Every time there is a Supreme Court vacancy under a Republican president, the Left panics, at least since 1973, when Roe v. Wade was erroneously decided, inventing a supposed right to abortion that is nowhere in the Constitution. With the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the pattern continues. We all know that this panic stems from the fact that the Left, when they control the courts, uses their power to push their progressive agenda on society when they can’t win at the ballot box, so they are afraid that our side will also use the courts to push our conservative agenda in just as underhanded a way as they do. There is one critical difference, however. Conservatives do not make things up. We adhere to the Constitution so any societal change that comes from a conservative SCOTUS is actually bringing society back in line with the Constitution, not some made up progressive vision of what society ought to be.

The disingenuous tactic most often used by the Left is the concept of stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by that which is decided.” Practically speaking, the Left considers it to mean “Thou shalt not overturn Roe v. Wade.” And in all the sound and fury about stare decisis, they often point out that this constitutional abomination is some kind of “super precedent” that absolutely must be upheld because it has been on the books for over 45 years. You can bet that their argument that Obergefell v. Hodges (the gay “marriage” decision) can’t be overturned will be because it was just decided and SCOTUS can’t overrule itself that quickly. Convenient that two completely opposing arguments can be made for the same rule, “SCOTUS shall not overturn any decision that we like.” It’s the same tactic they use about global warming climate change, but I digress.

It turns out that Obergefell itself overturned Baker v. Nelson, which was decided in 1972, a year before Roe, so it should have been at least as strong a precedent as Roe. And Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, which was decided 58 years previously (1896). Just for fun, let’s take a look at Trump v. Hawaii, the “travel ban” case that was just decided this term. Aside from making liberal heads explode by ruling in favor of President Trump, the decision also overturned Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Japanese internment decision from 74 years previously. Presumably the Left agrees with everyone else that Korematsu should have been overturned.

Actually, the controlling precedent on abortion is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, from 1992. As I’ve written before, this decision should be overturned if for no other reason than to strike the execrable “Sweet Mystery of Life” passage from the American legal lexicon (don’t let the door hit you on your way out, Justice Kennedy). But is 27 years enough time to make Casey a supposed “super precedent”?

Here’s what it comes down to: The Left can use “emanations” and “penumbras” to make up constitutional rights out of whole cloth and then hide behind stare decisis, effectively claiming a ratchet effect towards their progressive vision for our country. We on the right can use the actual text of the Constitution to bring things back to where they should be. With President Trump replacing Anthony Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh, we have an opportunity to make that happen. I’m not wishing ill on any other member of the Court, but there is a chance we will be in even better position to do so in the coming years. Let’s hope that President Trump will continue to nominate strong conservatives and that the Justices have the courage to make it happen.

Sen Harry Reid via Wikipedia

Senator Pat Geary I want your answer and the money by noon tomorrow. And one more thing. Don’t you contact me again, ever. From now on, you deal with Turnbull.

Michael Corleone Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.

The Godfather Part 2 1974

I keep reading leftists making DEMANDS concerning Judge Kavenaugh.. Well the proper way deal with these demands has been given to us by the founder of the GOP judge feast himself:  Harry Reid.

Back in 2013 there was a fight over government shutdowns. You might recall that Democrats led by Reid and Obama shut down national parks et/all to cause maximum grief to the public

The republicans in the House had the idea to pass individual spending bills to fund things like the National Parks and the VA. These bills passed with bi-partisian support in the house and if voted on in the senate would have been tough votes for Democrats and even tougher vetos for Obama. As Senator Ted Cruz said at the time

The House has passed eight other bills funding things like our veterans, funding things like the national parks, and Harry Reid has killed them…The bill that the House passed on the VA simply funds the VA. It doesn’t mention anything about Obamacare. It doesn’t mention anything about anything else. Now, for hundreds of years, the way Congress is appropriated has been one topic at a time. How is it blackmail to say we think we should fund the veterans? Do you agree? That’s a yes or no vote. Now Harry Reid refuses to let the Democrats vote on that.

