On the Edge of a One-Party State

How about that debate? :D

Sorry. I know last night’s debate was not pleasant viewing.  I don’t know who said shut up more, Biden at Trump or me at my television.  And, like many, my IQ may have decreased last night.  So forgive me if this post is not my most eloquent. 

Having said all that, there was one moment last night that disturbed me more than the whole rest of the debate, and that was Biden refusing to say whether he would end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court:

Chris Wallace, in one of the few tough questions he posed to Biden, said this:

So my question to you is, you have refused in the past to talk about it, are you willing to tell the American tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court?

Biden refused to answer, something the Trump quickly challenged.  Here's the colloquy:

BIDEN: Whatever position I take on that, that'll become the issue. The issue is the American people should speak. You should go out and vote. You're voting now. Vote and let your Senators know strongly how you feel.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Vote now.

TRUMP: Are you going to pack the court?

BIDEN: Make sure you, in fact, let people know, your Senators.

TRUMP: He doesn't want to answer the question.

BIDEN: I'm not going to answer the question.

TRUMP: Why wouldn't you answer that question? You want to put a lot of new Supreme Court Justices. Radical left.

BIDEN: Will you shut up, man?

TRUMP: Listen, who is on your list, Joe? Who's on your list?

WALLACE: Gentlemen, I think we've ended this —

BIDEN: This is so un-Presidential.

TRUMP: He's going to pack the court. He is not going to give a list.

And this is not the first time Biden has refused to answer.  I hope he does not get away with his non-answer.  Given what passes for jurisprudence from Democrat hacks-in-black, if Democrats do pack the Supreme Court, you can pretty much kiss the Constitution and the rule of law good-bye and America with it.  We would be on the road to Venezuela.

Think I’m exaggerating?  Early in the Hugo Chavez regime, the Supreme Court of Venezuela had the temerity to say no to some of his designs.  His response?  He packed the Supreme Court.  He, like the current leadership of the Democrat Party, expected judges to do his bidding regardless of trivialities like a constitution or the rule of law.   So he packed the Court and got just that.  

Should Biden get elected and Democrats win the Senate, we are in serious danger of that happening right here in the United States.  Democrats have already long demonstrated they think the purpose of judges is to do their policy bidding regardless of the Constitution and the rule of law.  Should they gain enough power to pack the Supreme Court, that is what they, and we, will get.  And we will no longer be a Constitutional republic but a Leftist One-Party State.  Why?  Because elections do not matter with Leftist Dictators in Black Robes.  If we are not wise enough to vote for untrammeled Marxism, a Democrat-packed Supreme Court will shove it down our throats . . . for “justice”, of course. 

And, also of course, should Biden be elected, he will reopen the floodgates of illegal immigration (or just make it legal) and give away amnesty and citizenship like candy on Halloween.  Democrats are not pleased with the current electorate, so they will change it by importing a more pliable, less American one.  Even if they do not pack the Court, so changing the demographics of the electorate will make us a Leftist One-Party State just like they did with California.

Democrats make even create two new states from Washington, D. C. and Puerto Rico to pack the Senate with four more Democrat Senators.  I have my doubts whether they will be able to do that in the near future.  But that is on the DemocRAT agenda as well.  And, again, you can pretty much kiss America good-bye if they succeed.

So there is much more on the ballot this year than public policy.  What is on the ballot is whether you will have much say on public policy in future elections.  For if Biden wins, we are in grave danger of being on the road to a Leftist One-Party State.  And if Democrats take the Senate as well, we are practically there.

About Schumer’s Threats Against Supreme Court Justices UPDATED

This week and today is hectic for me to say the least, and I will have to be to the point, but I cannot let pass Democrat Senate Minority Leader’s Chuck Schumer’s threats against Supreme Court Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

“Now, we stand here today because behind me, inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion right cases since [Justice] Kavanaugh and [Justice] Gorsuch came to the bench. We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana, to Missouri, to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Chief Justice Roberts was right and accurate to call out these remarks as “threatening” and “dangerous.” Schumer directly threatened two Supreme Court Justices if they do not rule how he desires.

