Posts Tagged ‘roe vs wade’

Official Merrick Garland portrait

By John Ruberry

America has endured some terrible attorneys general, Eric Holder, who served under Barack Obama and was held in contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious scandal, John Mitchell, a Richard M. Nixon AG, who became the only the second US cabinet official to spend time in a federal prison, and Harry M. Daugherty, the leader of corrupt “Ohio Gang” during the administration of Warren G. Harding. 

And finally, there is Merrick Garland, once heralded as a moderate after Obama nominated him to succeed Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court in 2016. Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t hold confirmation hearings on Garland. Donald Trump was elected president later that year, he nominated Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS bench, where he is now part of the conservative majority. 

Garland is the worst US attorney general since Daugherty.

Who was Daughterty? He was a minor political figure in Ohio who gained power as a behind-the-scenes kingmaker. A drinker like Harding, hey, like most Americans in the early 20th century, Daugherty got involved in the prohibition movement for political expediency. And he’s the man who worked the famous “smoke-filled room” at Chicago’s Blackstone Hotel to win Harding the Republican nomination for president in 1920. In Harding’s words about his successful election, “We drew a pair of deuces and filled.”

Although Harding’s cabinet had some magnificent choices, Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of State and Andrew Mellon as head of the Treasury Department, the Harding cabinet included Daugherty and Albert Fall, secretary of Interior. Fall accepted bribes as he sold cheap oil leases on federal land in what became known as the Teapot Dome Scandal, which led to a prison term for him, a first for a cabinet member. Daugherty, if he investigated it at all, barely looked into Teapot Dome. 

Daugherty’s assistant at Justice, and his roommate, was Jess Smith, who probably allowed alcohol owned by the federal government to be sold to bootleggers. Smith committed suicide a few months before Harding’s death in 1923.

Besides corruption, the Ohio Gang was known for its alcohol-fueled poker games at its de facto headquarters, “the Little House on K Street,” in Washington. Yes, there was a two-tiered justice system then.

And that’s been the charge against Garland’s Justice Department. No, not the poker games, but a two-tiered justice system. Don’t get me wrong, the January 6 rioters deserve punishment, even though most of them are probably guilty of nothing more than trespassing. 

Jim Banks, who Nancy Pelosi prevented from serving on the House January 6th Committee, summed up Garland’s hypocrisy perfectly. 

From the American Thinker:

Citing the Justice Department’s lenient treatment of left-wing rioters compared to the harsh treatment of Jan. 6, 2021 rioters at the Capitol, including many who “are not accused of entering the Capitol or committing violence,”

Rep. Jim Banks (R.-Ind.), in a two-page letter dated June 14, 2022, accused Attorney General Merrick Garland of leading “a two-tiered system of justice” at the Department of Justice. Congressman Banks asserted: “Violent rioters who are likely to vote Democrats [sic] are often released with a slap on the wrist, or less, while January 6th defendants are prosecuted to the harshest extent possible.”  

Asserting that “the unequal application of justice is an injustice,” Mr. Banks accused the attorney general of politicizing federal law, thereby assaulting “the basic American principle of equal justice under the law.” 

Then there is Hunter Biden, a Chicago-style influence-peddler. Garland is from the Chicago area; he surely knows a lot about mediocre people like Hunter throwing his weight around as he enriches himself and his family.

Just now on Fox Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, US Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told the host, “We have a two-tiered justice system, one that will treat with kid gloves, or cover up for, Democrats and their powerful friends, the elite–and the rest of Americans. And I think we are seeing that big time with Hunter Biden and all of his very suspicious [financial] transactions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court draft on Dobbs v. Jackson was leaked, the case that overruled Roe v. Wade, there have been protests, in violation of federal law, in front of the homes of conservative justices. So far no one has been charged, even though there is voluminous video evidence that had been aired by news outlets and on YouTube that includes clearly recognizable faces. Announcements of protests are posted on social media.

Is Garland quietly cheering on these illegal protests? Don’t forget, it was Garland’s office that asked the FBI to investigate parents protesting school boards over the teaching of Critical Race Theory, citing unnamed threats.