Why did Harry Reid not allow votes on these bills, the answer is very simple

Because he could!

Reid knew that the only way to force him to hold votes would be public pressure and as noted in the interview quoted above the MSM did all they could to make sure no pressure would be put on him.

The GOP is in the same situation today on Democrat Demands only better.

Thanks to the end of the Judicial filibuster the Democrats have absolutely no power or leverage to enforce their demands.

Thanks to constant “Hair on Fire’ stance of the media, the media has no credibility to influence public opinion to push these demands.

Thanks to the electoral situation and the current polling, it is Senate Democrats facing re-election, not Republicans who are vulnerable over delays on votes on Kavenaugh.

Democrats are making loud noises because loud noises are all they have to fundraise on. Their demands are meaningless. The GOP has the power to ignore these demands with impunity, and should do so.

Democrats Standing behind Bill Clinton Dec 19th 1998
There are some takes on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh that are pretty funny but of all the takes I’ve read the single most tone deaf belongs to Susan Hennessey of CNN

The theory of course being that Ken Starr was hated therefore Kavanaugh will be tarred by the association.

If Ms. Hennessey wants to speak about associations, let me show her one association that I posted about in the past:

If you watch those people filing out I’m sure you’ll find more than one Democrat who is now going nuts over Kavanaugh in that crowd.

Just a few years ago that would have been no big deal, but since the #Pervnado stuck bringing down Harvey Weinstein, Mark Halperin, Matt Lauer, Keven Spacey et/al suddenly defending Bill Clinton has a high price.

So while Susan Hennessey is sure Senate Democrats are DYING to use Kavanaugh’s association with Ken Starr against him, I think my tweet reply puts it pretty well:

Or as Andrew Breitbart once said in Lexington: Bring it on!


It’s been a bad tipjar year, we are in July and despite the booming economy we’ve raised barely 20% of last years total (which is why our expansion plans have been abandoned).

if you think this site in general and this project in particular is worth supporting please consider kicking in here:



Or even better subscribing.


Choose a Subscription level


Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

 

I’ve always known how to count

Tip O’Neil

For the last week we have heard the breathless declarations the Donald Trump will not be able to get a judge who opposes Roe v Wade because Lisa Murkowski of Alaska or Susan Collins of Maine will vote against any such nominee.

Millions of pixels have been dedicated to this proposition as the media breathlessly declare that any such judge will have a hard if not impossible path to the Supreme Court.

While I hate to disappoint all of you folks on the left but Doug Matacoins not withstanding  it is Collins and Murkowski who are in the box, not Trump.

Even when the President didn’t have a supreme court nominee coming up or democrats calling for the public harassment of conservatives or Democrat Socialists publicly proclaiming communism, which murdered 100+ million in the 20th century, as a good thing the numbers looked bad for the Democrats in the senate due to the sheer number of Democrats running for re-election, particularly from Red States.

In a bad scenario it was likely the GOP would pick up at only one seat, with a strong economy, low unemployment and success against ISIS and Democrats making fools of themselves a pick up of 3 seats is a real possibility.

The media and twitter may not be talking about this but you had better believe that Collins and Murkowski both know how to count real and understand the moment the GOP has a majority that doesn’t depend on their vote to get a justice confirmed they will have as much say in who Trump nominates as Chuck Schumer, namely none.

So I suspect that they will make loud noises and say all the right things to the media who will be putting immense pressure on them but in the end when the votes are counted Trump will get both his nominee and unless they can manage a Fishbait Miller scenario will likely have their vote as well.

If Trump chooses Judge Amy Coney Barrett, (which is who I think he will) Watch them claim as a driving force for their vote for her the chance to create, for the first time in the court’s history actual parity between the number of men and women on it.

