Category Archives: supreme court

A simple question for those who think Judge Kavanaugh is a Cad

 

I realize one mustn’t expect reason from anyone who thinks it’s OK to murder a baby, but I’d love one of those who insist that Brett Kavanaugh is “guilty” to answer a simple question. In the words of your hero, Hillary Clinton, regarding her murder by negligence of six Americans, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Let’s ignore:
1) Christine Blasey Ford’s previous call for people to file false rape allegations against every SCOTUS nominee till Merrick Garland was nominated.
2) Her obvious both personal and political biases against Judge Kavanaugh
3) 6 FBI background checks and previous Senate confirmations when she didn’t come forward
4) The vagueness of her memory.
5) The testimony of all her alleged witnesses that it never happened.
6) The testimony of the men who claimed yesterday that they were the ones Ford misidentified as Kavanaugh (which claims incidentally Sen. Graham rejected).
Let’s say it happened: two teenagers were illegally intoxicated at a “party,” in the early 80s, after the so-called Sexual Revolution when you liberals insisted everyone could have whatever sex they wanted without consequences, in a situation where it is assumed people will fornicate–two of the four (the other two being “drugs” and “rock & roll”) those of us with principles have always avoided such “parties.”
Both teenagers were under 18. In the state of Maryland, the age of consent is 14 so long as there’s not a 5 year age difference (just looked that up), so it would not have been statutory rape. So one drunken teenager allegedly groped another drunken teenager, tied her up, and tried to get her to have sex but then *did not actually rape her*. If the alleged assailant actually broke a law, whether “Just” the drunkenness or some definition of assault, and had been arrested for it at the time, it would have been stricken from his record because he was under 18.
Even if *all* of these accusers are telling the truth, and every one of them has significant holes, no evidence or reliable witnesses, and all are claiming some level of being complicit in the alleged crimes, the behaviors in question are quite sadly very common for people of their age and generation, behaviors that you otherwise condemn Christians for saying are sinful.
After the “high school and college” “party years” end, he goes on to live a life that passes 6 FBI background checks, has a wife and two daughters, is regarded as an upstanding citizen, and has a list of women who either dated him or who have worked with him who insist he was a perfect gentleman, never groped or harassed them, etc.
Does improvement of previous bad or criminal behavior not “count”? I thought liberals believed in rehabilitation.
Advertisements

_The Abolition of Man_ has arrived

The principle  argument of C. S. Lewis’s _The Abolition of Man_ is that, if we remove objective values from society, we will lose our humanity.  Lewis begins with an analysis of an English textbook he calls the _Green Book_, which says that statements of objective beauty are impossible. From this, he builds to the existence of objective moral standards, which to appeal to a neutral audience, he refers to as the Tau, rather than the Natural Law.
He also modifies Plato’s theory of the Tripartite Soul.  Where Plato says the “head” is the essential part of a person, and Freud says the gut is, Lewis argues that it is the “chest” which makes us human–our passions, and our ability to control them, are what separate human nature from the angels, which are pure intelligence and the animals, which are pure body.
Then making the case for a Natural Law and a Natural Lawgiver, regardless of the particular deity–that’s a topic he covers in _Mere Christianity_
Finally, in the third section, he warns how the efforts of science to “conquer nature” are really the efforts of a few men to conquer other men using nature as the means.  He warns how our modern conveniences, which supposedly increase our power, actually increase our servitude.  He gives the examples of “the airplane, the wireless and the contraceptive.”  Now, as the use of airplanes and wireless radios (or, now, devices in general) are not intrinsically evil, his inclusion of contraceptives, as one feminist critic but admirer of Lewis put it, “sound like a list of Lewis’s pet peeves.”
However, it is interesting that the concerns raised by Lewis (echoing Chesterton) about those particular devices correspond to the early 19th century prophecies attributed to Our Lady of La Salette–prophecies which, though published later and called into doubt by some sources, uncannily predict the 20th Century. She specifically mentions devices that will allow people to travel in the air and communicate over great distances.
On  contraception, though, Lewis warns of the effects it would have on children’s psyches to know they are “planned” by their parents.  He says that the Western Democracies are more likely to achieve the “abolition of man” than the Nazis or Communists.
At the end of _That Hideous Strength_, often seen as a novelization of the ideas Lewis addresses in _Abolition of Man_, Dr. Ransom tells reformed feminist Jane Studdock to go be with her husband.  Jane asks, “Am I no more than an animal in heat?”
Ransom replies, “More, but not less.  Go, and have no more dreams: have children instead.”