Last month former Trump White House advisor Peter Navarro, who was 72 years old at the time, was put in leg irons by the FBI, after being indicted on contempt of Congress charges. “Who are these people? This is not America,” Navarro said during his first appearance in federal court. “I was a distinguished public servant for four years!”

Navarro, who has not faced prior legal troubles, is hardly a flight risk. 

Earlier this year, former Illinois House speaker Michael Madigan, who served in that role for four decades–and the former chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party–was indicted on a slew of corruption charges. 

Who wants to make a bet with me that Boss Madigan, also a septuagenarian, was not put in leg irons after his indictment?

Daughtery was later asked to resign as attorney general by Harding’s successor, Calvin Coolidge. He faced trial twice on unrelated charges. Both trials ended with hung juries. 

Garland will face tough questions next year, as congressional investigations led by Republicans will zoom in on the many debacles created by the Biden White House. Look for Garland to answer in the same fashion as Nixon’s Watergate co-conspirators did during the Watergate Senate hearings. “I don’t know” was a common response, as was “I don’t recall.”

Maybe, just maybe, Garland will answer questions about whether he plays poker at boozy parties in Washington.

John Ruberry regular blogs at Marathon Pundit.

I have five living kids at home, and would have an additonal six year old girl with Down Syndrome had she not died after a failed heart surgery. I also have a pretty odd mix of friends, most of whom don’t have a family anywhere near my size, so I get asked a lot of questions about raising a large family. The most common questions come from younger couples asking about when the right, perfect time is to start a family.

And well…there isn’t one.

Someone might tell you to at least wait till after high school, which sounds like pretty good advice. After all, you probably aren’t married in high school, need to finish your diploma, and let’s be honest, most high schoolers don’t think through such life altering choices as having a baby.

Yet I know a few families that were high school sweethearts that married in or pretty near to high school graduation. My mom was one of them. She was married at 18 to my dad (who was graduating college and 4 years her senior) and somehow managed to successfully raise three kids while traveling the world with a Marine Corps officer. Compare that with too many of today’s graduates that can barely write English papers and brag about doing their laundry only a few days late with hashtag adulting on social media. Perhaps that says more about the current state of education than family planning though.

We could pick more times: after you finish your degree, after to start your first job, after you “settle down” (whatever that means), or after you are “ready” (seriously, what the heck does that mean??). But every time you try to nail down a right time, you’ll find lots of counter examples of people starting families that don’t follow that logic that come out just fine.

Which is why there isn’t a perfect time to start a family. Sadly, I see too many good, family-oriented couples searching for the perfect time to start a family. Many of them pray over it, but their prayers revolve around asking God to tell them when to start a family, like they expect some booming voice to emanate from the clouds declaring “Have intercourse at 6:35 pm on July 12th!” or some other nonsense like that. This delay and worry is part of the reason people are waiting later and later to start families, which makes it harder to have children as your biological clock only runs at full tilt for so long.

The recent SCOTUS decision is likely making many couples revisit this question. Abortion and contraception make it appear to give us control of when we have children. Neither does, or certainly doesn’t without consequences. Accepting the challenges, and the joys, of having a family will mean accepting it on the timeline that it comes to you.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating to this blog or purchasing one of the author’s books.

Roe v. Wade was not only a constitutionally dubious ruling, it was morally reprehensible, and rather barbaric.  Like most of us on the political right, I am optimistic that it will be soon overturned.  Like the vast majority of Americans, I was caught completely off guard by the leak of Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the case Dobbs v. Mississippi.

Here are the two most important paragraphs from Alito’s opinion, as quoted from this article, Leak: Supreme Court to Overrule Roe, Returns Abortion to Voters (breitbart.com).

We hold that Roe v. Wade must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The right to abortion does not fall into this category. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown to American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of “liberty.” Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

I have studied the Constitution in great detail,  all from the original source documentation, rather than through Supreme Court Precedence. Up until the 1890s original documentation, such as the debates from the drafting of the Constitution, Ratification Debates in the States, The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers were the primary tools used to interpret the Constitution,  The dramatic shift to using Supreme Court Precedence, which are just the opinions of the justices, as the only tool to interpret the Constitution did not begin until over 100 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

Samuel Alito, who is absolutely correct in his opinion overturning of Roe v.Wade, used a combination of Supreme Court Precedence and original documentation.  If he relied just on the original understanding of the Constitution, his opinion would have been much shorter,

Abortion is murder.  That is a truth understood by founding fathers of the United States, and those that wrote and ratified the Constitution. Murder is not a crime defined by the United States Constitution. Only a handful of crimes are defined in US Constitution. Those crimes are treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. Those are the only true federal crimes, the only crimes that fall under the purview of the federal government. All other crimes are left in the hands of the States.  Murder is not mentioned in US Constitution therefore it is left up to the States to define murder and prescribe punishment for those who commit that crime.  Because abortion is murder it is an issue left in the hands of the States, not the federal government.