You heard it here first

“We conclude that the initiative petition should not have been certified by the Attorney General as ‘in proper form for submission to the people,’ because, contrary to the certification, the petition does not contain only subjects ’which are related or which are mutually dependent’,” Justice Frank M. Gaziano wrote in the decision.

And with that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ended the sixth attempt to enacted a graduated income tax.

While I am glad that there will be no MA Exodus Tax I am disappointed.  No one can be certain of the outcome of a vote before it happens, (remember Scott Brown?).  Only a Ballot Question can provide the opportunity to talk about policy with out the baggage of a politician’s individual personality.  It says a lot about me that I get excited about wonkish policy debates.  The summer promised an important conversation on proper roll of taxes and government spending.  Without the Ballot Question, that conversation will happen behind closed doors and not in the market place of ideas.  Without the Ballot Question the politicians that get their office by playing Santa will invent new schemes to tax us, and misspend the money collected.   Our state budget is trending in a direction that can not continue and must be changed.  If we don’t, the resulting clash will harm many innocent people.  I don’t know how to have that discussion without the Ballot Question.

Today there is celebration and relief.  Tomorrow I will have to make new plans to save our Commonwealth from the Kleptocrates.  And figure out what to do with all of these Bumpah Stickahs

Respectfully,
Matt O’Brien
President:  Worcester Tea Party

On facebook 

P.S.
The WTP is enjoying the privilege of posting here weekly because Pete is a patriot and a Hero of our Republic.
Please Support the work of the Worcester Tea Party.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court (thankfully) ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the baker who declined to be forced to bake and decorate a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. The ruling was based almost completely on the documented religious hostility of the members of the Civil Rights Commission, and thus there is concern that in the future the Court would allow government to force bakers and other service providers to support same-sex weddings over their religious objections as long as the bureaucrats pretended to be neutral to the baker’s religious views.

There are a few fig leaves in the decision that an optimist could take as good news, such as Justice Kennedy saying “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” and that “government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience based objection is legitimate or illegitimate.” And at least he conceded that “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”

The path to the case, if not necessarily the decision, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, is an easy one to follow.  It started back in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, which found a constitutional right to Liberty as exemplified by homosexual sodomy in that particular case (although Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion explicitly refused to declare that homosexual sodomy itself is a constitutional right). Justice Scalia correctly predicted the path in his dissenting opinion, noting that the decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

The next step in the chain was United States v. Windsor in 2012, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts both pointed out that this Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion would inevitably lead to the Court declaring same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional right, which of course it did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (also authored by Kennedy). This is where Justice Thomas presciently predicted that the decision “threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” And here we are.

A lot of the analysis of Masterpiece Cakeshop centered around whether baking a custom wedding cake counted as “speech” for the purposes of the Free Speech clause of the first amendment. And was Phillips really discriminating against the gay couple when he offered to sell them anything else in the store, or to create a cake for any other occasion? The answer is obviously “no” and therein, I think, lies the solution to this conundrum.

As I have said before, no one has a right to force someone else to provide a good or service. If Phillips had refused to sell a pre-baked cake to the gay couple, that would have been discriminatory since he had already invested his time and talent to create the cake and it was already available for purchase by the general public. This would be the same as if a gay couple tried to by a photo print from a studio where the photographer was displaying his images for sale. But in either case, the gay couple does not have the right to force the baker or photographer to participate in a gay wedding if the vendor’s religious beliefs prevent him from doing so. So the government could not force the photographer to attend the ceremony, document the event and then produce the images, all of which require him to devote his time and talent to an event that violates his religious views.

This rule would also apply to the Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington case currently being petitioned to the Supreme Court.

If Mrs. Stutzman had refused to sell a floral arrangement available to the general public to a gay customer, she would be guilty of discrimination. But she had sold flowers to the gay couple – whom she considered friends – for years without a problem. It was only when she refused to be forced to design the flowers for their wedding, which involves not only creativity on her part, but also the nuts and bolts of getting the flowers to the ceremony and arranging them there, that she supposedly discriminated against them. Clearly, this is an infringement on her first amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion.

Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in all of these cases seems to be rooted in the infamous “Sweet Mystery of Life” passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he wrote “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  As Justice Scalia correctly pointed out, this is “the passage that ate the rule of law,” but is nonetheless central to Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence. A person’s religious views, by definition, define his or her “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Why is a religious person’s liberty, which is expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, worth less than a gay person’s?

Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar!
Or better yet, subscribe!

by baldilocks

And how rare is that?

Many people cited a lone reason to vote for the presidential candidate that was Donald Trump: to keep Hillary Clinton out of the Oval Office. As it turned out, that was the sole reason that I voted for him. But there were other very good reasons.

Like this one.

Of course, we remember that the president nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme court early last year to take

It’s fun to imagine Scalia giggling after facing a Higher Court.

the place of Antonin Scalia – who died in 2016. Justice Gorsuch was confirmed by the US Senate and took the oath of office last April. Conservatives seem to be pleased with his decisions so far.

But, according to the piece, the Left is afraid that all of its signature issues will be overruled by the high court – especially if President Trump gets to nominate another potential SCJ.

Republicans are working with Trump to make a record-breaking number of appointments to federal courts. These new, mostly young, white men will be in a position to rule on legislation that could change America for years.

But the most contentious appointment would be a second nomination to the highest court in the land. The supreme court has over decades delivered landmark decisions on issues from abortion to affirmative action and same-sex marriage. The potential for Trump to install another justice on the nine-seat bench, some legal experts argue, could have profound consequences on issues ranging from women’s reproductive health to LGBT rights.

With speculation mounting over the possible retirement of supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy, Trump could have a lasting impact on reshaping America’s most important court.

Honestly, I think that the worst thing that advocates of LGBT rights (translation: same-sex marriage), abortion, etc. would have to worry about is that most such issues would revert to the state legislatures where they belong. That’s why the tenth amendment exists.

But it’s always good to keep the Left afraid. Just keep your eyes open.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

via the trump impeachment

4th Doctor: Evidence, EVIDENCE? You couldn’t hang a hat on that.

Doctor Who The Leisure Hive 1980

There seems to be nothing here in terms of a grand conspiracy to change the election. You are talking minor rallies, buying megaphones, tweets and facebook groups and the spending of THOUSANDS of dollars in web ads.

If this is the big conspiracy there seems to be a lot lacking, particularly any kind of link to the actual Trump campaign. I suspect this will not stop the MSM to spin this as proof of the big link to the Trump campaign to sway the election.

This doesn’t even reach the level of small potatoes, and anyone who tells you any different is a liar trying to spin you.

DatechGuy Reads the Mueller Indictment Some Fun Facts (expect Updates) Where’s the Beef Feb 16 2018

When the Mueller indictments came out there was a lot of commentary concerning it, some like me thought it was small potatoes (with apologies to small potatoes which had more substance than this) but the left particularly the media insisted that this showed that there were actual laws being broken to elect Donald Trump.

However there was one thing that both left and right agreed on, that these indictments would lead to nothing as the case would never go to trial as those charged were a bunch of Russian nationals and a few suggested at the time that for Mueller this was a feature not a bug.

When prosecutors are serious about nabbing law-breakers who are at large, they do not file an indictment publicly. That would just induce the offenders to flee to or remain in their safe havens. Instead, prosecutors file their indictment under seal, ask the court to issue arrest warrants, and quietly go about the business of locating and apprehending the defendants charged. In the Russia case, however, the indictment was filed publicly even though the defendants are at large. That is because the Justice Department and the special counsel know the Russians will stay safely in Russia.

Mueller’s allegations will never be tested in court. That makes his indictment more a political statement than a charging instrument. 

