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.

_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.

How “Arrest Bush” People Promote a Catholic State

I think everyone in our culture, if they know anything about Catholicism, know that the Catholic Church used to have an Inquisition. Now, much like Bishop Sheen’s statement about people hating not the Catholic Church but what they *think* that Catholic Church is, those people often think they know what the Inquisition was but know little about it.
First, there were technically two sets of entities known as the “Inquisition.” On the one hand, there was/is the entity that worked within the Church to enforce orthodoxy and investigate heresy and other issues. It still exists, though some of its methods and organizations have changed with its name. Its name was later changed to the Holy Office, and it is now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.
The other side or form of the “Inquisition” was the internal agencies of local countries where Catholicism was the state religion, which enforced violations of Catholic teaching as criminal offenses. Sometimes, quite rarely, that meant “witchcraft” or “heresy,” but it also included moral offenses. The different state Inquisitions would use different methods, and the exact methods of the Inquisition would vary with different officials like any organization. Sometimes, it used torture. In some cases, it was actually closer to modern notions of justice than the criminal and civil courts of those times.

Sometimes, it would be over-zealous.

When Joan of Arc was sentenced to death by the Inquisition, her trial was overseen by substitute officials because the Grand Inquisitor was in Rome during the whole affair, and as soon as he came back, he reviewed the trial and found it to be unjust, though it took another 50 years to fully reverse the verdict and 500 years for Joan to be canonized.

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella who united Spain after centuries of wars between Christians and Muslims, instituted the Spanish Inquisition, which was notoriously harsh and overzealous in trying to keep the Muslims from retaking the country, and trying to keep Protestantism from overtaking Spain as it had so many countries in Northern Europe. The Spanish Inquisition was overzealous to the point that Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, two of the greatest saints of all time and both later deemed Doctors of the Church, lived in fear of the Inquisition, and at least one of Teresa’s books was “lost in the shuffle” as the Inquisition investigated it.

Yet in spite of these offenses that everyone knows about, the Inquisition did a lot of good. Back in those days, there were priests who committed sexual abuse (Holy Mother Teresa writes about one in her _Life_), but the Inquisition punished them. In World War II, the Holy Office used its network to assist Allied spies and as an “underground railroad” to help Jews and Allied POWs escape the Nazis.

The abuses had more to do with the local state-affiliated Inquisitions than the overall Inquisition of the Church, which is why the Church changed the name and reorganized it. On the other hand, a lot of what is “commonly known” comes from anti-Catholic propaganda and is actually historically inaccurate.

Thus, I find it ironic that, on the one hand, the Church is criticized for having the Inquisition. On the other hand, the *contemporary* Church is often criticized for things that the Inquisition used to handle. The extensive problem of sexual abuse by priests in this century could be blamed, in part, on the absence of an Inquisition. The insistence of bishops on emphasizing reform and forgiveness in dealing with sexual abuser priests was due, in part, to a mentality of “We don’t want to be like the Inquisition.” If the Inquisition was still active, and was a government agency, there would have been a clear avenue for punishing priests who engaged in sexual abuse or embezzlement or other offenses. But since the US insists on separation of Church and State, and the Church says, “fine; we’re separate, so stay out of our business,” the problem arose that we are all aware of.

Dr. Charles Rice points out that people are opposed to the notion of Natural Law until it’s convenient. Suddenly, at the Nuremberg Trials, people were talking about Natural Law. Then it was moral relativism all over again. People will tell me that they don’t believe in Natural Law, then say that BP needs to be punished for the oil leak in the Gulf–a form of Natural Law.

Earlier, I posted about uncivil political rhetoric and noted that I believe Barack Obama should be impeached and prosecuted for a number of things, including war crimes, violations of the Constitution and defrauding the people.

I figured an automatic reply from some would be, “Prosecute Bush,” and in one sense, I agree. Anticipating that response inspired *this* post.

Morally, Bush is responsible for a lot of offenses. I don’t think he’s responsible for everything that the Left claims. The assertions of WMDs in Iraq, for example, were made under the Clinton Administration, and again, proving a negative is impossible. We’ll probably never know for certain whether the WMDs were there or not. There are Iraq veterans who claim they found WMDs but the media didn’t report it. There are various conspiracy theories about the WMDs being sent off to other countries before the invasion. Who knows? I think that Bush was sincere, though, in acting on the intelligence he was given. I suspect something like what happens in the movie _Wag the Dog_, however.

I still think Bush also did a lot to violate the Constitution, and to violate human rights, but he did it with the support of Congress, and there is nothing in US law that would directly impeach him. Even if the Supreme Court were to rule the Patriot Act, or NCLB, unconstitutional (it already ruled McCain-Feingold unconstitutional), that still wouldn’t be grounds for prosecution. You can’t prosecute someone for passing a law that’s later overturned.

