Tomi Lahren is digging her heels in while supporting Roe v. Wade…
But she’s digging herself a pretty mighty hole in the process.
.@TomiLahren: Implying that we’re sending a Supreme Court justice to the bench to carry out religious judicial activism is a mistake and unconstitutional. It’s not what conservatives stand for. pic.twitter.com/025CT3gZ9v
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) July 11, 2018
Only… who’s implying this, Tomi?
I’m not here for “religious judicial activism.” In fact, while my faith is important to me, I keep it out of my discussion of politics. Conservatives have reason and COLD HARD FACTS on our side. While our moral code determines our values… Conservatism doesn’t need a Biblical back-up. It stands alone. Why bring in religion to argue for Conservatism, when those you’re arguing against have nothing but scorn for religion?
Additionally, the legal argument against Roe V. Wade is the EXACT opposite of “religious judicial activism.” Roe WAS judicial activism. The argument against Roe is more firmly grounded in the fact that it’s unconstitutional than in the belief that abortion is immoral.
Many notable conservatives spoke out to say JUST that:
Who is seriously implying this? https://t.co/pYs3TAYOu9
— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) July 11, 2018
This is nonsense. The argument against Roe—and one not solely made by conservatives—is that its legal reasoning is weak to non-existent because the Constitution is silent on that question. To endorse that view is not “activism,” but the opposite. https://t.co/HpN0mIH9UE
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 11, 2018
Literally no one implied this. Also important to note that Roe v Wade is considered to be big government’s answer re regulating abortion (as opposed to state by state) which undermines the “limited government” premise of the argument here. https://t.co/eHNW7r05bN
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) July 11, 2018
I don’t want to jump on Tomi and respect her standing her ground on this issue but, as @charlescwcooke rightly points out, this is illogical, regardless of one’s views on abortion. The anti-Roe position is that Roe WAS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM / judicial overreach https://t.co/tbR5cwnXay
— A.J. Delgado (@AJDelgado13) July 11, 2018
There is not a single right-wing scholar who thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned because of religious conviction. It should be overturned because it’s a Constitutional travesty. https://t.co/9X5r1YrwbM
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) July 11, 2018
It’s “religious” judicial activism to want the court to let states decide their own laws on abortion — a procedure that has nothing to do with the Constitution? https://t.co/pJkL6nYnNq
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) July 11, 2018
Gonna be honest… I trust every single person up there to know what they’re talking about more than Tomi Lahren.
And here’s the thing… I often criticize the left for disallowing free thought or dissent. We should not do the same. Tomi is ALLOWED to have a different opinion than “mainstream conservatives” about abortion.
She needs to be careful when it comes to having a different opinion… and twisting facts.
Opinion: Abortion is bad.
Fact: Roe V. Wade was a case of CLEAR judicial activism.
I hold that opinion, and acknowledge that fact. They ARE separate.