Well unfortunately for Mueller all of us turned out to be wrong about that bit:

Lawyers for Russian company Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, formally entered a “not guilty” plea in federal court Monday in a case special counsel Robert Mueller probably never thought would happen.

Mueller generated headlines with the February indictment, safe in the knowledge the 13 Russians were beyond U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, there would be no trial — only sensational Russian collusion accusations.

Yup they decided they wanted their day in court and given that they had been out of their reach of justice you might think Mueller and company were delighted to get them into court.

You’d think wrong:

The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success.

“The [U.S.] government has attempted service of the summonses by delivering copies of them to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, to be delivered to the defendants,” prosecutors wrote. “That office, however, declined to accept the summonses. The government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty. To the government’s knowledge, no further steps have been taken within Russia to effectuate service.”

Yes you read that right, the prosecutors of Mueller’s team went to court to say that they didn’t properly serve the defendants so they shouldn’t go to trial yet.

I’ve heard of defendants dodging service to avoid court but I’ve never heard of a prosecutor trying to dodge a court case that way.

Needless to say, Mueller’s team is not happy about this development since this is not a case they figured on having to prosecute to anything more than a successful press conference. So, they have sought delay on the astonishing ground that the defendant has not been properly served — notwithstanding that the defendant has shown up in court and asked to be arraigned.

Understand, service of process is simply the means by which a party seeks what Mueller has already got: the opposing party’s appearance in the lawsuit. But Mueller’s argument is so priceless we can’t let it go unstated: In order to serve the defendants in a criminal case in which Mueller alleges that Russia is an adversary government that conducted espionage operations against the American election, the Justice Department sought the assistance of . . . yes . . . the government of Russia. I know you’ll be shocked to hear this, but DOJ says Russia never got back to them.

The court however was having none of it:

On Saturday, a federal court rebuffed special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to further delay a court hearing in the alleged Russian “troll farm” case. This is the one where the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, and Concord Catering—along with 13 of their (Russian citizen) employees—were charged for spreading so-called “fake news” during the 2016 U.S. elections. A scheduled Wednesday arraignment of Concord must go forward, ruled U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich.

None of the indicted firms or citizens were expected to play along with the U.S. legal proceedings, but lawyers for Concord Management unexpectedly came forward in April. Politico says “the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information.” So far, Concord’s lawyers have asked for “a slew of discovery requests demanding nonpublic details” about Mueller’s special investigation.

If the evidence is as weak as the indictment then the last thing Mueller wants to do is show that like the emperor in the fairy tale, he has no clothes but what will the MSM do if the drops the charges that they declared so big?

The surest way to put an end to this unwelcome turn of events would be to dismiss the indictment — or at least drop the charges against the three businesses so Prigozhin and the Kremlin can’t use them to force Mueller’s hand. Of course, that would be very embarrassing. But as all prosecutors are taught from their first day on the job: Never indict a case unless you are prepared to try the case.

And if this was all about pursuing actual crimes might have done so.

But as I’ve said before, the Mueller investigation is all about helping Democrats politically so any decision Mueller makes concerning it will be driven exclusively by how it helps the left on election day.


2018 has not been kind to our numbers or our traffic, tip jar and particularly on the subscription side.

If you think the cost of first rate writers, not to mention first hand reporting and interviews we do are worth it to counter balance the MSM and the various online censors I would ask you to hit DaTipJar below



Consider subscribing. We need another $200 in monthly subscribers to make up for attrition in 2018 thus far


Choose a Subscription level


Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.

Dusty: Jo! Bill! It’s coming! It’s headed right for us!
Bill: It’s already here.

