Because left-wingers’ rhetoric so often applies an “ends justifies the means” exceptionalist principle — to get what they want in the moment without considering the unintended consequences or precedents that may be set — it can be a fun exercise, sometimes, to take it to its logical conclusion. 

For example, I am baffled by the recent calls from congressional Democrats to undertake a massive campaign to politicize the Supreme Court if and when they regain control of Congress. After all, much of their plan would still rest on appointments made by the very same chief executive whose power they seek to curb. So why don’t Republicans simply start by doing right now exactly what Democrats propose doing later, and save them the effort? 

How quickly would leftists pivot their rallying cry from “save democracy” to “tyranny” and “abuse of power” if Trump forced justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to step aside under retroactive 16-year term limits and named their appointments (along with that of notorious center-straddler John Roberts) while also securing replacements for conservative stalwarts Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito? 

Final tally: eight Trump justices to one Biden. The only people to lose out would be the producers of Fox News’ “The Five” after all of its remaining co-hosts (excluding Jessica Tarlov) were appointed to the bench. 

By the same token, I have long found curious the chief argument Democrats make for restricting gun laws: that the existing right to bear arms is not what the founders intended under the Second Amendment and must be modified to reflect the changing times and sentiments. 

Recommended
Tehran’s Hormuz Blockade Looks Like History’s Dumbest Trade Own-Goal streiff Record Scratch: MO Supreme Court Blocks Redrawn Congressional Map, Orders Referendum Susie Moore

Because this case is often made in the peak of passion — the immediate aftermath of a mass-shooting event in which any well-functioning nation would otherwise unite in its grief — it inevitably feels a bit manipulative.

Hence, I have countered that we should apply the same principle to the Eighth Amendment, arguing that since the framers never anticipated the modern capacity for mass murder and the glorification thereof, we accordingly must modify our interpretation of “cruel and unusual punishment” to use as a deterrent against it. 

In that very same spirit of applying Democrats’ 2A logic to other inalienable rights, I likewise hope to argue that recent circumstances raise serious questions about the need for common-sense restrictions to the 19th Amendment.

To be certain (lest I offend the many sensible ladies in my orbit, including the editors most likely to read this next), women’s suffrage was a noble social experiment — and for a while it looked like it was working just fine as-is.

But as with its immediate predecessor, Prohibition, we can now conclude that the cost, in this particular instance, outweighs the benefits. The Lindsay Clancy trial, among other recent events, has given us good reason to suspect that a large portion of the nation’s female population has gone awry in ways the framers of the 19th Amendment never intended or anticipated. 

As of Thursday morning, a jury of three men and nine women — three of whom appeared to have shown solidarity with Clancy by wearing pink — had been deadlocked for five days attempting to decide her fate following a lengthy and high-profile murder trial. 

The growing probability of a mistrial comes despite Clancy having admitted to strangling her three children with an exercise band after sending her husband out on an errand.

The underlying problem, however, isn’t simply the issue of post-partum depression, which has tragically been a concern since the days of Euripides’ “Medea.”

Nor is it the baffling abuse of the insanity defense, a loophole that the courts themselves could remedy if the right case came along. 

It is the droves of supporters opting to put their own emotional reactions above any application of the law, or of reason itself.

Viral TikTok trends have gone so far as to depict women acting out disturbing scenes in which they pretend to injure or otherwise abuse their own children, often infants.

It has yet to be determined if the cause of this maenadic hysteria is a mass-formation psychosis like the Dancing Plague of 1518, a cat-borne disease being transmitted to humans, a surfeit of heavy metals entering the bloodstream, or an excess of Tylenol. 

But this much is certain: If there is one thing that Clancy’s fangirls are less suited for than motherhood, it is deciding the fate of the nation.

In the 2024 election, Democrat women outnumbered their Republican counterparts by a solid 7 percentage points, according to the Pew Research Center. 

Moreover, “Women who have never been married are three times as likely to associate with the Democratic Party as with the Republican Party,” Pew noted.

And, as the League of Women Voters ominously reported, 91.3 million women voted in 2024, as compared to 82.6 million men. “The next election is up to women,” it warned.

Of course, there are plenty of crazy men out there who are also unfit to vote. But either they continue to be held to full account for their criminal actions or, in some cases, they become women. 

Transgender politics aside, some of the wisest biological women agree that the Lindsay Clancy setback could wipe away many of the strides that feminists have made in the name of gender equality. 

“So if Lindsay Clancy is found not responsible for her actions because of hormones and doctor-prescribed drugs, how can any woman argue she should be CEO, president, in charge of anything at all?” asked Post Millennial editor Libby Emmons. 

“I don't think feminists have really thought through the repercussions of a precedent that says women are helpless slaves to such powerful hormones that they can be building a snowman with their children one minute and turn into homicidal maniacs who strangle their infants the next,” noted the Media Research Center’s Brittany Hughes.

Thus, we must call on Congress and all the powers of the patriarchy to devise a new set of red-flag laws for regulating women’s suffrage. Here are a few ideas:

  1. No abortions: OK, so in a John Thune Senate where Democrats and RINOs decide the legislative agenda, there may need to be compromise. Free pass for the first one in cases of rape or incest. Second time, it goes before the Rape & Incest Prevention Panel to determine if voting rights should remain intact. Three strikes and you’re out.

  1. No infanticide: Killing your kids is bad. Full stop. But because parental discipline cannot take any options off the table, there may be a carve-out for switch-bearing parents who first warn, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out,” followed by a 30-second head start.

  1. Must be able to articulate “What is a woman?”: Answer “XX chromosomes and no tallywacker” to proceed to the voting booth. 

  1. Fit Check: Showing up to vote in purple hair, a “Handmaid’s Tale” costume, or a pink p**sy hat? Report to your padded room. 

  1. The Platner Test: Each Democrat primary will feature at least one decoy candidate whose ineligibility should be obvious to all. Vote for him/her, and you forfeit the right to advance to the general election. 

Lastly, if any of these satirical propositions offended you but you shrugged off the cold-blooded slaying of three innocents, then you, too, should have your rights reexamined.

Rest in peace, Cora, Dawson and Callan.

Until we start holding those on the Left to their own rhetoric by turning the tables, how can we expect for them to hold themselves accountable to the laws of society?