In a slough of incompetence

A slew of incompetence in a slough of incompetence

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one who rises to the top in a slough of incompetence, is leading a charge to impeach Supreme Court justices — apparently just the ones she does not like. She said, “If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land and then issue, issue without basis — if you read these opinions — issue without basis rulings that deeply undermine human civil rights of the majority of Americans.”

The first takeaway any listener to or reader of that statement should have is this: Ocasio-Cortez has herself not read these opinions. If she had, she would know that they have a basis, even if she does not agree with it. The other options would seem to be that she has little to no reading comprehension, or she is a bald-faced liar.

There is definitely some serious misrepresentation going on about what was said in those hearings about Roe and Casey, but it’s not coming from the Justices...No Supreme Court nominee has ever come close to saying any such thing about any precedent. In fact, for decades, nominees of both parties have studiously avoided giving even what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described in her 1993 hearing as “hints … forecasts … [or] previews.” Transcripts of those hearings, which are available here, here, and here, show exactly what the Justices said and expose how accusations of “lying” are pure fiction.
The Justices Didn’t Lie About Roe v. Wade—And Democrats Know It

Peevish reactions to Dobbs v. Jackson WHO

Some guy named Billie Joe Armstrong is apparently an important rock star. (You couldn’t prove it by me.) While in London, he told concertgoers that he will protest the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision by renouncing his United States citizenship and moving to England. Good for him. Pray for England.

Another rock/pop star had plenty of cuss words for America (as did Billie Joe Armstrong). Pink told her fans who agree with the Supreme Court decision re Roe v. Wade to “never (cuss word deleted) listen to my music again.” Thanks, I will take you up on that, although the again part won’t be a problem for me! Perhaps she assumes a lot in thinking that pro-life folks actually listen to her music. She assumes more in thinking she gets to control who listens to her music.

We probably should praise these peevish reactions because (1) they are angry but not violent, and (2) they expose the underlying unthinking hypocrisy of many abortion proponents. The article I read says Armstrong is a native of California. Rather than controlling what Americans think, the Supreme Court decision pushes abortion laws back to the states. Armstrong’s state will have abortion freely available. Pink does not want the Court controlling her views and actions – yet she wants to control who can and cannot listen to her music! Pot meet kettle.

C’est la vie.

Sad Anniversary post removed

Sometimes I prepare posts ahead of time for a specific upcoming anniversaries, dates, events, and/or holidays. Today I removed a “Sad Anniversary” post I had scheduled for the 50th anniversary of the Roe versus Wade Supreme Court Decision. Six months before its fiftieth birthday, the Supreme Court aborted it with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

The vote was 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. However, though Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with that opinion, he held that the court should not have overturned Roe. The other three liberal justices opposed.

Biblically

• The Bible condemns murder – the taking of human life without justification.
• The Bible affirms the humanity of unborn children.
• Since the Bible establishes the humanity of the unborn child, then abortion is murder and cannot be morally permissible.

Legally

• The U. S. Constitution does not affirm abortion as a right.
• Murder should be regulated at the State rather than Federal level.
• The choice being made in abortion is the choice to take an innocent human life.

Hogs and Dogs

2 Peter 2:22

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, by now you have heard of the leaked Supreme Court draft. Politico (a political “journalism” company) leaked it to the public on Monday. Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged that the leak is of a legitimate draft, and said, “This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.” I have a few thoughts. Roberts has directed the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court to investigate the leak.

The leaked document is a draft – unfinished business – despite Politico leading the article with Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights. This may indicate the outcome of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but it is not final or official. It’s not over till it’s over.

This is an unprecedented breath of trust.

Politico should be excoriated for their hypocrisy. They try to provide cover regarding one worldview and try to expose things regarding another worldview. They are not journalists, but political hacks working to promote their own worldview and their associated political outcomes.

Politico and its authors Josh Gerstein & Alexander Ward ought to be ashamed of their lack of integrity (they will not be). The only reason to leak a draft document seems to be to work up enough opposition to frighten the Court into changing their opinion. Courts must provide judgement on the merits of the law, not public opinion.

All the Congress in Washington, D.C., if they have an ounce of integrity, ought to denounce this breach of the America’s trust, regardless of their personal and political opinions about abortion. Many have shown the opposite tact, that they will not let a good “crisis” go to waste.

The Far Left are howling like a hit dog, squealing like a stuck hog, as if this is the end of the world. If the opinion in the draft comes to fruition, it actually only means that the question of abortion goes back where it belongs – to the states. Constitutionally, in the United States, individual states define and dispose of criminal matters such as murder.