The Culture of Death has created the very “Men without Chests [that is, consciences]” Lewis warned us of.  20 years ago, my Dad realized that his students didn’t understand Shakespeare because they didn’t understand the idea of transcendent morality.  Why would Hamlet hesitate to “off” the guy who killed his dad?  To those born in a culture of abortion and violent movies, killing an inconvenient person was no big deal.

In 1992’s _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_, as well as other decisions, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued, as a positive, what Lewis presented as a negative: that the “right to liberty” implies the liberty to decide for oneself what a person is.  Kennedy argues that people can and should determine whether they are alive, and if a child is inside that magical barrier of a few inches, the mother can determine whether or not her child is a person.  Kennedy has applied this “reasoning” to other culture war cases, including recent decisions in which he has argued for people to define for themselves what “marriage” is.

_Griswold v. Connecticut_ and Radar Detectors

This will be the 50th Anniversary of the monstrous _Griswold v. Connecticut_ (1965) case that established the fictional “right to privacy” and the notion of the “penumbral shadow” of the Bill of Rights, giving us _Roe v. Wade_ and a string of other anti-family and anti-life decisions.

The fundamental premise of the _Griswold_ case, which I was taught concerned a married couple who tried to purchase contraceptives at a pharmacy but actually was started by a Planned Parenthood director, is that laws banning the use of items that are used in private are unconstitutional, because to enforce them requires violating the 4th and 5th Amendments–yet the law, which ha been rarely enforced, was enforced in Griswold’s case by targeting the public business that provided the “private” service, not the couples using it.

Just as it is still technically illegal in South Carolina and some other states to privately own or use a deck of cards or a set of dice, even without gambling, there are plenty of things that are illegal to use in private but haven’t been ruled unconstitutional, and are legal to sell but not to use.  While I could come up with several examples, the one that comes most readily to mind is those radar detectors.  Another one that struck me a few years ago was when the federal government made it no longer a crime to change the SIM card in a cell phone (which had previously been considered hacking, yet seemed to be a common practice among some tech-savvy people).  Indeed, the entire “War on Drugs” should be “unconstitutional” according to _Griswold v. Connecticut_.

Why are our “rosaries” so threatening?

By now, you may have seen this picture of my friend and former co-worker Michael Hichborn, praying at the Supreme Court while awaiting Monday’s ruling in _Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius_.

Girl holding sign saying It’s apparently made CNN, Time and various other mainstream media outlets.

The woman things she’s being ironic, but the real irony is how she’s demonstrating the absurdity of her position and the slogan.

1.  It makes no sense.  *Maybe* it makes sense in the context of contraception, but not abortion, as abortion has to do with the uterus, not the ovaries.  You would think people so concerned about “women’s health” would have the basic facts.

2.  As far as how the slogan is relevant, we have nothing against ovaries.  Indeed, we want ovaries to work properly, not be poisoned with chemical contraceptives.

3. Most importantly, and as I noted, what threat do “our rosaries” pose?  As this troubled young lady demonstrates, what threat is Michael Hichborn posing her saying his Rosary there in front of  SCOTUS?  He’s not a speaker.  He’s not holding a sign.  He’s just kneeling and praying.  For all she knows, he’s praying *for* her “side” (he isn’t , but she doesn’t know that).  Either way, how does prayer hurt anybody?
a.  If one accepts that prayer us ultimately, “Thy will be done,” and they believe they are in accordance with God’s will, shouldn’t they welcome it?
b.  If they believe that prayer is ultimately meaningless words to a non-existent deity, then shouldn’t they be happy that people are “wasting time” praying rather than, again, “actively” protesting?
or
c.  Do they really know what they’re doing is wrong and fear God so much that they don’t want to be reminded of it?  Do they truly believe prayer is efficacious and fear having to actually change in conformity with God’s grace?

“I should be able to love whomever I want”–Really?

I think I’ve made this observation before, but the problem is not the redefinition of “marriage”; it’s the redefinition of “love.”
The foundational argument for “same sex marriage,” the premise that makes even many otherwise pro-life Christians nod their heads in agreement, is “I should be able to love whomever I choose.”  As soon as somebody–whether it’s Phil Robertson or Rick Santorum or whomever–points out the obvious implications of that argument, people scream “bigotry!”, “Slippery slope!”  and so forth.

I’ve never understood why “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy, since it is precisely how things so often work (a friend pointed out once that it’s a deductive fallacy but not an inductive fallacy, which makes more sense).  Anthony Kennedy’s argument in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that people have the right to decide for themselves whether the unborn baby is a “blob of tissue” or a “person” was the same argument he used to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.  The Supreme Court’s decisions about “gay marriage” in June 2013 have been quickly followed by moves to legalize polygamy (though, I would argue, Catholic ethics notwithstanding, that that would be a step in the right direction from our current situation of serial divorce and remarriage, as the author I link suggests) and efforts to normalize pedophilia have already begun.