Twister (1996)

It actually started in the earliest of special Congressional elections in 2017, though as the Republican Party candidates won their expected seats anyway, the drop-off from President Donald Trump’s vote percentage was barely noticed, if it was noticed at all. Even when the Virginia and New Jersey Republican Parties were effectively wiped out, that was dismissed as expected. The defeat of Roy Moore in the Alabama US Senate special election, as historic and unexpected as it was, was written off as a “one-off” loss because of an extremely poor candidate, even though he ran as “Trump before Trump”. The unexpected Democrat win in Wisconsin’s 10th Senate District earlier this year caused Governor Scott Walker to declare it an alarm bell, but as it was only one of 33 districts, and sufficiently close to Minnesota’s Twin Cities for some to say that it was simply Minnesota spillover, few heeded it.

That led us to Tuesday. For the first time in 23 years, the liberal candidate won an election for an open seat on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, and it wasn’t even close. Milwaukee County Judge Rebecca Dallet defeated Sauk County Judge Michael Screnock 56%-44% for the seat that Justice Michael Gabelman will be retiring from at the end of July.

One cannot blame Trump, certainly not directly, for this disaster. Even though Dallet did run a single anti-Trump ad, it was her opening ad during the three-way primary, and, at least in my corner of the state and in my limited exposure to the airwaves, that was the only time he was brought up.

Some of my fellow pundits want to blame Screnock for running a bad campaign. Not only was this his first run for office (he was appointed judge a couple years back), but as is typical in Supreme Court races, he didn’t have much money. Further, for most of the campaign, the right-of-center groups that would serve as his proxy remained silent. One of these groups, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the group that is typically the most-active on the right, did finally cut a single ad, but by that time, Dallet and her allied groups, both in-state and out-of-state, had flooded the airwaves.

Typically, JoAnne Kloppenburg notwithstanding, any overtly-political shots are taken by the allied groups and not the candidates themselves. Indeed, other than the aforementioned anti-Trump ad, Dallet positioned herself as the “moderate” between two “extremists”, with Madison lawyer Tim Burns very much openly campaigning as a hyper-partisan Democrat who would use the bench to destroy Walker and the GOP.

A “funny” thing happened after the primary, where Screnock, with 46% and Dallet, with 36%, moved on to the general election. Dallet assumed the Burns position, going so far as to travel to San Francisco and tell her donors there that she wanted to bring San Francisco values back to Wisconsin.

After 7 years in the Wisconsin wilderness, the Democrats finally got their first scalp, and it was done in a big way. The liberal/Democrat candidate got 80% of the Dane County vote, which cast the most votes of any county even though Milwaukee County is far larger and just as Democrat-controlled (though not as liberal in non-partisan elections), in a “competitive” statewide election for the first time since 1982. That is surprising given that it contains the People’s Republic of Madison. J. Miles Coleman of Decision Desk HQ ran the numbers by Congressional district and found that Dallet took 4 of them, including the 8th (held by a Republican), and nearly took the 7th (also held by a Republican). Despite the race being narrowed to 2 people, Screnock got a full percentage point less of the vote than he did in the primary.

This all came after 7 years of reforms (though most of those happened years ago), the winning of the bidding war for Foxconn and the introduction of a new manufacturing sector to the US, and record-low unemployment with one of the highest labor force participation rates in the country. It also came despite what had been an effective campaign strategy, though underfunded this time.

The wave is real. The only good news, such as it is, is that despite the high turnout in Democrat strongholds like Dane County and the unexpectedly-low conservative vote totals in places like the Fox Valley, turnout was only a fraction of what a typical off-year general election is. However, if things don’t change, and change in a hurry, we’re looking at another 2006, both at the federal level and at the state levels.

Via Deviantart

While it was very nice of Retired Justice John Paul Stevens to give this in-kind contribution to the efforts of the GOP to keep the house, the fact that one of the leading Jurists in the nation choose to write a piece so divorced from reality demands a proper fisking and I’m just the Sicilian to do it.

For those unfamiliar with “Fisking” my comments on the Justice’s writing will appear in Bold red italics within the NYT piece.  Here goes:

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday.  Really?  I seem to recall particularly over the past 6 years Tea Party Groups get engaged civically by the millions.  I’m pretty sure you were alive then, or perhaps you didn’t notice them?