Abortion is not a right because no one has a right to commit murder.  Hypothetically, if there  really was a right to an abortion,  the issue would still remain in the hands of the States, if we still followed the original interpretation.  Because abortion is not listed specifically in the Bill Rights,  it would be covered by the 9th Amendment which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If abortion was a right covered by the 9th Amendment, it would still be left in the hands of the States because the Bill of Rights is a hands off for the federal government. The rights protected by the Bill of Rights are far too important for the federal government to touch them in any way, not even the Supreme Court.  Decisions involving are most important rights were left in the hands of the States exclusively.  This is documented in great detail in this lengthy discourse, which took place at the beginning of the drafting of the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives. 

It was not until the 1920s that the Supreme Court declared that it had the authority to rule on cases involving the Bill of Rights.  The Supreme Court granted itself that authority in direct opposition to the plain meaning of the Constitution using what is called the Incorporation Doctrine.  I will cover the Incorporation Doctrine in great detail in a future article.

All this talk of abortion being a right covered by the 9th Amendment is mute because abortion is murder, and no one has a right to commit murder.

I think those on the right who are celebrating the fall of the House of Cuomo both in NY & at CNN as a victory for us. I disagree, it’s not so much a victory as it is the embodiment of a basic truth of the left which is this: If you have power to aid and abet their cause of the left you will be protected by them & their media, academic and entertainment allies, but once you no longer have that power your usefulness is at an end and said protection is gone.

Cuomo’s fall, while satisfying simply means that they are no longer useful to the cause and thus are no longer guaranteed the protection or deference that the left’s institutions once provided. In fact the only protection they have is whatever knowledge they have of others on the left who have done as bad as them or worse.


Last month I was at lunch with my brothers who are both much more conservative than me (I’m practically the liberal of the group) and the subject of both Fauci & Pelosi came up.

While they despise them both with a passion they also noted that they were both very smart in the sense that while their actions have been detrimental to the nation they successfully used said actions to gain personal power, wealth and security.

These actions might be unethical, dishonest and dishonorable even to the point of being evil but given the end result for themselves were certainly not stupid, except of course in a theological sense.


Speaking of falls Charlie Baker AND Karen Politio have decided to call it quits not seeking a 3rd term as governor and Lt. Gov of Massachusetts.

There have been ups and downs. On the down side the pair are horrible on social issues, particularly abortion and their opposition to President Trump is why the left likes him as much as they do in the state. On the plus side Baker is an able and competent administrator and I suspect with some cause the reason while Massachusetts in general and Fitchburg in particular did not go the way of Kenosha or Minneapolis when BLM came calling was due to his quiet actions.

A lot of conservatives will not be sorry their gone, at least not until a completely woke Democrat gets the job and does their best to turn the state into California.


There is word that the Democrats will go all in on abortion for the midterms as the potential for SCOTUS reversing Roe seems good after oral arguments.

While I think it’s not wise to 2nd guess the court, particularly any court run by old yellowstain Justice Roberts it’s a most logical move on their part.

Of course all of this was inevitable because the future belong to those who show up and spending generation killing off your potential voters is not a long term plan for success.


Finally for the past month there has been a lot of speculation on dumping Kamala Harris.

I’m not buying any of it. Harris is in an elected not an appointed position and unless you have actual impeachable offenses and the willingness of the house and senate to remove her she’s not going anywhere. All this talk is just talk.

And seriously why would she resign? What is the actual gain for her? It’s not like everyone doesn’t already know how she got to where she is and frankly I don’t that there is anything hidden in her past that is more corrupt than what the Biden’s are openly doing.