Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

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.

Senators Romney, Murkowski, and Collins have all announced that they will vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson, Joe Biden’s insanely radical nominee to the Supreme Court.   Thanks to the support of these three traitors, Judge Jackson will be confirmed.  This betrayal will do great harm to the American people.

A lot of attention on social media was focused on Judge Jackson statement where she rather foolishly argued that she could not provide a definition for the word woman.  I for one had a lot of fun sharing memes about that farce on Facebook.  That statement was exceptionally woke and cringe worthy, rather than dangerous.

The following exchange with Senator Cruz, as documented in this tweet, which took place during the confirmation hearings, is exceptionally dangerous, and should utterly disqualify her from the Supreme Court.

That one statement should bring chills to each and every American.  It shows a callous disregard for one of the most important founding principles of the United States.  This founding principle is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence through this most crucial paragraph.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

It is impossible to overstate the importance of the concept of God-given Natural Rights when it comes to understanding the meaning of the United States Constitution   Our Constitution was written specifically to protect the natural rights of each and every individual. 

Those seeking to turn the United States from a Constitutional Republic into a Socialist Democracy see the entire concept of natural rights, granted to each and every individual, as a serious impediment to their grand scheme.  They wish to dismantle our entire constitutional system, which is based on individualism, and replace it with a system based on collectivism.  Having Judge Jackson sitting on the Supreme Court will make those plans much easier to execute for the Democrats and these three traitorous RINO Senators will vote yes on her confirmation.

Blogger with Durbin in Chicago in 2019

By John Ruberry

When Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the final year of his presidency to replace Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court he was hailed by some as a moderate. 

Well “Moderate Merrick,” if he ever existed, is gone. 

Garland’s nomination was never acted upon by the US Senate, which was then in Republican control, and President Trump nominated Neal Gorsuch for the Scalia seat–and the Senate went on to confirm Gorsuch.

Had Garland faced the Senate he might have been asked this question from Sen. Dick Durbin, who is from Garland’s home state of Illinois, “Will you restrict the personal freedoms we enjoy as Americans or will you expand them?” Durbin posed that query to John Roberts during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings sixteen years ago and he has asked the same question, as did his predecessor, Paul Simon, during confirmation hearings for other SCOTUS nominees. 

Well we have the answer to the question that Durbin never asked Garland. Joe Biden’s attorney general favors restricting personal freedoms.

Last week, citing unnamed threats against unnamed school board members, Garland in a memorandum declared, “I am directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each United States Attorney, to convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum.”

In short, Garland is unleashing the FBI against parents who have spoken out against hateful and bigoted Critical Race Theory offal that is being rammed down the throats of their children. Do you want someone like Agent Petty from Ozark showing up at your front door? Clearly Garland is plotting to separate parents from their children. After all, leftists from Karl Marx on have viewed parents as an obstacle to pursuing their goal of a perfect society, which of course is a totalitarian state where the elites, who of course are so much wiser than everyone else, guide the rabble. Yes the rabble. You know, people like me and you, part of a multi-million member conglomeration similar to Ozark’s redneck Langmore clan. That’s how our leftist “betters” see us.

Last month at a Virginia gubernatorial candidate debate, the Democrat nominee, longtime Clintonista Terry McAuliffe, let loose this surprising bit of candidness, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

I believe parents should have the defining voice in school curricula—as do undoubtedly most Americans. 

In his farewell address in 1989 Ronald Reagan said, “And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” And that is as it always should be.

But in his first inauguration speech as California governor the Gipper warned, “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”

We now have an attorney general–and a White House administration–that favors restricting freedom.

Don’t look for Durbin to call them out on it.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.