Roe v. Wade and national divorce: our future? [Tom Woods]

With Roe v. Wade overturned, protests have broken out across the United States.

Andrew Yang declared that the Court had become political.

Andrew, you’re only off by decades, possibly even centuries.

I’ve already written about Roe before. Even its supporters generally admitted that the so-called legal reasoning behind it was a joke.

The Court is now saying: the federal government was never given any authority over abortion. Therefore, it is not the job of the Court to be a superlegislature, deciding contentious issues for every state in the Union. We have states for a reason. We are returning this issue to them to decide.

That seems sensible enough to people who believe in local self-government.

At the same time, there are millions of people who consider this decision outrageous.

So they want to increase the number of people sitting in our superlegislature, so they can get the outcome they want.

Same goes for any number of other issues on which we are hopelessly divided.

How about, instead of vainly hoping that we can persuade 80 million other people to think like us, or that we can just keep fiddling with the Court in perpetuity, we consider going our separate ways in peace? The very fact that this is the one option the establishment won’t even let us entertain is a pretty good indication that it must be the right one.

I discussed this with Michael Malice on the Tom Woods Show, before the decision had been officially handed down. You will enjoy our conversation:

This article was originally published in Tom Woods’ newsletter. Subscribe and receive his free Ebook at Republished with permission.