem to know what “undemocratic” means. Alternatively, like most of the liberal media, he doesn’t know what Roe v. Wade did.

Being generous, and assuming Buttigieg meant “presidents who didn’t win the popular vote,” we can still brush off the former mayor’s argument. It’s an argument plenty on the Left are making during the current court battles: Republican control of government is currently undemocratic, and increasing Republican influence on the courts at this time would be undemocratic.

Here’s the same argument from Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, CNN’s Ron Brownstein, and Jamil Smith at Rolling Stone.

The problem is this: The people who care most about the courts are not warriors for more democracy. Roe v. Wade is the heart of the fight over the court. Buttigieg and others who fear a conservative replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg are primarily worried that she would help overturn Roe.

But Roe was anti-democratic. It’s the most important anti-democratic ruling in American history.

It took the issue of abortion, which was, before 1973, settled by the state legislators, governors, and voters of 50 states, and snatched it away from states and Congress. Roe said, “Democracy may not touch abortion.”

A quick aside: Ours is not a pure democracy. There are anti-democratic provisions built into our Constitution and Bill of Rights. A sentence that begins, “Congress shall make no law…” is a curb on democracy. The veto is undemocratic. Judicial review, which is almost as old as the Constitution, is undemocratic.

So “undemocratic” isn’t always bad.

But Roe is certainly undemocratic. And it’s not only undemocratic, but it is also not grounded in the Constitution. It barely pretends to be. “Heavy-handed judicial intervention,” as Ginsburg herself called it. “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method,” liberal former Supreme Court clerk Edward Lazarus noted, “Roe borders on the indefensible.” (There’s plenty more of that criticism of Roe from pro-choice legal scholars.)

If President Trump’s nominees overturned Roe v. Wade or significantly chipped away at it, they would be making America more democratic by returning protection of the unborn to the democratic realm.

Maybe you think that’s bad. Maybe you think abortion, like free speech, should be beyond the reach of democracy. But in that case, you can’t exactly go around lamenting the Republican majorities who might overturn Roe as “undemocratic.” You need to accept that your own views are undemocratic — not that there’s anything wrong with that.

It’s not merely abortion. The major wins by the Left in the culture war — the wins it fears are at risk with a 6-3 conservative majority on the court — have been undemocratic. For example, the Supreme Court made gay marriage the law of the land by striking down the laws passed by legislators and ballot initiatives.

You can be a democracy crusader or a liberal culture warrior, Mayor Pete. You can’t be both.