Of course, the Left would argue that he should be arrested by some UN agency, but of course that’s not an option I would support. The UN goes against everything I believe in, starting with the principle of subsidiarity, and including the fact that it’s basically a Masonic entity.

To this, I note how many Papal documents, such as Caritas et Veritate, that seem to support the UN are actually undermining it. When the Vatican says something like, “There needs to be a global entity overseeing the morality of the banking industry,” the Church is saying, “Wink, wink, nudge, nudge”; “There needs to be an entity to oversee global morality. By the way, we’re a global entity that God established to oversee morality.” It’s saying basically that the Church should be running the UN.

That gets us back to the Inquisition. Just as a modern day Inquisition would have stopped the sex abuse crisis in its tracks, so too would it give us something to do with Bush.

Obama is clearly guilty of constitutional crimes. Bush is guilty of grave moral offenses, many of which he shares with Obama, but he did them all with the protection of the institutions we have in this country. We don’t have an entity that punishes violations of Natural Law that are not also part of the criminal code. That’s what an Inquisition is for.

So, that’s how the Occupy Wall Street Left, which would reflexively say “Inquisition” as a response to any pro-Catholic statement, is actually arguing *for* an Inquisition.

Why This Paleocon Solidly Supports Rick Santorum

Let me start this very clearly: anyone reading this blog should realize I’m a solid paleoconservative, and I’ve been very critical of both neoconservatism as a philosophy and Rick Santorum insofar as he exemplifies it. That said, with all things put together, I have decided that Santorum is not only the best candidate among the standing Republicans but the only possible candidate to face the crisis our country is in.

Will he win? Well, polls are indicating he’s the only Republican who has a chance of beating Obama, and it’s really a question of whether he has a chance of beating Romney. At this point, since I’ve argued for years that a repeat of 1860 is the only way to end abortion, I’m counting on the GOP to split at the convention the way the Democrats did in 1860. In a three way race between Obama, Romney and Santorum (or Paul, but he hasn’t got a shot at this point), I’m sure Santorum would be the spoiler the way Lincoln was in 1860, because Santorum appeals to the same voters Lincoln did, and they’re still roughly the same percentage of the population.

A. Constistently Pro-Life?

Again, I disagree strongly with some of Santorum’s foreign policy positions. I agree with those who say that his positions on “enhanced interrogation,” assassination of civilians, and foreign interventionism belie his pro-life convictions and do not reflect a consistent pro-life philosophy. However, I always recognize, with the Church, that there is a hierarchy to pro-life issues.

1. Abortion and contraception are absolutes. I’ve always argued that given the choice between two anti-abortion candidates, the next issue to consider is contraception, and Santorum is better than the other candidates on that. Indeed, my otherwise favorite Ron Paul and his non-Catholic supporters have specifically criticized Santorum’s position on contraception. This was why, literally at the last minute, I decided to vote for Rick in the SC primary.

2. War is not an absolute, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in his infamous “secret letter” to Cardinal McCarrick. Since the state has the right to wage war when necessary, and since the judgement of whether a war is just or unjust is prudential, even though I disagree with Santorum’s positions on war-related issues, he seems to be exercising his prudential judgement and taking Church teaching, as he understands it, into consideration.

3. Santorum has shown himself willing to adjust his own beliefs to the Church’s teachings, more than any other politician I’ve seen. Since being voted out of office, from what I’ve heard from him on EWTN, he seems to have repented of his support of Specter, for example. If any politician is willing to change to be more in accord with the Church, he’s it. So I pray he’ll alter his foreign policy views as time goes on.

4. While I disagree with his views, again, I think he’s sincere in them. I’ve always pointed to Pat Buchanan as the ideal Catholic paleocon and the late Bob Casey, Sr., as the ideal Catholic liberal–both argue sincerely from their Catholic principles to their political conclusions. I happen to agree more with Buchanan, but respect Casey’s reasoning. I say the same thing about Santorum: I respect his reasoning, even though I disagree with some of his conclusions and his view on the function of government.

B. Paleocon versus Neocon view of Government

As a paleocon, I’d prefer small-government solutions to problems. I’d rather we outlaw abortion the Ron Paul way than by passing yet another federal law.

However, I have to recognize the signs of the times. If Ron Paul had done better so far, it would be one thing, but he’s hardly gotten any votes at all. Paleoconservatism is a dying position. In Canada, neither dominant coalition is officially pro-life anymore, and the “Religious Right” is suffering as a minority. That will happen in the US if Romney gets the GOP nomination. Rush Limbaugh said last year how the GOP leadership wants to the Christians to shut up about abortion. For the most part, paleocons and neocons agree about issues; we just disagree about the best way to tackle them. Even though I disagree with Santorum about *how* to tackle them, I also acknowledge that, at this point, his methods may be the only way to win on certain issues. Having seen Buchanan, Dornan, Keyes and now Paul get rejected time and again, I have to admit that paleoconservatism is a losing viewpoint, and if we don’t find a way of working with the neocons, we face the fate of not just paleocons but all pro-lifers in Canada.

C. Catholicism

Right before I went to the polls in the South Carolina primary, I went across the border to a pro-life rally in Augusta for the Anniversary of _Roe v. Wade_. It was sponsored by the interfaith “Alleliua” community. It was raining, and crowded, so I sat in my van and listened to some of the talks. I heard some speaker–don’t know if he was Catholic or Protestant–saying how we’re all “flavors of the same Christianity,” and that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is subordinate to the Bible. Heresy trumps abortion, and I high-tailed it out of there. Then I went to the polls, and thought how I could not stomach voting for a non-Catholic when I had two acceptable Catholic candidates to choose from. Then I thought about the fact that Paul’s people were criticizing Santorum’s position on contraception, and voted for him.

That same weekend, this stuff about the HHS mandate came out. We are faced with a true culture war, where everything is pointed against the Catholic Church. Even ex-Catholic Glenn Beck, who was criticized here and elsewhere for seeming to tell Catholics to leave their Church a few years ago when he told people to leave any churches that talk of social justice, is praising the Church for taking a stand, and saying that the Obama administration is at war with the Catholic Church. Glenn Beck and the Limbaugh brothers have recently been speaking out in support of the Catholic Church, Rick Santorum, Pope Benedict XVI and Timothy Cardinal Dolan, saying how they’re taking a firm stand against Obama and for Christian values.

We’re at a watershed moment in our culture, and the Church Herself is under attack. I have no doubt that Romney, if elected, will just continue the work that Bush and Obama have started. The only one who can stem this tide against the Church in America is Rick Santorum.

D. Santorum shows signs of being the next “Reagan.”

It was under Ronald Reagan that Pat Buchanan coined the term “Paleocon” to distinguish from the former liberals who had joined the GOP over abortion and other social issues. Reagan breaking his promises to shut down the then relatively new EPA and Department of Education in favor of using them to promote a conservative agenda was one of the tell-tale signs of the so-called “neo-conservatism.”

The last GOP primary to last this long was 1976, when Reagan won 10 states against Ford. Obviously, Ford lost the election to Carter, but Reagan won four years later. If Santorum *doesn’t* win this nomination, he’s a shoe-in for 2016 (assuming there *is* a 2016 to look forward to). If the delegates are tied or close to it going into the Convention, we may see what I’ve been predicting: a party split where the GOP divides along its social conservative and economic conservative lines the way the Whigs did in the 1850s and the Democrats did in 1860. If Obama and Romney split the secularists, and Santorum wins the religious voters, Santorum could win.

E. Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony “Swing Vote” Kennedy

Those three are now the longest-serving members of the Supreme Court, if not the oldest. At least one of them is most likely to die, retire or get sick in the next 5 years. If Obama has a chance to nominate another justice, it will most likely be to replace a conservative or moderate. We’re not only dealing with overturning Roe v. Wade now, but “gay marriage” in numerous states, as well as Obamacare (which may hopefully be overturned in a few weeks), and several other unconstitutional laws passed under Obama (and Bush).

In 8 Years, George W. Bush nominated 2 justices to replace a couple “moderate” Republican justices. Obama’s replaced a liberal with a liberal. If he can replace a moderate or a solid conservative with a liberal, then liberals will have the majority on the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future, and if any of these issues make it to the Court, they can solidify them into so-called “settled law.”

If Romney gets in, he’ll most likely appoint “moderate Republicans” who can go either way.

Only with Santorum do we have a chance of appointing conservative jutices and getting the solid conservative majority we need to get this country back on the right track.

That’s why paleocons need to hold their noses and vote for Rick.

Freedom of the Government or Freedom of the Government?

I’ve often argued that the basic distinction between liberalism and conservatism has to do with interpretation of laws, the view of the role of government, both based upon differing views of human nature. Conservatives are pessimists. We tend to believe that people, left to themselves, will do evil. Whether our view is that of Thrasymachus, Calvin Hobbes, or Aristotle and Aquinas, conservatism can be summed up in the famous words of Lord Acton: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and more importantly in the warning of Socrates that representative democracy can only work by conscription, since anyone willing to run for office is at least guilty of arrogance. We want government that is small and limited because too much power in the hands of too few individuals leads to abuse, corruption and tyranny.

Meanwhile, liberals have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe that people are basically good, but get corrupted by society (though where the corruption in society comes *from* they won’t say). They think that, as long as you elect “good people” to government, government can be used to promote good. Theirs is the view of human nature that runs from Plato through to Rousseau and Locke in Western thought.

This distinction is summed up best in two of my favorite politicians: Pat Buchanan and Bob Casey, Sr. Both Catholics, both strongly pro-life, the differences between Buchanan’s political philosophy and Casey’s can be summed up in that each develops a consistently Catholic political theory derived from a differing premise of human nature. Casey fully admitted that he thought people were basically good, and government was a good thing as long as it had good people in it, whereas Buchanan’s philosophy derives from the presumption of original sin.

Today, that distinction is blurred by two problems. In the 200 years since the French Revolution, the Left has tried to justify its position that people are fundamentally good by identifying the source of “evil”. Was it monarchism? The Church? Land owners? Property Owners? Bankers? Schools? The Left has tried “reforming” institution after institution for 200 years of modernism, and none of them has proved to be the serpent in their garden of Eden.

Since the 1960s, the Left has resorted to something different. To justify their belief that people are fundamentally good, they’ve decided to alter it to a belief that people’s *intentions* are fundamentally good, and that they’d do “better” if it weren’t for institutions, and the main reason why people are “bad” is not that they are but because institutions *say* they are.

In other words, yesterday’s liberal said, “Let’s prevent abortion by helping women in need.” Great. Today’s liberal says, “Abortion isn’t really bad. We need to get rid of the Church that says it is.”

So while some “old school liberals” try to cling on the Democratic Party, others said, “Wait! I don’t agree with this!” They may believe people are fundamentally good and well-intentioned, but they do believe evil is a real thing and needs to be stopped, not just ignored.

Starting with people like Richard John Neuhaus, Michael Novak and Ronald Reagan, and moving through to Zell Miller and Ron Silver in the 2000s, these people defected from the Democrats to the Republicans, and garnered the name “Neoconservatives” or “neocons.” While the term has come to be considered pejorative, it was, like many such political terms, originally a specific concept for a specific group of intellectuals. The basic definition of a “neoconservative” is ” a liberal who has been mugged”.

By contrast, those who believe what conservatives actually believe have been labeled “paleoconservatives” or “paleocons.” Our belief in the basic corruption of human nature, and our mistrust of government, has been relegated to the sidelines as the paleocons have taken over the GOP.

The GOP is the “Party of Reagan,” even tough Reagan legalized abortion in California, and nominated such luminaries as Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court.

Reagan came to office promising to eliminate Carter’s newly created Department of Education, but changed his tune. Indeed, Reagan’s views on the Department of Education sum up neoconservatism. Like liberals, the neocons want to use the federal government to “do good”; they just want to use it to do what they consider good, versus the liberals.

So, in education, we have three factions: a) those of us who oppose federal involvement in education altogether; b) those who want to use the federal government to enforce “accountability” and “standards” and c) those who want to use the federal government to enforce “accountability” and “standards.” It’s just that groups b & c disagree on what those standards should be. Those of us in group A want local communities to establish the standards for their local communities, because of the principle of subsidiarity.

Of course, slavery and civil rights are often cited as the reasons to oppose “states’ rights,” yet those work both ways. After all, it was the Supreme Court which ruled slavery constitutional and then later ruled segregation constitutional. And there are other ways these issues might have been corrected without recourse to federal tyranny. For example, they invented “hate crimes” as a way to get around state authority and double jeopardy. Murder is a state crime, not a federal crime. Since many murders in the South–including the murders of Catholics which don’t get talked about as much as murders of blacks–were going unprosecuted, or else the murderers were getting off at trial, the Liberals invented the concept of “hate crime” and made it a federal crime. Now, if a person murdered someone in a “protected class,” then it was a *federal* crime and could be tried in federal court, and if the person was acquitted of murder at the state level, it wasn’t double jeopardy, since “hate crime” was a different offense!

However, instead of doing that, they could have simply charged the negligent state prosecutors and judges with violating the 14th Amendment.

So, today, you have “conservatives” who want to “do good” by making abortion a federal crime, as opposed to a state crime. Completely contrary to the names conservative and Republican, and to the principle of subsidiarity, they trust the federal government to have that much power.

I think many such people fail to understand the concept of “federal crime.” Take the “All late term abortions are legal except this one kind” Act, otherwise known as the Partial Birth Abortion ban. The act makes it a federal crime to perform this one kind of abortion. That means that
1) the perpetrator has to be investigated and arrested by the FBI; local police have no jurisdiction
2) the case has to be prosecuted in federal court.
As we know with many liberal laws passed at the federal level, this will be selectively enforced, since the FBI’s resources are taxed. Consider the many federal gun laws on the books, which hardly ever get prosecuted because it requires too many resources to enforce them at the federal level.
3) If you have a liberal Attorney General and/or FBI director, or you have liberal federal judges, then these crimes won’t get enforced at all.

