A work and family day. I’m actually using my iPhone to post all these wonderful things from Caped Crusader since I haven’t had a minute at my computer:
Somehow it seems appropriate to note here that 10,000 people in Madison, Wisconsin, turned out to hear Bernie Sanders speak. Please remind me why Americans, who have voted for Obama twice, aren’t stupid enough now to sweep Sanders into office. Otherwise I fear I’ll go all Victorian and fall into a decline just thinking about the possibility of an openly socialist, creepy old man President in the White House.
As I’ve noted before, we cannot afford to back down an inch in the culture wars lest the fanatics take over, brutally squashing all dissent — and as is always the case with fanatics, all the joy in life. One of the most ferocious battles in this war involves relationships between men and women (or, maybe more accurately, boys and girls) at the university level. Robert Stacy McCain accurately notes the malevolent misanthropy driving these battles:
It hasn’t been a bad day; it’s just been one of those days. Endless work, endless phone calls (some quite nice, but eight from my Mom, oy!), endless kid interruptions. Thankfully, Caped Crusader is there for me when I need him. I’m starting with the funny stuff, and then it gets serious:
Yes, he’s not even out of office, but the Lefties are seeing which way the wind blows — and that is to an unanswerable Supreme “Court” that operates to permanently enshrine Leftist initiatives. What better place for Obama? And so it is that I find this poster popping up all over my Facebook feed:
“He’s a superb writing, a former constitutional law professor, and has the right temperament and values.” I disagree with every single statement in that sentence. When others don’t write for him, he’s a turgid, ponderous, and sometimes incoherent writer and speaker; he was a “lecturer,” not a “professor,” with the former having lower status than the latter; he has a vindictive temperament; and his values are hard Left, anti-American, anti-Israel, pro-sharia, and generally distasteful and dangerous.
No wonder the Lefties want him to be their chief rubber-stamper.
As we all know to America’s cost, when confronted with the question of gay marriage under the Constitution, Justice Kennedy found the right lurking in the heart of the Constitution, right between the Amendments about unicorns and leprechauns. In other words, he made it up out of whole cloth.
The correct ruling, of course, would have been to say that the Constitution is silent on all marriages, let alone gay marriage, but is quite loud about religious freedom. Therefore, to the extent that “marriage” is inextricably intertwined with religion, the answer isn’t to add gay marriage to the Constitution but, instead, to take all state-sanctioned marriage out of the Constitution, reserving it solely for religious institutions. The states would have to be content with issuing licenses for “civil unions.” These unions would be subject to each state’s determined about what is best for the state’s (and its children’s) overall well-being. End of story.
Of course, the sad truth is that not a single one of the Leftists on the Supreme Court (and that includes Justice Kennedy) is either as intelligent or as principled as I am. That’s a shame too, because we’re going to have one Hell of a mess in this country in the coming years (as I predicted long ago) thanks to the Supreme Court’s inevitable bow to political correctness and delusional takes on reality.
My dog woke me early, which bothered me at the time but now seems like a good thing, since I can get a little blogging in before the work day begins. Without further ado, a few posts I think are worth you time:
On Democrats and racism
If you read one thing today, you have to read Jeffrey Lord’s open letter to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz asking her when Democrats are going to confess to and apologize for the fact that racism is their legacy to America — and one that they pursued aggressively for more than a century.
After you’ve read it, if you won’t turn yourself into a pariah amongst family and friends, share it around. After all, two can play at the Alinsky game, but for conservatives, the Alinsky game is one in which each individual conservatives must be an activist, because there won’t be a media/Hollywood conglomerate around to do the heavy lifting.
Andrew McCarthy outdid himself on this one, honing in on the giveaway that the Supreme Court is a legislative branch of the Progressives:
Yet, for all the non-stop commentary, one detail goes nearly unmentioned — the omission that best explains this week’s Fundamental Transformation trifecta.
Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote?
There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.
How can that be? Jurisprudence is complex. Supple minds, however likeminded, will often diverge, sometimes dramatically, on principles of constitutional adjudication, canons of statutory construction, murky separation-of-powers boundaries, the etymology of language, and much else. Witness, for example, the spirited debate between the Court’s two originalists, Scalia and Clarence Thomas, over a statute that, in defiance of Obama policy, treats Jerusalem as sovereign Israeli territory.
But not the Court’s lefties, not on the major cases.
And it is not so much that they move in lockstep. It is that no one expects them to do anything but move in lockstep — not their fellow justices, not the political branches, and certainly not the commentariat, right or left.
It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards. Guiding precedents are for the quaint business of administering justice. In the social justice business, the road never before traveled will do if one less traveled is unavailable.
But there’s a problem. Once it has become a given that a critical mass of the Supreme Court is no longer expected, much less obliged, to do law, then the Court is no longer a legal institution. It is a political institution.
That is where we are. We should thus drop the pretense that the Court is a tribunal worthy of the protections our system designed for a non-political entity — life-tenure, insulation from elections, and the veil of secrecy that shrouds judicial deliberations.
Please be sure to read the whole thing. And then start thinking about how to mobilize a grassroots force that addresses this damage to our constitutional system.