And this episode confirms I am right that our political differences have gone far beyond policy disputes.  The integrity of our Constitutional republic is in danger thanks to Democrats like Schumer. They don’t respect elections they don’t win.  They don’t respect the Constitution.  They don’t respect the Supreme Court when it is not their rubber stamp. They attempt a long and repeated coup against an elected President and against us who elected him.  And now Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader no less, threatens Supreme Court Justices in the streets.

For the sake of our future as a country we must punish the Democrats. Censuring Chuck Schumer would only be a start.

Yes, I know that sounds very political.  But it is much more than political.  There are times when a political party or movement is so toxic and dangerous that it must be rendered inviable for the sake of a country. That’s what happened to the British National Party.  It’s what needed to happen any number of times in the 20^thCentury. And it needs to happen to the Democrat Party until it learns to respect the Constitution and the rule of law.

Trust that I intend to say more about this whether people like it or not. 

---

UPDATE:  Schumer has apologized:

"I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They did not come out the way I intended them to. My point was there would be political consequences for President Trump and Senate Republicans if the Supreme Court and newly confirmed justices stripped away a woman’s right to choose," Schumer said on the chamber floor.

Too little.  Too late.  I for one, do not accept said apology.  My point remains.

SCOTUS Taking a Power on Religious Freedom “An Ominous Sign”

I’ve long said that religious freedom is in danger in this country.  It now appears the attack on freedom of religion is further along than I thought.  In what should be an obvious case at least to consider the Supreme Court could not even muster four justices to hear Storman pharmacy case.  Here is a good video summary of said case:

In short, the Stormans, out of religious conviction, do not carry the Plan B Morning After pill, but instead refer to the multitude of pharmacies in their area that do carry it.  But that wasn’t good enough for Planned Parenthood, DemocRAT Washington State, the 9^th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals etc.  So the case went to the Supreme Court.  And since five of the SCOTUS Justices are utter cowards, to put it nicely, the 9^th Circuit ruling stands.  

You see, abortion is sacred.  Religious freedom . . . not so much.

My understanding is that when cases are declined at the Supreme Court, they are usually done so without comment.  (Lawyers, feel free to correct me.)  But Justice Alito, with Justices Thomas and Roberts concurring, were so provoked they did comment.  An excerpt:

At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications. There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.

Sadly, I concur as well.  Brick by brick, our freedom of religion is being torn down.  It is no longer a question of whether we will lose it.  We are losing it.

The Significance of Trump’s Supreme Court List

Yesterday, Donald Trump released a list of eleven judges he would consider appointing to the Supreme Court.  Conservatives, including some not at all well disposed towards Trump, are impressed.

I find this significant.  Conservatives like me knew Hillary Clinton would appoint horrific Supreme Court Justices but also had little to no confidence in Trump’s wisdom in making SCOTUS appointments.  But now Trump is laying out that his Supreme Court appointments would likely be excellent or at least far better than Hillary’s.  And it may make Supreme Court appointments the issue it should be in this election.

Frankly, this assurance makes it more likely that I will hold my nose and vote for Trump.  And I am someone who has been profoundly unhappy with him as a perusal of some past posts will reveal.

Thus, if I am any indicator at all, Trump’s move was a smart and significant one politically as well.

Will the Supreme Court Spank Obama For Violating the Rule of Law?

Yes, my headline may seem an exercise in wishful thinking.  And perhaps it is. 

But when the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge of Obama’s Immigration Action from 26 states, it asked something that was both overlooked and rare.  As noted by George Will (Emphasis mine.):

The court has asked to be briefed on a matter the administration must be reluctant to address; the Justice Department requested that the court not insert a “constitutional question” into the case. The question the court will consider is: Did Obama’s action violate the “take care clause”?

Obama has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” which says the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Josh Blackman of the South Texas College of Law in Houston and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington says that only three times has the court relied on the take care clause to limit executive actions, and the justices have never asked for a briefing on this clause.

It seems at least some on the Supreme Court are ready to give Obama a dressing down on his willfully violating the Rule of Law in the area of immigration, and one the Courts have rarely given a President before. 

I hope I am not engaging in wishful thinking, but, at the least, this is certainly a case to watch.

About Cheering the Jailing of Kim Davis

A great deal can and has been said about the jailing of Kim Davis already.  So I will confine myself to pointing out two aspects of the response to her jailing.

