This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Roe v. Wade, the seriously flawed Supreme Court ruling that created a right to abortion and claimed it was in the Constitution, is gone.
Affirmative action? Unconstitutional, the court said.
And with last week's ruling, so is the concept in a leftist state, Colorado, that its officials can impose their religious beliefs on everyone and get away with it.
Byron York, the chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner, cited a number of decisions that plainly have been in alignment with the conservative cause across America.
"Liberals are furious, they are outraged, they are depressed, they are hysterical – they are experiencing any number of intense emotions as they realize they are helpless to stop a united conservative majority," on the Supreme Court, he explained.
"Some are angry at Trump and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who strong-armed Trump's nominees through the Senate."
There have been multiple plans by Democrats to add more, liberal, justices to the court so they can get their way all the time. They have attacked the sitting justices if they are conservative. They've called for term limits, removal, and worse.
But, York said, the loss, or at least reduction, in leftist influence on the court, is entirely the fault of the leftist Democrats, or at least one of their own.
He pointed out that even with a 5-4 conservative majority in previous years, Roe v. Wade still stood, and affirmative action – that race-selection process used to benefit SOME races – remained in effect.
But York wrote in the Examiner the blame needs to be pinned on the "notorious RBG."
"In 2013, when Ginsburg was 80 years old, the oldest member of the Supreme Court, and had been through two serious bouts with cancer, many Democrats hoped she would retire while a Democratic president, Barack Obama, could choose her replacement and a Democratic Senate could confirm that replacement. That would keep Ginsburg's seat in the liberal camp for another generation," he explained.
This issue was critical to Democrats who repeatedly have turned to the Supreme Court for the leftists there to give them policies that they could not get through Congress.
"Nearly every Democrat, including Obama, hoped Ginsburg would step down and allow the party to keep the liberal seat safe for another 20 or 30 years," he said. "But Ginsburg refused."
He explained the reasonings by the late lawyer likely were personal: She liked her work.
"Other reasons were more political, especially in Ginsburg's anticipation of the 2016 presidential election. 'I think that mother, like many others, expected that Hillary Clinton would win the nomination and the presidency,' Ginsburg's daughter told the New York Times, 'and she wanted the first female president to name her successor,'" he explained.
But Hillary Clinton chalked up her second straight loss in her campaign for the White House.
President Donald Trump took office.
"The moment to replace Ginsburg with another liberal justice was lost," York explained.
"The fact was Ginsburg was a woman approaching 90 with a long history of serious cancer. In late 2018, the pancreatic cancer she suffered nearly a decade earlier reappeared. She died on Sept. 18, 2020, at age 87," he said.
Trump immediately took action, nominating, and getting affirmed, Amy Coney Barrett, 48,
"The consequences for the Supreme Court were enormous. A 5-4 conservative majority that empowered a swing voter to make things more equal, a role often played by Republican appointee Anthony Kennedy, became a 6-3 majority that reversed Roe and ended affirmative action," he wrote.
"Angry Democrats are lashing out at Republicans. But Ginsburg's decision helped create this catastrophe for liberals," York explained.