These demonstrations demand our respect.  Not when the leave behind a giant mess for other people to clean at the Taxpayer’s expense they don’t   They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.  Funny, every single year a group many times larger than these folks turn up for the actual March for Life, yet for some reason neither the justice nor the NYT finds that as proof of broad public support for legislation to minimize the mass killings of children from abortion.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation  As opposed to the tea party and march for life protests that were not a clear sign for anything at all and much be ignored at all costs  prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. Really, given the signs we saw it and the inability of those present to even define an “assault weapon” it seems to me the only clear sign that the “demonstrators” had was:  “elect liberal democrats” But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.  I’m sure many of them would agree but not in public.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”   It wasn’t just concern for a standing army.  The colonists had direct experience with a tyrannical government trying to take their weapons away, see Lexington and Concord, they also were plenty on the front lines of the Indian wars and those not on the front lines had living memory of being so.  Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.  Tell the people in countries like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuelan, Nigeria, Syria South Africa and many other places without the 2nd amendment that concerns of a tyrannical government or other various groups threatening violence aren’t a concern

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation.    As I recall it also believed for over 200 years after the adoption of the constitution and for centuries before that Homosexuality was wrong, that marriage was between a man and a woman and that transsexuals were mental ill, oddly enough that didn’t stop the Supreme Court from declaring these things constitutional rights.  In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”  And in 1896 a 7-1 majority ruled “separate but equal” was just fine in Plessy v Ferguson does that mean we should believe the same today?

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment.  And during that same period no federal judge to my knowledge expressed any doubt that such a thing as “gay marriage” existed. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”  Oddly enough Chief Justice Taney had some very strong public opinions on negroes descended from African Slaves in the 1850’s.  By your standard those opinions should be cited in arguments about race today,

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms.  And Brown vs Board of Education overturned long-settled understandings on race?  Did that make it illegitimate?  I was among the four dissenters.  You lost an argument, it happens.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable A perfectly valid opinion on his part and one of the few statements in this piece that is solid.  He has the right to his opinion and dissent. — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power.  You know I don’t remember anyone arguing Roe v Wade was about “propaganda” for Planned Parenthood.  Nor do I recall anyone ever claiming that about either the Lawrence decision or Brown vs Board of Education etc.  Apparently decisions are only “propaganda” if they disagree with Mr. Justice Stevens rulings. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple Simple?  Really?  There is a reason why there are so few amendments to the constitution because it’s HARD to do.   and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.  Actually such an attempt is more likely to swell the NRA’s ranks and anything close to success in such an effort is very likely to cause a new actual shooting civil war than any other issue.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective Of electing democrats and virtue signaling? than any other possible reform. I dispute the use of the word “reform” here but he’s telling the truth because the real goal of the folks behind the march is firearms confiscation.  It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. You know the United States is also been the strongest, richest and most robust large county in the history of history as well, might that unique status have something to do with the freedoms the Justice wants to remove.  It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008   Have our children become less safe?  The stats suggest otherwise, unless you live in a place like Chicago where the gun laws have been written by the very same people leading these marches that isand honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.  How would disarming law abiding Americans who had nothing to do with a crime “honor” the victims of violent crime?  If you want to honor those folks you could then actually schools with the same armed guards that protected you as a justice, rather than using dead kids a political prop, of course that doesn’t help elect Democrats does it? 

You know what’s really scary about this piece, the fact the realization that a person this out of touch was deciding the laws of this nation for decades.


If you’d like to continue to support independent journalism, help defray the $140 a month extra I’ll need for my new hosting site please consider hitting DaTipJar here.



Consider subscribing. 7 more subscribers at $20 a month will pay the monthly price for the new host/server.


Choose a Subscription level


Finally might I suggest my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer makes an excellent Gift.