Jason Rapert: Still Not A Constitutional Scholar

Yesterday, as was widely expected, the United States Supreme Court denied Arkansas’s petition for writ of certiorari regarding a lower federal court’s striking down the state’s 12-week abortion ban.

Sen. Stanley Jason Rapert took time out from his busy schedule of making unwatchably stupid YouTube videos to author a logorrheic response, in which he decried “social revolutionaries,” activist judges, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with his assessment about “innocent little babies.” On the Big List of Utterly Predictable Things, Stanley Jason Rapert’s response ranks somewhere between the sun rising in the east and the Avogadro constant; this kind of asinine screed is part-and-parcel of who he is.

Of course, it would be somewhat easier to take his critique of the American judiciary seriously if he appeared to actually understand what he was talking about, rather than saying things like this:


I am disappointed that at least five of nine individual Supreme Court justices find it so easy to take up cases that destroy the traditions and values of Americans when it is politically expedient, but they hide themselves from true justice when they have within their power the ability to stop our nation from killing 1 million innocent babies every year.

Actually, Stanley, it only takes four justices to grant certiorari. That’s what is known as the “Rule of Four,” and has been in place by custom and practice of the Court since the Judiciary Act of 1891 was passed. The logic behind the rule, as explained by Justice Felix Frankfurter, is “that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance.” 1 Which means, of course, that at least six of the justices on the current Supreme Court found that Arkansas’s appeal raised no legal question of general importance.

Not that I actually expected Stanley Jason Rapert to know this, mind you. He’s shown, time and again, that he has little to no understanding of how the Constitution or the courts work.

Nevertheless, it seemed worth pointing out Rapert’s ignorance in this instance since he segued quickly from his ill-informed critique of the court to a reference to an Article V constitutional convention. Because, obviously, when you don’t understand something, the best, most sane route is to call for its complete overhaul.

As long as we’re discussing Utterly Predictable Things from the mind of Stanley, I’ll throw in one more: if he deigns to respond to this post, he’ll claim that he inadvertently said “five” when he meant “four,” which he TOTALLY knew was the right number. More likely, however, he won’t even bother to respond.

  1. Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 521, 529 (1957) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).



  1. You should get prizes for sitting through them. You’re a stronger person that I am. Or at least your stomach is. 🙂

  2. He’s just making up numbers, like the number of innocent babies this bill will save. lol So there are a million abortions in Arkansas that this would stop? That’s setting aside whether or not they’re “babies.”

  3. Something must be in Conway’s drinking water for them to have even elected this jackwad to begin with. But then as we all know, Republicans are familiar with drinking water.

  4. Y’all be careful! Ol’ Stanjay don’t cotton to these awful LIBTARD threats! He WILL call the State Police!

  5. Every time I force myself to write about him, I not-so-secretly hope he’ll threaten me with a defamation suit.

  6. If the current legislature (with the exception of a select few) has taught us anything, it’s that you don’t even have to have a basic understanding of how the law works to make laws. In Arkansas, you just have to hate Obama and you can make the laws! As long as you keep repeating that over and over, you’ll get elected.

  7. A lot of the things you articulate is supprisingly precise and that makes me wonder why I hadn’t looked at this in this light before. Your article really did turn the light on for me as far as this issue goes. However there is actually one particular factor I am not necessarily too comfortable with and while I attempt to reconcile that with the actual central idea of your point, allow me see just what the rest of the subscribers have to point out.Well done.

Comments are closed.