Constitutionality aside, killing an innocent life is biblically and morally wrong.

[Note: Josh Gerstein acknowledges that he knows what he is doing to cause controversy, stating, “No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.”]

The Stench of 1973

News outlets yesterday reported that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” [This in reference to “what if” the Court overturned abortion rights as they currently stand interpreted.]

I find that statement intriguing in light of how the abortion right was created. I wonder how she views the “reading” of the Constitution and the “political act” of the Supreme Court in 1973 when the majority found the right to abortion which they were unable to read in the Constitution.

Choosing a Supreme Court Justice

In a recent Miami Herald op-ed piece, Leonard Pitts, Jr. wrote that Sen. McConnell is a liar — and not a very good one, at that. His reference is to Senator Mitch McConnell's suggestion to "give [the American people] a voice" in deciding the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He intends to not hold hearings for President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court."Let’s let the American people decide," says McConnell. That is, let's wait until after the presidential election and let the winner nominate the next justice. 

Pitts claims, "There are four lies here, each more threadbare and cynical than the last." The four lies he references are "The Biden rule," President Obama "politicizing this," "not about a person," and "voice of the people." 

1. I believe that Pitts is right when he says here is no such thing as the Biden rule. U.S. Senator Joe Biden made remarks in 1992 about not considering Supreme Court nominees made in the final year of a presidency. There is no "Biden Rule" under which the Senate must operate in this regard. On the other hand, Biden did make these remarks, and other Democrats have made similar ones. Both Republican and Democrat Senators display situation ethics in regard to matters than come before them, according to who is in power in Congress and in the White House.

2. McConnell and other Republicans say President Obama is politicizing this. President Obama and other Democrats say the Republicans are politicizing this. In fact, it's an election year -- most all of them politicizing, though some may be operating on principle (some might even be politicizing and operating on principle). 

3. Is it about a principle or a person? More probably it is about a person, principles and even power. All run in order to promote their principles, power and people -- though not always ethically so -- so we should not be surprised when they act in accord with their reasons for be elected to public office. 

4. Pitts and those on the Democratic side say the voice of the people has been spoken in the election of President Obama. That is true. He also references a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll. It claims that 63% of those polled want the Senate to hold hearings and vote. But these kinds of polls don't matter (and didn't matter to Obama and the Democrats when most people polled did not want their Affordable Health Care Act). Elections, on the other hand, do matter. But not only was the voice of the people spoken when Barack Obama was elected, but also when every Senator who has to advise and consent on the judicial nominee was elected (two elections in a row, mostly against President Obama). 

We have spoken with different voices, so it is no surprise that different voices speak on Capitol Hill. Ultimately, when they agree we will have a new Supreme Court Justice. (And isn't that kinda how the system was intended to work??)

Supreme Court nominee

A lot of energy has been expended jawing about filling the vacancy in the Supreme Court left by the death of Antonin Scalia (some of which began when his body was barely turning cold). The chief issue is whether a lame duck president should nominate a replacement (both theoretically and really). I heard someone on the radio today complain because the people don't get to choose the nominee (i.e., by the election process). Fact is, we do get to choose in the way the Constitution specifies -- we choose the President and Senate who choose the Supreme Justice. Some have used the rhetoric "let the people decide" in referring to letting the next elected president nominate a justice. The other side complains that it is the current president's right to nominate a justice. Both are right. The currently seated president has the constitutional right to set forth his candidate. But the Senate also has the constitutional right to "advise and consent" -- which included the right to not consent. 

I personally believe is it wise to wait. But whichever side we come down on, it is US who elected (or will elect) the officials who will nominate and confirm the next Supreme Court justice. Like it or not, we are part of the process.

Constitutional Cruz control *

Laurence H. Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, writes an interesting piece about his former student and presidential candidate, Ted Cruz. In it, his surmises that under Ted Cruz’s own logic, he’s ineligible for the White House. I think he makes a valid point, but while cruising around looking for trouble he might perhaps drink a little of his own tonic. The rich irony extends to not only Cruz's position, but Tribe's as well. Tribe "believes that the Constitution’s meaning evolves with the perceived needs of the time and longstanding practice." Surely he should not object to a little evolution in Cruz's constitutional interpretations. Ultimately, this is just one more political hack piece taking to task of someone whose politics one doesn't like. 


Take the following link to read what Thomas Sowell says about Messing With the Constitution.

* Titled "Constitutional Cruz control" when I first read it Tuesday morning

"Breaking News"

The Supreme Court has handed down a 5-4 decision in the Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood Products cases. Read breaking news about it here:

* Justices: Can't Make Employers Cover Contraception -- "The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners."