To old-timers, the name Linda Greenhouse is instantly familiar. Seemingly for eons, Greenhouse covered the Supreme Court for the New York Times. So influential was her coverage that critics attributed at least part of the Supreme Court’s shift to port to her incessant lobbying thinly disguised as analysis.
A couple of years ago, in analyzing one of Greenhouse’s hysterical critiques of the Roberts’ Court (her insistence that “politics drives the court’s decisions” which is code for they came down with decisions she disapproved of), National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru astutely observed, “This critique of the court is itself pretty ideological and not very self-aware.”
With regard to abortion, Ponnuru observed
Greenhouse has long been an influential voice. In 1970, she publicized the claims of an academic that American law had never been concerned with protecting the lives of unborn children. Those claims have long been discredited. They nonetheless left an enduring mark, having made their way into Roe v. Wade, the court’s landmark abortion case.
In her 1,500-word-long “Chasing Abortion Rights Across the State Line,” Greenhouse says of her opening paragraph (which reads)
Half slave and half free. The last time the United States split into two countries, it didn’t work out at all well.
That “If that sounds like a hyperbolic reaction to the yawning red state, blue state divide, so be it.” So at least she is self-aware that what will follow may seem to the unenlightened to be a tad overboard.
But, if you understand what’s really going on, you’ll concur that were abortion jurisprudence returned to the 50 states, we’d be in a situation equivalent to the pre-Civil War United States. (Get it? Half slave, half free–Abraham Lincoln’s famous “House Divided” speech?)
Greenberg’s launching pad is the 60 Minutes program where a hostile, grim-faced Leslie Stahl asked President-elect Donald Trump what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned. He said, quite accurately, “if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states.”
That is to say, each state would decide its own statutes, which was the case before Roe (and the companion case of Doe v. Bolton) overturned the existing abortion laws of all 50 states.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram to help us share pro-life pictures.
Equally accurate, Trump said, “It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go.”
But Greenhouse was just getting warmed up. By the fourth paragraph, Greenhouse has hit her stride. She talks of a new kind of “a new underground railroad from red to blue [states].”
By the sixth paragraph, she is analogizing what would ensue to “separate but equal”–segregation.
By the fourteenth paragraph, Greenhouse has moved on to the French Revolution and Marie Antoinette (bride of King Louis XVI):
While President-elect Trump’s “let them go somewhere else” was at odds with the country’s deep seated constitutional culture, it also conveyed a “let them eat cake” cynicism.
(By the way, historians agree Marie Antoinette said nothing of the sort. But fact-checking never was Greenhouse’s strong suit or would mere accuracy ever be allowed to get in the way of an outlandish, over-the-top parallel.)
And so it goes…and will go for the media elite of whom Greenhouse remains a star, although she is no longer Supreme Court correspondent but a contributor to the Times’ op-ed page.
Nothing but nothing is too ridiculous to predict, nothing but nothing too vicious to be said about President-elect Trump.
Unfortunately, rather than cooling off, the Media Establishment which everything in its power to elect Hillary Clinton President, will only grow more and more deranged.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.