Compare to states. In Kansas, “Partial Birth Abortion” is illegal at the *state* level except for certain circumstances. Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline tried to prosecute George Tiller for cooking the books to get around the state law, but was thwarted by being voted out of office before the case went to court. The new, liberal, attorney general (who, like Kathleen Sebelius, got into office with a lot of campaign funds from Tiller), simply ignored the evidence, softballed the witnesses in court, and let the case fizzle out.

Obviously, these things happen in state law, as they happened in the south before the Civil Rights Acts. *However*, at least at the state and local level, there’s more opportunity. A George Tiller might get away with it in Kansas, but maybe his counterpart in South Carolina would actually be prosecuted if it were state law. Do you think any abortionists are going to be prosecuted under the federal “ban” so long as Barack Obama is president?

Turning over power to the federal government ultimately means turning power over to the liberals.

“We’d like to thank you George W. Bush”

For all you’ve done for the Pro-Life Movement . . . .

1. Approving federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (so long as the babies are already dead).
2. Somehow deceiving millions into thinking you were pro-life, despite your repeated promises not to overturn Roe v. Wade.
3. Wasting further time and money on the “partial birth abortion ban” smoke and mirror, causing pro-lifers to think they’d done something other than ban one specific kind of rare late-term procedure (only because there are other procedures available that can do the same thing)..
4. Getting yourself praise for reinstating Mexico City Policy after Clinton while not reversing Clinton’s other two executive orders regarding federal funding of abortions, including permitting abortions on military bases (see below).
5. Completely ignoring Human Life International’s appeal that you repudiate and revoke the eugenicist agenda of NSSM-200 on its thirtieth anniversary in 2003, instead confirming your party’s true agenda, as that was the very year you got us into the kind of war predicted by said document’s long term plans.
6. Wasting the greatest approval ratings in recent history and a majority in both houses to push an immoral war, thus “postponing” and breaking most of your pro-family, pro-life campaign promises in *both* elections.
7. Attempting the Harriet Myers nomination–which should have been enough for pro-lifers to call your bluff–but then turning around and appointing John Roberts and Samuel Alito while deceiving the pro-life movement into believing these men were themselves pro-life.
8. Introducing an agenda of torture into US policy (and your supporters may question whether waterboarding constitutes “torture,” or claim that there are a “limited number of cases,” but there are plenty of documented offenses by the CIA, Blackwater and the Military that clearly fall under the category of “torture”). One day, Bush’s supporters will be looked on as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers in terms of their desire to simply ignore data to push an agenda. You’ve now caused a good deal of the pro-life leadership to compromise themselves by apologizing for torture and trying to minimize it, using some of the same strategies pro-choice Catholics use to justify legalized abortion. Oh, and it’s totally unnecessary, since all authentically pro-life candidates in 2008 opposed waterboarding, etc.
9. Turning many pro-life “Christians” into bloodthirsty revenge-seekers over 9/11
10. Appointing pro-abortionsts like Christine Todd Whitman and Tom Ridge to your cabinet, including making Ridge the first Director of “Homeland Security.”
Thus,
11. Coming after an administration that declared Pro-Lifers the #1 terrorist threat and spent its time tailing the Catholic bishops instead of Al-Qaeda, you a) vowed to wipe out “all terrorism,” b) set up a precedent for denying due process and torturing suspects, c) set up policies for violating US citizens’ Constitutional rights to root out suspected “terrorists” (even though that’s just the kind of thing the Constitution was written for, and d) stacked the Supreme Court with like-minded people.

Thusly,
12. Fulfilling the master plan of the real powers behind our country, hinted at in documents like NSSM-200, you alienated the country so much to lose your party’s hold over Congress and the White House, and paved the way for Barack Obama, who has set about carrying all those policies to the next level.

Yes, thank you President Bush. You did a great job of trying to build a Culture of Life.

Case in point: abortions on military bases. Clinton approved funding of them. Bush encouraged lots of women to sign up for the military to fight his wars. Now, pregnancy among women troops (wasn’t that one of the reasons for women not serving in the military??) is a growing “problem,” so Komrade Obama has ordered all US military bases and hospitals to stock the aborifacient “Morning After” pill.

Scott Brown: How the Pro-Life Movement has Fallen

At first, I was excited over Scott Brown. Then I found out his real positions on abortion. I have been genuinely torn about whether to be excited about this or not. It’s certainly a good thing in the short run, but not a good thing in the long run. Every time a pro-choice Republican wins is more reason for the Republicans to abandon the pro-life cause.

Anyway, Mark Shea has nicely delineated the slippery slope the Pro-Life Movement has made since selling its soul to Dubya ten years ago.