So much for “that’s just a slippery slope argument.”  However, the slope began when we redefined “love” as “romantic feelings.”  The premise “Shouldn’t someone be able to love whomever they choose?” sounds good on the surface, but it’s quite a leap from that to “Shouldn’t someone be able to marry whomever they choose?”  In between are several presumptions.
It all goes back to the redefinition of love.

1.  “Love” does not necessitate “marry.”  That should be obvious.  We are called to “love” everyone, including our enemies.  That does not necessitate marrying them.   Marital love is supposed to be about learning how to love other people.  Ideally, marriage should be based upon a combination of attraction, friendship and practicality, but, sometimes, marriage is exactly the milieu, like the family, in which we learn to “love our enemies.”

Marie and Frank Barone, _Everybody Loves Raymond_

“Didn’t I teach you anything? You got a problem with your woman, you don’t go out and get another one. Then you got two problems.” –Frank Barone

2.  “Love” does not necessitate “have sex with.”  One of the ways the normalization of same sex attraction has effected “heterosexuals” is that it’s impossible to just be friends: look at the efforts to turn every fictional friendship into a sexual relationship.  This was already a problem a few generations ago, as C. S. Lewis discusses in _The Four Loves_.

Holmes and Watson

Like these guys

3.  As St. Gianna Molla put it so succinctly, “Love is a choice.”  You *can* love whomever you *choose*.  But the lie of “choice” in the same sex argument, like the lie of “choice” in abortion, is that they claim the right to choose somethiexng they say they have no choice about.

4.  Love is not a feeling.   People these days define love as “how someone makes me feel.”  “I love you” comes to mean the same thing as “I love spaghetti.”  Love becomes entirely about the subject, and the object of the love becomes just that, an object for use, whether it’s a food or another person (this is of course the standard Catholic argument on all these subjects, and I’ll be accused of “parroting,” I’m sure).

Karol Cardinal Woytyla, _Love and Responsibility_

When we see love in the light of those conditions, it takes way the argument that one’s choice of a marriage partner should be based primarily upon attraction.  All of the madness in our society comes from a failure to understand “love.”

“I love you” is not about how “you” make “me” feel; it’s about how “I” make “you” feel.

Bl. Teresa of Calcutta on Abortion

“America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts — a child — as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being’s entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.”
–Blessed Mother Theresa

Unless there is a Third Party Upset, the Constitution is Dead

No matter who wins this election, the Constitution is dead. The reason is that, all other issues aside, the two dominant parties are forcing us to choose between the two kinds of candidates the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent.

Those who are ignorant of history think that the United States was the first democratic representative government in Western history. This is most certainly not true.

England, quite obviously, had a functioning representative Parliament for centuries, and one of the goals of our Constitution was to correct some of the failures of the English system (including Common Law, which essentially gave the courts in England an oligarchy–the Constitution forbids the courts from legislating precisely to do away with Common Law amd Judicial Review, yet somehow those powers were usurped by the Courts, anyway).

Since Plato, political philosophers were aware of the dangers of democracy. The various failed attempts at democracy in Greece, combined with the failures of the Roman Republic (failures our nation has emulated), the historical lessons of democracy were clear.

History has shown that democracies inevitably fail and turn to dictatorships. Prior to the US, the most successful democratic system was the Roman Republic, which, like the US after it, was adamant about not having a king. Yet the Roman Republic converted to the Roman Empire, and the way things are going, our Republic will not last nearly as long as Rome’s did before it suffers the same fate.

Historically, democracies and republics fall because of one or more of three things:
1) People are greedy, and support the candidate who best facilitates their greed, eventually bankrupting the government
2) The people will elect a demagogue who tells them what they want to hear and seduces them into giving him dictatorial powers
3) A guy with enough money can essentially buy an election.

So, that’s what we have in this election.
In this corner is Barack Obama, a classic example of a demagogue. He has gained power by dividing the country on race and class. He has made false promises to the poor while giving huge “bail outs” to corporations that did nothing but lay people off, so that the existing public services are increasingly strained. His administration has doubled the national debt in four years.

In the other corner, we have Mitt Romney, an unlikable candidate with no clear convictions other than economic conservatism who has essentially bought the election. His competitors, all of whom were far more popular among actual voters, simply could not compete with his seemingly limitless campaign funds.

So, there you have it, folks. The two candidates that our Founding Fathers specifically warned us against and designed the Constitution to prevent. After all, that Electoral College that liberals keep complaining about and telling us is obsolete was supposed to prevent this. Presidents were never supposed ot campaign directly to the people; the Electors were supposed to campaign on behalf of the presidential candidates and do it face-to-face.