Posts Tagged ‘scotus’

The title of this article is an example of extreme satire and irony.  The behavior of the proponents of abortion has been as atrocious as we’ve all come to expect.  Their behavior has not sunk to the level we all witnessed during last summer, when ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter were rioting almost nightly.  There is a good chance that could happen. I believe that they are just warming up.

Abortion has become a religious sacrament to those who inhabit the left side of the political spectrum.  The slaughter of unborn children, up until the moment of birth, is a sacred right to the vast majority of modern Democrats. Because abortion is seen as a sacred right, any threat to abortion is met with religious fervor. 

Marxism is at the very core of the political left.  Individual life has very little value to a Marxist because that family of philosophies is based on collectivism.  Violence and intimidation are the tactics most often used by the political left because they operate under the mistaken belief that the ends always justify the means.

This past Sunday, which was Mother’s Day, leftists decided interrupting Catholic Masses was an acceptable tactic to protest the leaked end to Roe versus Wade.  As you can see from this article, they mistakenly believe they have the right to interrupt a church service.

After interrupting Mass, the protesters feel like they can get irate when asked to leave. “I have a right as an American!” one of the pro-baby-killing activists screams as she’s walked out of the church. And while she certainly has the right to protest, she doesn’t have the right to do so inside a church, especially as Mass is being conducted.

I understand leftists seem to have an issue understanding the difference between private and public property—the communist brain disease destroys the ability to understand such concepts early on—but the church is private property, and they don’t even have to be allowed on the grounds, let alone in the building.

This Tweet documents the startling events that took place during Mass in one Catholic Cathedral

As you can see from this Tweet by journalist Any Ngo, things turned violent in Los Angeles.

Democrat politicians, such as the mayor of Chicago, are openly calling for violence.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot encouraged violence on Monday in a tweet asserting the U.S. Supreme Court’s leaked opinion draft signaling the downfall of Roe v. Wade means the justices will come for the“LGBTQ+ community” next.

“To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms,” she wrote on Twitter. “We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!”

The conduct of the so called pro abortion activists has deteriorated to the level where they  firebombed a pregnancy center, then gloated about it in a rather ghastly manner.

‘BURN LITTLE JESUS FREAKS’: ABORTION ACTIVISTS LEAVE VILE VOICEMAILS FOR CHRISTIAN ORG THAT WAS FIREBOMBED

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.

It amazes me that anyone is surprised at the left leaking an SCOTUS opinion concerning overturning Roe Vs Wade.

People who are willing to use riots, violence in US cities and draconian COVID sanctions, not to mention stealing election are not going to blink at breaking norms.


What I’m really interested in knowing is if one of the justices authorized said leak or hinted to a clerk to do so.

It’s no surprise to me if it’s true, remember dishonorable people don’t suddenly become honorable because they are elevated to a position of honor or hired to assist someone in such a position.


Back when the left could count one enough votes to keep their agenda going the left/media were all about the sanctity of the court. We’ve been seeing signs for months if not years that the left media is all in on abandoning said position.

There is no surer sign that the left believes they will not retake the court’s majority anytime soon then a tactic like this which hurts the institution and it’s reputation. If the court is not theirs then as far as they are concerned it’s not legit.


As a general rule you will see Roberts vote with the right in three situations:

  1. If the right already has five votes without him so it doesn’t matter
  2. If the left already has five votes without him so it doesn’t matter
  3. If it’s an issue that the left is not invested in.

If however you have a key issue like Obamacare where he can give the left the winning vote he’ll always vote with the Obama crowd.

This time it’s different. If the left can’t intimidate one of the five actual conservatives Roberts vote would not matter in theory but if they can’t change the end result the next best thing the can do is make it a 5-4 vote in order to make it seem less legit so without a doubt Roberts vote will be required of him by the left.

That to me will be the key tell that the left has something on John “Old Yellowstain” Roberts to keep him in line. If you didn’t believe it before before you’d better start believing it now.

I’d be delighted to be proven wrong, but frankly if he becomes the 6th vote to overturn I think the shock might be too much for me.


Finally it will be quite interesting to see how far the left goes in terms of violent protect in DC. Given that there are still dozens of people still being held without trial for basically trespassing on January 6th how the Capital Police and the AG & White House treats people who go over the line here is going to be VERY telling.

I predict that anything short of actually murdering a conservative justice will not rise to the level of “insurrection” to the press, and even that might still cause any protests to be called “mostly peaceful”

Unexpectedly of course

I’m not going to bother with a long essay here I’m going to explain this provocative statement in just a few sentences.

For the last several years we have seen it clearly demonstrated that the left and it’s gatekeepers are dishonest and dishonorable who have lied, cheated, stolen elections, persecuted political enemies while allowing rioters to go free and enriched themselves and those who willing to aid them in these efforts to a point where I’m actually surprised that we haven’t ended up with a shooting war here.

These very people have now advanced Ketanji Brown Jackson as their primary choice to be on the final arbiter of justice in these United States and moreover they have done so over an alternative choice, favored by one of their own that not only met their dishonorable racial/gender quota1 but who, whose qualifications, honesty and integrity were vouched for by two members of the opposite party who are diametrically opposed to her judicial philosophy.

I submit and suggest that Judge J. Michelle Childs was not passed over because her honesty and integrity was doubted by these dishonest and dishonorable gatekeepers, but because it was believed and thus could not be counted to to advance the agenda of dishonest and dishonorable people.

And of course there is this, when you conceal documents it’s for a reason.

For these reasons I think anyone who does not start from the proposition that Judge Jackson is dishonest and dishonorable is a fool. If on the basis of objective facts and evidence you are persuaded otherwise that’s up to you, but any person who thinks bad actors advance good people to achieve evil ends are smoking something.


1Let the record show that neither Joe Biden nor anyone in his administration has been willing or able to define “Woman” or “Black”. I’d find it quite interesting to hear judge Jackson’s definition of either.