First, it was Bush over McCain because Bush was anti-embryonic stem cell research. Bush overturned 1 of Clinton’s *3* executive orders about abortion, permitting funding of abortions on military bases. Then Bush supported ESCR, and it was “I’m disappointed, but.” Bush tried to appoint pro-abortionists like Harriet Myers but got opposed and forced to appoint guys like Roberts and Alito who have yet to document any positions other than that they see _Roe v. Wade_ as settled law, and that abortions are OK so long as they’re not “gruesome”. Otherwise, in 8 years, he did zilch. When pro-lifers expressed outrage, Bush’s spokespeople said, “The president has always made clear that he supports _Roe v. Wade_.”

Which he did. Pro-lifers with Bush were like pacifists with Obama: they made him what they wanted him to be and ignored what he actually said. And they still do.

I posited at the time of Harriet Myers that maybe the pro-life movement was waking up to Bush like Sue Ellen finally dumping J.R., but that didn’t last long. Then people who used to speak of the dignity of the human person started agreeing with their President on human dignity not applying to “evil terrorists.”

Then, in 2008, McCain suddenly wasn’t that bad. Romney, who only became pro-life when he decided to run for president, was an avowed pro-lifer with a history of pro-life credentials.

We’re told that the end all and be all of pro-life activism is stopping partial birth abortion–one specific kind late term abortion that has been illegal for years now, even though the Supreme Court says it’s illegal because there are other ways to abort third trimester babies!!

Now, Scott Brown is the savior because he opposes federal funding of abortion and sort of supports conscientious objection.

Meanwhile, in early 2008, we had a candidate who
a. Said that presidents could be doing far more to fight abortion than they’d been doing
b. Supported measures to fight no-fault divorce
c. Supported homeschooling
d. Openly promoted Natural Law

and he didnt’ get support because
a) Catholics said they didn’t want to vote for a Baptist minister.
b) conservatives didn’t like the work he’d done for social justice as governor of Arkansas.

If Barack Obama had an “R” after his name instead of “D”, NRLC would find reason to declare him the greatest friend to the pro-life movement since Reagan. Oh, wait, Reagan appointed Kennedy and O’Connor.

Roe v. Wade is a “Landmark” decision

There are rumors circulating on the net that Michelle Obama’s mother may be practicing witchcraft in the White House, and that Barack, citing his alleged Christian beliefs and anticipating controversy, has told her to stop.

Mary points out that Yahoo, often has headlines that are fairly controversial, particularly with a conservative slant, and then disappear.  I saw the article as a yahoo headline.  A couple blogs picked it up.  When I did a google search, there were several hits, and all the sites had been taken down.  Several of the hits were satirical, so that may have been the origin.

In any case, it is only fair to point out that, while it’s not inconceivable that Marian Robinson may be practicing some form of voodoo or santeria or whatever, we know her son-in-law is definitely a practicing New Ager.

Let’s not forget that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer in the White House.  George H. W. Bush’s “nickname” in Skull & Bones (the secret society at Yale that has produced  a disproportionate number of presidents, Supreme Court Justices and other highly influential Americans) was “Magog.”

Let’s remember: most of the “Founding Fathers” were members of the Freemasons.  The Freemasons adopt the Gnostic belief that there were two Gods in the old Testament, embodied in what “modern Scripture Scholars” call the “Elohist source” and the “Yahwehist Source.”

The “modern Scripture scholar” side of it has that there are two parallel narratives in the Old Testament, explaining things like the two “Creation Accounts” and other redundant stories in the Pentateuch, or Chronicles versus Samuel/Kings, etc.  The story goes that one “tradition” likes to refer to God using the Tetragrammaton YHWH, while the other uses the generic Hebrew name for  God, Elohim.  It would be the equivalent of one Greek writer telling a story about “Zeus” while another Greek writer told a parallel but different story about “Theos.”  In any case, some modern Scripture scholars go so far as to say the accoutns, which sometimes differ in God’s “personality,” are talking about two different gods altogether.

The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, similarly believe in a kind of Dualistic reading of the Bible.  In both those religions, Jesus and Satan were brothers.  The Witnesses teach that St. Michael = Jesus. Interestingly, Joseph Smith had Masonic ties. 

I’ve read testimonies from those who’ve been involved in varying degrees with Masonry and the Shriners.  Many think the Shriners are the more “harmless” aspect of the Masons because they do those nice parades and children’s charities and hospitals and stuff, but the Shriners are, in fact, some of the most deeply involved Masons.  Shriners, like all Masons, worship Lucifer.

They exalt the Pyramids, the Tower of Babel, and other ancient “achievements.”  The whole reason they are called Freemasons is that they believe in what man can build without God’s assistance.  This, again is why the Church condemnd freemasonry to begin with: it advocates human achievement without God, human alliance without concern for religious differences, charity without Christ.

