Tag Archives: supreme court

Commentary

National sins and civil war

The United States of America was born with a birth defect: slavery. Contrary to what Tim Kaine (D-VA) asserted in the well of the senate, we did not invent slavery. It’s been around just about as long as humans have, and we did inherit it from our father, the British Empire. Slavery was America’s original national sin, and our founding fathers knew that it was an affront to the fundamental principle upon which our nation was built: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It took about eighty years, but eventually a majority of Americans mustered the will to confront this sin and act to eradicate it, even though they knew that doing so would be costly.

A great many Americans were determined to safeguard the institution of slavery because their wealth was built upon it and they could not see any way to maintain their position without it. Despite being fundamentally religious people, because it was valuable to them they managed to convince themselves that it was right, and mankind has always been adept at justifying what we really want to do. As those who opposed slavery came closer to the power to legally ban that abomination, the slave states saw the handwriting on the wall and decided to leave the Union before abolition was imposed on them. The end result, of course, was a “great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated [to the proposition that all men are created equal] could long endure.”*

We are hearing a lot today about the evils of racism and slavery, and some are even demanding reparations for the crimes committed by some of our progenitors more than a hundred years ago–deliberately forgetting that other progenitors fought and died to end that evil. Slavery was a great evil, but if it is wrong to put a man in chains, what is it to rip a living child to pieces inside the womb, suck them out and sell them to laboratories? If it is wrong to make merchandise of a living human being, how can it be permissible to kill an innocent child and then make merchandise of them?

Legalized abortion on demand is not a birth defect, but neither did all Americans choose it. It was imposed upon the nation by a cadre of unelected judges who substituted a perverse and arcane legal calculus for the will of the majority of America’s citizens, inventing a “right” to end the life of an unborn child and creating a multi-billion dollar industry that funnels millions into the pockets of politicians who promise to keep abortion safe, legal and profitable. And just as the antebellum slave owners refused to even consider relinquishing their property, those who have been enriched by legalized abortion will fight to keep the abortion mills in operation.

The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has ignited a firestorm of rancor and ratcheted up the stakes of this election to eye-bulging intensity. Why? Because as the liberal majority on the Supreme Court to which liberals/progressives/Democrats feel entitled slips away, they have realized that the handwriting is on the wall for abortion. It was never constitutional, it was always bad law and it was always pure evil to declare millions of unborn children non-human so that their lives could be extinguished. America has awakened to this horror, it is trying to right the wrong, and the abomination of abortion on demand must be purged from our national conscience. I sincerely hope and pray that it does not take another “great civil war” to atone for the taking of so many innocent lives. After slavery, our second great national sin was forgetting God and the best chance we have of ending the slaughter of the unborn without a great slaughter of those already here is to remember God, turn from our sin and plead for His mercy.

I’m afraid that ultimately the choice will be up to those who have profited by saturating the earth with the innocent blood of more than sixty million unborn Americans.

I am not optimistic.

*Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

Liberty and the RKBA

Dred Scott was Settled Law Too.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, is certain to be questioned at length (and ultimately opposed no matter her answers) over the issue of abortion. Just as slavery was America’s defining issue of the 1800’s, abortion will be our defining issue of the 20th and 21st centuries. Just as slavery was America’s original national sin that cost us a bloody civil war to extirpate, legalized abortion on demand is the terrible sin that may cost us even more dearly. If it is a terrible crime to put a man in chains, what can we say of the slaughter of more than sixty million unborn, innocent children?

“Roe v. Wade is settled law,” the Democrats like to say, and they will demand that any nominee for the Supreme Court assure them that it will remain settled law.

Precedent and the law. It is interesting how important the principle of stare decisis becomes once the Democrats have achieved their desired outcome. Prayer banned in public schools, gay marriage, abortion: the courts are the least democratic of our branches of government, but it is there that the Democrats have accomplished their most dramatic and corrosive transformations of American society. Transformations that they could not pass through the legislative process. Transformations that they do not intend to be reversed.

Roe v. Wade is bad law. It was literally made up, an exercise in creative thinking from the mind of liberal justices with no basis in the Constitution. But now it is settled law, the Democrats say, and may not be touched. So if the Supreme Court rules on something, that mean it is absolute, immutable, forever set in stone and no legislative or judicial process can ever change it.

Really? The people have no recourse whatsoever if SCOTUS speaks? That is absurd on its face. We are no more bound in slavery to a tyranny of nine unelected judges than we are to any branch of our government. What recourse do the people have through the democratic process?