1. Protestations that jailing Kim Davis is necessary to uphold the Rule of Law are really, really rich.

Funny how Leftist Democrat officials are almost never jailed or even sanctioned for defying the Rule of Law.  Any Sanctuary City mayors or councilmen in jail?  Has Obama been impeached or even censured for refusing to enforce immigration law?  Were any of those who issued marriage licenses to gay couples when that was illegal, were any of those jailed?

And where was the concern about the Rule of Law when Justice Kennedy and four other Supreme Court justices pulled a coup against the Rule of Law to make Gay Marriage supposedly (BOW DOWN!) the Law of the Land?

Leftist attitudes towards the Rule of Law are just like their attitudes toward democracy.  If it serves their agenda, then great.  If it doesn’t, then their agenda is oh-so much more important than democracy and the Rule of Law.

2. The Pink Shirt crowd might want to think twice about cheering the jailing of Kim Davis.

Does anything show what cretins the Pink Shirts are than their cheering the jailing of someone non-violently being true to their faith?

Reaction to the news that #KimDavis was ordered to jail, captured by @Samowensphoto pic.twitter.com/MnXrO9OUtr

— Gazette-Mail (@wvgazettemail) September 3, 2015

Reasonable people can disagree with Kim Davis. Unreasonable people are glad she's in jail. 

And “unreasonable” is putting it nicely.  This is yet one more episode in which the gay rights crowd shows for all to see that they are neither reasonable nor tolerant.  They once played on people’s sympathy and still try so to do.  But I suspect they are now losing sympathy and fast.  For defeating one’s political opponents is one thing.  Overkill is quite another and evokes sympathy only in Clint Eastwood movies.  And jailing Kim Davis is overkill.

(Yes, it’s a fed judge who jailed her.  But that little changes the result nor the effect.)

But even if the Pink Shirts had enough sense to keep their glee to themselves, they might want to think twice about rejoicing in the jailing of Kim Davis at all.  Americans are a tolerant people.  But they also love freedom, particularly freedom of religion and thought.  And jailing someone for non-violently following the dictates of their faith is an outrage to many, even to those who disagree with how Ms. Davis is going about this.

These and similar episodes are likely weakening support for the gay rights crowd and are awaking, energizing and motivating those with a more sane and traditional view of freedom.  If so, the Pink Shirts may not be the ones cheering in the end.

How NOT to Proceed Now

What I am about to say will seem obvious to most.  But, particularly since I do not know who might read this, it needs to be said.

There is a time to be angry.  And Friday’s Judicial Putsch was such a time.  But we are to “be angry but do not sin.” (Eph. 4:26)  There is a time to be angry, but we are not to be consumed by anger.  We are to “fret not . . . it tends only to evil.” (Psalm 37:8)

As any number of Psalms tell us, including that Psalm 37 and the two Psalms I read today for Morning Prayer, 2 and 3 (I find it interesting how providential liturgy can be, but that is another post for another time.), God will deal with evil tyrants – and He knows best how to deal with evil tyrants.  We are not to presume to hasten God’s timing in that regard with our own violence.

Yes, this is a time for anger.  It is not a time for violence.  We Christians are to be the Church Militant.  We are not to be the Church Violent.

But a reader may say they believe neither in God nor in Christ.  (And, who knows, a Christian or two may disregard the above admonition.)  So they themselves will go give tyrants what they deserve, thank you.  I urge any such to sit down, calm down, and think it through.  Has any lasting good come out of violence perpetrated against the Federal Government in the United States in recent decades?  Think about Timothy McVeigh.  Was he right to be angry about Ruby Ridge and Waco.  Yes.  Did any good come out of how he acted on that anger?  No.

Moreover, Bill Clinton and the Left cynically used the Oklahoma City bombing to smear their opponents with not a little political success.  McVeigh’s violence, profoundly evil in itself, also enabled the evil of the Clinton Administration.

Any violence committed now against Obama, the Supreme Court majority, or their supporters will also feed the false Leftist meme that Constitutionalists and the Right are the real danger to Americans.  So far, the Right has exhibited remarkable restraint in the face of anti-constitutional tyranny.  Let’s keep it that way.  And, remember, we won in 2010 and 2014.  Let’s win hearts and minds for the crucial 2016 elections, not repel them with foolishness and worse.