Meanwhile, the word Gnosticism, of course, comes from the Greek Gnosis, “knowledge.”  The Gnostics believed there was secret knowledge that a select few could have and the rest of the public remained ignorant.  Of course, a lot of people think that.  Averroneans think that.  Platonists think that.  Atheists like Myers, Dawkins and Hitchens think that. 

What makes Gnosticism different is that the knowledge in question is basically what we now call, collectively, “magic” (although many of the terms we now use as synonymous had different meanings originally).  Gnosticism arose of out Babylonian mystery cults, and, as the ideology moved through the ancient Near East and Mediterranean, it would co-opt the literature and religion of each local culture. 

So the Gnostics also saw the Old Testament as a story of two Gods, and they saw the true “good” God as Lucifer, who was trying to provide humanity with the knowledge that the evil Yahweh was denying.

Our founding fathers were, mostly Masons.  Jefferson expressed the hope that America’s separation of Church and State–which he said should be a “Wall”–would one day lead to everyone being Unitarian.

Many of our national images are masonic.  Most of the monuments in DC are Masonic in design.  The dollar bill has the masonic symbol of the eye at the top of a pyramid on it.

Many Conservatives make a big deal about “in God we Trust” on our money.  I don’t.   The God the money is referring to is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Blessed Trinity.  The God it is referring to is the God of Masonry. 

Now, let’s get to the whole New Age Thing: Oprah, Deepak Chopra and all the other gurus love him.

I’ve cited those quotes many times here.  Obama sees Jesus as “one of many” great religious leaders. He says his idea of heaven is tucking his daughters in.  He says his idea of prayer is silently thinking about how to solve a problem.

His religious view is centered on him. It’s amorphous.  He is a Christian, by his own admission, only in a kind of a cultural African American way, but he has “problems” with many Christian teachings. 

Long story short, it doesn’t really matter whether the Freemasons are one united group taking over the world or just a bunch of people who share simiarlly flawed beliefs, or a bunch of groups of people who are not united but share similarly flawed beliefs.  It also doesn’t matter if all presidents have been specifically members of the Masons, though they all come from similar backgrounds.  It is more realistic to acknowledge that there are multiple behind-the-scenes power structures manipulating American politics.

But, from the political side, representative democracy is a sham, and, from the religious side, we have a system which encourages ambitious people to pursue power ambitiously, and that leads directly down, to borrow  a phrase, “The path to the Dark Side.”  Satan is the prince of this world.  Yes, Jesus won the battle on the Cross.  Yes, God is in control.  But Jesus still makes it clear who the Enemy is, and that the Enemy has the reigns as far as this world goes, that the Kingdom of God, in this life, only exists in the heart of the individual believer.

I don’t believe a good person has any hope of political advancement in our society, and I believe a few near-exceptions to the rule prove it.  You may manage to get a cable TV talk show, or a seat in the House, or a state-level positoin.  Some good people may even get into advisory or cabinet level jobs.  But a good Senator is hard to find (Santorum anyone?  Brownback?) and a good president or Supreme Court Justice is harder (Scalia?)

You don’t obtain that kind of power from nothing unless you’re either 100% saintly (and that would preclude pursuit of worldly power) or else you’re working for the one who grants worldly power. 

We don’t need rumors about Marian Robinson and Santeria to tell us that.

Sonia Sotomayor – Witch?

Inspired by this article, several bloggers are suggesting that Sonia Sotomayor’s notorious “wise Latina woman” self-description may be more significant than the superficial sexism or racism that conservative pundits have been focusing on.  She is also a member  of a New Age feminist “networking” organization called Belizean Grove.

More importantly, “wise woman” is a euphemism for witch in the Wiccan community. 

Amazon: The Wise Woman.

Two Herbal Medicine sites.

A Christian Woman’s blog.

The Definition of “wise woman,” or “crone” from some feminist/wiccan site:

At the time of menopause, the pause of the flow of the menses, the Sacred Blood of Wisdom is finally retained inside the body and the woman herself can partake of its Wisdom. At this time, in older societies, she becomes known as crone or hag, words whose original meaning is ‘wise one’, revered elder of the circle.

We have lost our respect for the wisdom and understanding of age. yOni would like to contribute to re-establishing a reverence and appreciation for the elders in our society and to learn from these wise ones.

“The Wise Woman’s Tarot”

So, basically, “Wise Woman” seems to have two meanings:

1) a Christian woman referring to Proverbs

2) a Witch, particularly a woman who practices herbal medicine  (which, technically is what “witch” means).

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) says that, in his interview with Sonia Sotomayor, he asked her about the rights of the unborn, and she said she never thought about it.

“When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it,” said DeMint in a statement. “This is not just a question about abortion, but about the respect due to human life at all stages, and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings.”