First, legislative. Everyone seems to have forgotten, but we have three co-equal branches of government, and any two of them may overrule the third. Congress and the president have the power to remove an issue from the purview of the Supreme Court, and if that effort reaches an impasse (a runaway court tries to declare such an action by the other two branches”unconstitutional”) Congress may impeach if necessary. But a resort to such drastic measures would be one of those “constitutional crises” we’re always hearing about. The usual (supposedly) non-confrontational method of overturning a decision of the Supreme Court is as follows:

  • The people elect a president that will appoint justices who see things differently.
  • The people elect a senate that will confirm the justices that their president nominates.
  • The people wait for vacancies on the court to provide their president the chance to act.

This process can take decades, and when the lives of sixty million or so unborn children are the price of the patience it demands, it is especially unfortunate that the people, the president and the congress were unable to muster the courage or conviction necessary to restrain and overturn the corrupt decision immediately. But the fact that it took decades for the will of the people to move does not somehow render the original flawed decision immutable. If the people cannot in any way reverse a bad decision of the court through the legal processes of government, then we truly do live under a tyranny, and the only remedy is the one prescribed by the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

Is this what the Democrats are suggesting? That the only way the American people can overcome stare decisis is to overthrow their government and start over?

No, Roe v. Wade is “settled law” just like the Dred Scott decision was settled law. It is settled until it is reversed.

Liberty and the RKBA

Does America still have the guts to stand up to terrorism?

We just remembered the 19th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001. The terrorists dealt us a terrible blow, but we stood up, stood together and struck back. As I watched the ceremonies on television, I wondered if America still has the guts that we demonstrated back then, because we are under a direct terrorist assault right now that is unprecedented in our history. The next few months will demonstrate if we are still the United States of America, or sheep.

Terrorism is the use of fear and intimidation to accomplish a political goal. Terrorism is exactly what the Democrats/Socialists (at some point we’re no longer going to need to make any distinction there) are using right now to try to keep conservative America quiet and cowed. “Do you think the violence is going to stop if Donald Trump gets reelected?” Biden asks. “The protests are going to continue, and they should,” says Kamala Harris. NY Governor Cuomo warns that “Trump is going to need an army to protect him if he comes back to New York.” You know that it is true: there are many places in the country today–lots of them–where you dare not go wearing a MAGA or TRUMP 2020 hat unless you are prepared to be harassed and perhaps killed or else protect yourself and then face prosecution for doing it. Now, with the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the temperature of the rhetoric has risen noticeably. “Over our dead bodies! Literally!” Tweeted former CNN host Reza Aslan, and later “if they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f–ing thing down.” Some other recent quotes:

  • “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”
  • “If the democrats don’t fight, the people are going to have to march on Washington and just shut it down ourselves.”
  • “F— no. Burn it all down.”

Particularly regarding the nomination of a replacement for RBG, Democratic lawmakers are making unusually direct threats. Nancy Pelosi is hinting that the Democratic-controlled House may impeach Trump again in order to prevent the Senate from holding hearings for a nominee, and Chuck Schumer is warning that next year “everything will be on the table” if Republicans proceed. Since the House has already impeached President Trump over absolutely nothing and Democrats in the Senate have already stated that they intend to eliminate the filibuster, pack the court and expand their seats in the Senate by seeking statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., one wonders what more they could have in mind.

The Democrats are trying to create an atmosphere in our nation just like they have already succeeded in fostering on college campuses, where contrary voices will be silenced and political goals achieved by intimidation if possible, violence if necessary. You’d better do as we say, they are warning, or things are going to get much, much worse.

America has gotten the message. Everyone knows it now, even if they will not admit it. If Joe Biden wins, Trump supporters will be furious (especially since they will be pretty sure that the election was stolen using millions of fraudulent mail-in ballots) but they aren’t going to fill the streets and start hurling things at cops, burning down small businesses and looting Target Stores.

But if Joe Biden loses, hell is going to break out in America’s streets. What we’re seeing now is just a warning: let us win or else.

Does America still have the guts to stand up to terrorism? We will find out in a few weeks.

Liberty and the RKBA

Five Reasons Republicans should fill that seat

In an election year that is shaping up to be the most pivotal, consequential and contentious in modern history, the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg has raised the stakes exponentially. Democrats, of course, are demanding that the president and/or Republicans refrain from attempting to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court, while Donald Trump has promised to announce a nomination within the next few days. While it is true that the Republican-held senate did refuse to vote on election-year Obama-appointee Merrick Garland, there are some important differences in the situation and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has stated that Mr. Trump’s nominee will get a vote this year. I can certainly see why the Democrats don’t want the seat filled now, when there is a chance that Joe Biden (or whoever is controlling him) could fill the seat in a few months, and I’ll admit that in their shoes I’d feel the same way, but there are some very good reasons that Republicans should go ahead, hold hearings and confirm Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court as soon as possible:

  • As Mitch McConnell has explained, in cases where both branches of government were held by the same party, historically, the nomination has been considered and voted upon.
  • Even more compelling is this: if the shoe were on the other foot and the situation were reversed, is there anyone anywhere in America who would care to assert that the Democrats would not push their nomination through? I didn’t think so. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” should not be applied in a political situation where the “others” are determined to seize power at any cost and have already clearly indicated what they intend to “do unto you.” (See next point.)
  • The Democrats have already promised that if they gain control of the White House and the Senate they intend to (among other things) “pack the court” by nominating and confirming a few more Supreme Court justices to ensure a more or less permanent liberal majority. If they’re going to “pack to court” why are they worried about one more Trump appointee? Just throw in a few more activist judges when you start packing!
  • “Over our dead bodies. Literally.” (That is a quote.) Quite a few Democrat activists are warning that if Trump and the Republicans “even TRY” to fill the seat before the election that they “will burn the entire f—ing thing down.” Another tweeted: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.” The Democrats are threatening violence in the streets if the president and Senate dare to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities. Threats of violence to force a political outcome is nothing less than terrorism and we must not acquiesce to it. Of course, this is a familiar tactic in the Democratic playbook. They are already threatening to “burn the entire f—ing thing down” if Joe Biden is not elected.
  • But most important of all, the Democrats have clearly warned that their plan for victory in this election relies heavily on a mountain of mail-in ballots (only God will know how many will be fraudulent) and a tsunami of lawsuits. More than 600 Democratic lawyers are waiting in the wings to attempt to litigate Joe Biden to victory. Many, if not all of those lawsuits will end up at the Supreme Court. We are close enough to a civil war now; having a 4-to-4 split on the highest court in the land as it tries to settle this contentious election is simply begging for bloodshed.

Justice Ginsburg reportedly told her granddaughter that her “most fervent wish” is that she would not be replaced until “a new president is installed.”* With all due respect, it isn’t the late Justice Ginsburg’s seat to bequeath, nor is the decision up to Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer. The Constitution lays that responsibility upon the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Donald Trump is still the president and he will be, God willing, until January 20, 2021.

And if God is merciful to us, Donald Trump will still be president on the 21st.

It has been very encouraging that many Republicans finally seem to be waking up to the situation. The Democrats are playing to win–at any cost–and if they win the consequences for this nation will be grave. They have been playing hardball for decades. It’s long past time that Republicans woke up and got in the game.

*Note: she was not hoping that it would happen after the election is over, but only after Donald Trump is out of the White House.. I suppose if he should be reelected, she hoped that SCOTUS would operate for four more years with only eight justices.

Commentary

I Am Calling for Impeachment

In a 5 to 4 ruling, the United States Supreme Court rejected a Nevada church’s request to strike down a state restriction limiting attendance at religious services to 50 people, while allowing essentially unrestricted admittance to casinos. Chief Justice John Roberts opined that Nevada’s restrictions on places of worship “appear to be consistent with the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.” In case you have forgotten (as Chief Justice John Roberts apparently has) the First Amendment states (in part):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

U. S. Bill of Rights, First Amendment, First Clause

Seriously. This should worry you. If Chief Justice John Roberts and the other four liberal, activist justices can rule that limiting attendance at church is “consistent” with “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” then they are perfectly capable of ruling absolutely anything. Absolutely anything.

A justice who can make that leap could also rule that forcing the Fox News Network off cable or banning Rush Limbaugh from the radio is “consistent” with the “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” clause; or that banning all political protests (except Black Lives Matter) was “consistent” with the “right of the people to peacefully assemble” clause of the First Amendment.

A justice who can rule that way could also rule that banning possession of firearms by American citizens was “consistent” with the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment.

Such a justice could also rule that a law allowing police to break into your house without a warrant and search for anything that they can use to prosecute you is “consistent” with the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” clause of the Fourth Amendment.

A justice who can rule as these five lawless judges did in this case is capable of ruling that allowing you to be tried for a criminal offense again and again until the jury finally finds you guilty is “consistent” with the “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” clause; or that torturing you until you confess is “consistent” with the “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” clause; or that a law allowing the government to seize your belongings and hold them until you prove yourself innocent of some charge* is “consistent” with the “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” clause of the Fifth Amendment.

For too long American have accepted that the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says, but this disastrous error has allowed activist judges and justices to do virtually anything they like and call it law. The Constitution says what it says, and there is no one reading this post who cannot judge what “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means.

Supreme Court justices who can rule that limiting attendance at church while encouraging attendance at a casino is constitutional should be impeached. Their arrogant disregard for the clear text of the First Amendment and the Constitution is the very essence of “bad behavior.”

*We’ve already got this: see “Civil Asset Forfeiture”
https://fee.org/articles/the-governments-war-on-property/