As for Christians, for the sake of the gospel and of our country, what people must see for themselves in the coming months and perhaps years are peaceful Christians being unjustly attacked by the Left and by tyrants and conducting themselves faithfully and well anyway.  What they must not see are Christians being the attackers or even being mean. (Mea culpa.)  Yes, the Left and the Democrat news media will try to portray us as such.  Let us follow St. Peter’s exhortation and give said portrayals no credibility whatsoever:

Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation. Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.  For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

1 Peter 1:12-15

And, not so by the way, “the emperor” at that time was no sweetheart either.  And there was far less hope of peacefully throwing off his tyranny than we have now.

Will Christians suffer unjustly in the coming time no matter how peacefully they conduct themselves?  Yes.  But again St. Peter exhorts (Emphasis mine.):

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.  But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.  If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.  But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. . . . Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.

I Peter 4:12-19

For God knows how to take care of his people . . . and of those who persecute them.  And if He chooses to be more patient with evil tyrants and persecutors than we are, then thank God for that, too.  Didn’t God have to be patient with us?

Our business as Christians is to be faithful, to be lights in the darkness, not rashly to take matters into our own hands and make the darkness that much worse.

----

Addendum: I am no pacifist for any who wonder about that.  Is there ever a time for violence?  Yes, but only after all peaceful avenues are exhausted, if even then.  Is that now?  Emphatically, no.

What the Supreme Court Did Not Say

As if what the Supreme Court said last week in its same-sex marriage ruling is not alarming enough for those concerned about freedom of religion, what it did not say is downright chilling.  Note well this passage from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion:

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Well, how gracious is Our Overlord Kennedy that he allows us backwards bigots Christians to “advocate” and “teach” against gay marriage.

But - and I pray this does not bring upon this humble subject the wrath of Our Overlord - there is something he did not say.  Kennedy said nothing about protecting the practice of freedom of religion, particularly about refusing to participate in a gay marriage.  And that when the above passage was an obvious opportunity so to do.

Oh, but you can “advocate” and complain all you want about your subjugation, bigots . . . for now.

It at least used to be in the United States that you (with narrow exceptions) had the constitutionally protected freedom to practice one’s religion.  Will it be so in the very near future?

Justice Roberts noticed Kennedy’s omission as well.

The majority graciously [Snicker – Ed.] suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.

Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

That is a lawyerly understatement. 

More can be said and will be said as attacks on freedom of religion inevitably increase.  But mark what the Supreme Court majority did not say and prepare.

“Judicial Putsch”

As quickly as possible, I want to join in condemning the tyrannical ruling of the Supreme Court this morning on same-sex marriage.  It is a judicial coup against constitutional democracy the likes of which we have not seen since Roe v Wade.

It cries out for resistance and nullification not because of the issue of same-sex marriage (If people of various states decide to recognize gay marriage through a democratic process, that is their political and constitutional right.), but because of the importance of constitutional democratic self-rule.  I have therefore already called on Governor Abbott to resist and defy this ruling.

Justice Scalia’s dissent says it better than I can and is one for the ages.  Justice Scalia on this morning’s “judicial putsch”:

I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance….

So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about mar- riage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves….

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of mar- riage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect. That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ” One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”15 The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”16 Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….

And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

II

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic… The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.” With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

----

Indeed, the Supreme Court with this ruling is asking for a Constitutional crisis, and one it is not guaranteed to win.

But, more likely, we have lost that much more of our constitutional republic – and that to cheers.

An Encouraging Poll on Same-Sex Marriage

I was tempted to add “for a change” in the headline.  Polls in recent years have not been encouraging to those of us who support traditional marriage.

But YouGov has a poll out that indicates that Americans do not favor making gay marriage a Constitutional right.  Yes, almost 50% think same-sex marriage should be legal.  But the numbers shrink markedly when people are asked whether the Supreme Court should make it a Constitutional right.  A plurality of 43% say SCOTUS “should not rule same sex marriage is a constitutional right.”

I am heartened that there are thinking people out there who see there is a difference between legalizing gay marriage by democratic means and a Supreme Court ruling overturning democratic processes and legalizing gay marriage in all fifty states by judicial fiat, and that claiming the Constitution requires such a judicial coup. 

The likely SCOTUS ruling doing just that may not be as well received as anticipated. 