However, let’s take her at her word.  Maybe she has never thought about it.  Maybe DeMint planted a seed in her head.

The juridical links between eugenics and _Roe_

Creative Minority Report explains the links between the Supreme Court rulings on eugenics and _Roe v. Wade_, and how _Roe_ overturned state laws that forbade sterilization of the handicapped.

AHA! Obama says "no litmus test"

Again, it pains me to be defending an Obama position–it really does–I think the man is evil. I do not put confidence in him to do anything good. But I *do* put confidence in him to do what is self-serving to his own power.

His strategy is to divide Catholics so the Catholic Left can vote for him with a strong sense of self-justification, while his Catholic supporters like Chris Korzen and Doug Kmiec paint orthodox Catholics as nothing more than Republican activists. His strategy is to win over “moderate” pro-lifers like Kmiec who can say he’s “trying to reduce abortions”, while painting the core of the pro-life movement as radical extremists.

So it is perfectly suited to that agenda to pick a Supreme Court justice who is neutral on abortion. It fits his apearance of seeming “fair minded.”

I’m just hoping that strategy backfires, and Sotomayor gets appointed, and Sotomayor turns out to be pro-life. I’m also hoping that the Republicans will either get off their 401(k)s and do something, or else implode so a real pro-life party can take their place. Otherwise, it won’t matter how many justices we have.

We could have 9 “pro-life” justices on the Supreme Court, and if no real challenge to _Roe_ is mounted, what does it matter?

There are at least 3 strategies that can be employed, and have been attempted, that could *immediately* overturn Roe: state constitutional amendments defining an unborn child as a legal person (actually, several years ago, there was a federal case in Texas defining an unborn child as a legal person for the purpose of an illegal immigrant getting to stay in the country as the parent of a US citizen); the Ron Paul approach of banning federal courts from hearing abortion related cases; or the Norma McCorvey/Sandra Cano approacch of getting their own verdicts thrown out.

Personally, I’m kinda hoping that, when the Notre Shame protestors go to trial this week, the judge’ll throw the book at them in retaliation for the Tiller shooting (not that it’s their fault), and the nation will have to deal with the scandal of “Jane Roe” herself going to jail in protest of abortion, and a Catholic priest going to jail for “trespassing” at a Catholic university.

We need some martyrs, people.

Anyway, back to Sotomayor:

President Barack Obama never asked U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia
Sotomayor whether she supports the pro-abortion rights Supreme Court ruling Roe
v. Wade, a White House spokesman said on Wednesday.
“The president doesn’t
have a litmus test and that question was not one that he posed to her,” White
House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, CNSNews.com says. The 1973
decision Roe v. Wade struck down most state laws restricting or prohibiting
abortion. Nominations to the high court consistently attract speculation about
what effects the new justice may have on efforts to overturn or reaffirm the
precedent-setting ruling.

The number one “argument” being made against Sotomayor is “There’s no way Obama or his staff would appoint a known pro-lifer.” OK, but people thought there was no way Reagan, or Bush, or Bush would appoint a known pro-choicer, and all of them did. Yes, they claimed they were deceived, and they may have been. But they allowed themselves to be deceived, which betrays their real commitment (or lack thereof) to the issue.

Pro-lifers put more faith in Obama to keep his word than the Bushes

Here’s yet another article that insists Sonia Sotomayor is definitely pro-choice on the grounds that there’s no way Obama would appoint a nominee who might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, speaking only over her vague “far left decisions”, dismissing the three pro-life decisions, and trusting in Obama’s staff.

One of the reasons for justices turning a different way than the presidents hope is inexperience and the different world of the Supreme Court. But another reason is that presidents’ staffers lie to them. The senator who was in charge of the search committee that picked Souter admitted that he lied to George H. W. Bush about Souter’s views.

Isn’t it possible that someone is lying to Obama about Sotomayor?

Meanwhile, Bill Donohue says he will “quietly root for her.”

How soon they forget about Harriet Miers

Obama’s trying to reassure his base that Sonia Sotomayor is really pro-choice.

Republicans and pro-lifers are skeptical about the pro-aborts’ doubts.

Gee, I seem to remember that George W. “I have no intention of overturning _Roe v. Wade_” Bush nominated this woman named Harriet Miers, who had an ambiguous but left-leaning record on abortion, and pro-lifers (rightly) got into a tizzy, and at that time, liberals tried to say it was a smokescreen to get liberal senators to suppot the Miers nomination.

I hate being an apologist for an Obama pick, but I see a lot of promise in this woman, and I am ashamed of the reflexive flaming that pro-lifers are engaging in in this case.

To wit, here’s some wisdom from Peggy Noonan: “Republicans, let’s play grown up!”