Liberal Chickens Come Home to Roost

The recent panic amongst liberals regarding the Supreme Court vacancy is amusing in that it is entirely of their own making.

The hard Left has, since the 1960’s (and really before), embraced a judicial philosophy which is not essential to their position.  According to this philosophy, the United States Constitution (and written law in general) does not need to be interpreted as written, but has a meaning which “evolves” over time.   Thus, rather than amend the Constitution when it is in need of updating, the liberals have decided it is better to simply have a judge or justice declare that the law has evolved, and read into it a meaning that it never had before.

Conservatives are, of course, susceptible to this sort of forced interpretation because, of course, it is outcome-based.  In other words, rather than attempting to determine what the law as written means, and apply it to a given situation, this philosophy works by looking at the outcome desired and then twisting law and precedent to fit this desire.  The classic example is abortion.  There is no way, at all, that the founders and authors of the Constitution conceived of abortion of a constitutional right, yet Justice Blackmun felt comfortable in writing a decision giving us a right which doesn’t exist.  (While depriving the unborn of what actually is a constitutional right, the right to life.)  As I said, conservatives are quite capable of such faulty reasoning and have been guilty of it on occasion, but they have not adopted it as a judicial philosophy.

The Left decided to adopt this philosophy for a simple reason:  their radical agenda could never be imposed by a vote of the people.  However, an unelected panel of nine judges, all of whom attended elite law schools, could be easily convinced to override the Constitution and the will of the people to achieve the desired outcome.

I’ve often pointed out to liberals how short-sighted this philosophy is.  After all, if judges are unconstrained by written law, then they are unconstrained by anything other than their own imaginations.  Hence Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision which gave us a right to “privacy”.  What’s wrong with a right to privacy?  Well, it exists nowhere in the constitution, but Justice Douglas decided it exists in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Bill of Rights.  In other words, the right doesn’t exist anywhere but the Constitution simply emanates it.

But wait, isn’t a right to privacy a good thing?  I would say no, but here is a point I make even to people who support the murder of children also known as abortion:  even if you think abortion is a great thing, you should oppose Roe v. Wade because the reasoning is faulty, and because there simply is no constitutional right to abortion.  If a judge can just impose legal fictions into the written law because the thinks the law “emanates” this thing or that thing, that judge can just as easily take away what you’ve been given.  Why couldn’t a judge write out of existence the first amendment, or the fourth (which protects against illegal search and seizure)?

Someone once told me “I just care about the result.  You just care about the process.”  Of course.  Democracy is a process.  The difference between freedom and tyranny is the process.

And so now the chickens have come home to roost.  A Supreme Court vacancy should not be so big a deal as it is becoming.  It shouldn’t matter much at all.  And yet the left is terrified because a lifetime-appointed conservative majority could undo all their hard work of years.  The short-sightedness of their philosophy is now apparent.

This blogger is not particularly a fan of American democracy, which has dethroned Christ from his social kingship.  But I also realize we don’t live in a Catholic country, and as such, we need to be governed by laws and not men.  We need to follow the established processes and not fabricate law at the stroke of a pen.  Most of the country, corrupted by the schools and entertainment media, would probably vote for abortion and sodomitical marriage anyways.  Here’s to hoping Trump’s appointment forces the situation, by overturning Roe, Griswold, Obergfell, and many others.

The wrong martyr: Kim Davis

It is a defect of the modern Catholic neo-conservative movement that it fits every news story into its false neo-con “narrative,” without looking or thinking more deeply about what the issues represent.  Case in point is Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who has just been jailed for refusing to marry sodomites.  “Oh, she’s being jailed for being a Christian!  Oh, this is the beginning of the persecution!”  If only!

This author is well aware that a persecution is indeed beginning, but Miss Davis has never made any argument that would qualify her as a persecutee.  Miss Davis, an adherent to the false Protestant sect, is unfortunately poisoned with the Protestant notion that places individual judgement as the highest measure of reality.

Thus, her argument is as follows:  “If I marry sodomites, then I’ll be violating my beliefs, and the government can never force me to violate my religion.”  In other words, the government is forcing her to contradict her own personal belief system, and that is wrong.

However, Miss Davis is a county clerk by choice, and having assumed an office of the government she can naturally be required to perform duties that might contradict her personal conscience.  Is it the job of the clerk, for example, to determine that Suzy Q. and Billy Y. are not to be married, because they are young and immature, and show up at the clerk’s office spontaneously, without having thought it out?  Or, conversely, what about a sodomite who attends an “LGBT-friendly” (false) church, and who refuses to marry Christians?  Why is that not his right if the only standard is our own personal conscience?

Miss Davis couches her point in terms of pure subjectivity, which is absurd.  Of course she, and any other clerk in this country, should refuse to issue such licenses, but they should do so by stating why, in the objective order, such a course of action is impossible:

1.  A male and female party are required to contract a valid marriage.  This is as much a requirement as the need for both parties to be living.  This is not subject to definition or re-definition, since only a male and female party can reproduce.  Two men can no more be married than a mosquito can be a pig.
2. The United States Supreme Court acted illegally by unilaterally declaring that the Constitution says something that it does not, and that the authors of the Constitution never intended.  The justices have no right nor authority to amend the Constitution, for which a procedure is established.

If she made these arguments, she’d likely be in jail nevertheless, but at least for the right reason.  Then I’d be willing to consider her a martyr.  Meanwhile, she is just advancing the argument the subjectivity trumps objectivity, and is hence, a part of the problem.

As long as we are stuck in this rut, we will get silly articles like this CNS piece declaring her a hero.  The author asks: “What compelling reason can there be when gay activists targeting Davis can get a marriage license at any of the 129 other locations in the state?”  As if that’s a great thing?!  Subjectivity strikes again!  Hey, Miss Davis might not be issuing any licenses, but that’s up to her!  Just go to a clerk who’s down with sodomy and you’re fine!

No, once again, a male and a female party are required for marriage to be marriage.  And the USSC cannot amend the Constitution.  Let’s fight the right battle here.