Justice Ginsburg Should Recuse Herself

In America, we have a tradition that justice is supposed to be impartial. . . .

Sorry if I made you snort coffee on your keyboard there, but yes, it’s true even if ignored.  Therefore, to avoid the appearance of partiality among other reasons, judges are not to comment on cases before them.  That just Is. Not. Done. . . . unless you are a activist liberal justice apparently.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made very warm noises towards both same-sex marriage and Obamacare in an interview with Bloomberg.  That when Supreme Court rulings on both matters are pending.  It is indeed an “amazing impropriety,” an “astounding” disregard of basic judicial ethics.

Now that she has so clearly made up her mind beforehand and made it all the more obvious that she has done so and helped poison the atmosphere for the other side to boot, she should do the right thing and recuse herself from both rulings.

She will not, of course.  And few, if any, from the left of center are calling for her to do so.  Instead, many Leftists are applauding her comments.  Things like judicial ethics and judicial restraint are trivialities to Leftists like Ginsburg.  The Cause is so much more important, don’tcha know.

Alabama Same-Sex Marriage Update: Clarence Thomas Gets It

At least two Supreme Court Justices get it that the Court is out of line in its disregard for the rights of the states.  Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, spared few words in taking apart the majority’s decision not to grant even a stay to the State of Alabama on same-sex marriage.

His attack on “this Court’s increasingly cavalier attitude toward the States” is about as strong as it gets from this notoriously quiet Justice.  Do go read the highlights of his opinion for yourself.

Back in Alabama, resistance to federally imposed same-sex marriage continues.  To which I say, GOOD!

A Good Morning for Freedom

One advantage of being curmudgeonly is that when good things actually do happen, they can be such a pleasant surprise.  I did not expect the Supreme Court to rule for non-union home heath workers or for Hobby Lobby.  I expected this to be a dark morning for freedom.  But, thanks be to God, I was wrong!

I will note that in both the Harris and Hobby Lobby rulings, four of the justices voted against constitutional freedom.  That confirms that we cannot allow the Senate and the Presidency to remain in the hands of Democrats, and best not allow establishment RINOs to control those institutions either.  We are too close to descending into an anti-constitutional tyranny from which we may never escape.

But for this morning, constitutional freedom has prevailed.  And, for that I am greatly thankful.

Roe v Wade and the Cowardice of the States

Today is the 41^st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision overturning the abortion statutes of the vast majority of the states (48 if my memory is correct).  Tens of thousands, including several bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, will walk in the snow today in Washington in protest in the 40^th March for Life.

I myself participated in at least two Marches for Life back in the early 80’s.  One of them was in the snow as well.

The damage Roe v Wade inflicted extends far beyond life issues.  It made a mockery of the Constitution, of democracy, and of Constitutional federalism by asserting that the Constitution somehow demanded striking down the abortion statutes of most states and replacing them with a regime of abortion-on-demand virtually all the way to birth.

Roe v Wade was a coup against Constitutional democracy and against the states by men acting as dictators in black robes.  Justice Byron White’s dissent calling it “an exercise of raw judicial power” put it nicely.  He also stated:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment.

That is because there was nothing.

What is saddest of all is that the Supreme Court got away with it.  Yes, there has been strong movement ever since to undo Roe v Wade in various fashions, from Constitutional Amendments to a Human Life Statute to working for good Supreme Court appointments and more.

But what should have happened was defiance.  The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution.  But it cannot obliterate it then rewrite it in its own image; or at least it should not be able so to do.  This was an absurd and outrageous ruling, really a coup against the Constitution, and should have immediately been given the respect it deserved – none. 

The states, even states moving toward liberalizing abortion laws, should have told the Supreme Court what they could do with its ruling, with its brazen attack on their rights to defend life, and then defied the ruling and carried on with their own laws as best they could.  This awful ruling was an opportunity to rally the people and the states to put the Supreme Court and the Feds in their place and to revive Constitutional governance.  And if the new President, Richard Nixon, had any principles, he should have encouraged and supported such efforts by publicly and clearly refusing to allow the Executive Branch to enforce the ruling.

But did any state so attempt to defend the Constitution and the lives of the unborn?  Any state?

The answer is what I find saddest of all about January 22^nd.