The strongest criticism of Judge Kavanaugh centers around his ruling in the case Klayman v. Obama, which dealt with NSA warrantless bulk data collection under the Obama administration.  Here is the text of that decision.  On the surface, the opening statement is strong evidence of his possible weakness regarding one of our most important protections provided in the Bill of Rights.

I vote to deny plaintiffs’ emergency petition for rehearing en banc. I do so because, in my view, the Government’s metadata collection program is entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

In order to make an informed decision we must dig deeper into the decision and examine the basis for this ruling.  Here is how Judge Kavanaugh justifies this ruling:

The Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment, at least under the Supreme Court’s decision in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). That precedent remains binding on lower courts in our hierarchical system of absolute vertical stare decisis.

As you can see from this quote, Judge Kavanaugh is basing this decision on precedent from a Supreme Court decision.  As a member of a lower court he claims he is bound by vertical stare decisis.  Here is the definition of this concept from Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”  In short, it is the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued… A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court.

This concept dates back to English Common Law and even back to Ancient Rome.  Because of this concept it is difficult to reach an informed conclusion on how he will rule once he is on the Supreme where they can set new precedent on any case.

In the Klayman v. Obama, Judge Kavanaugh goes on to say:

Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 954-57 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring), the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty.  Examples include drug testing of students, roadblocks to detect drunk drivers, border checkpoints, and security screening at airports

This statement bothers me a great deal.  The framers of the Constitution believed that freedom and preservation of our rights were more important than safety. It was a common theme.  Judge Kavanaugh  goes on to say:

The Government’s program for bulk collection of telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States. See THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT (2004). In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program. The Government’s program does not capture the content of communications, but rather the time and duration of calls, and the numbers called. In short, the Government’s program fits comfortably within the Supreme Court precedents applying the special needs doctrine.

From the text of the 4th Amendment you can see that there are no exceptions for national security.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

From this chapter of Framers Intent by Thomas K Clancy, you can see that the notion of national security and safety exceptions to the 4th Amendment are very new.  The original intent of John Adams, who wrote the article of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights which became the model for the 4th Amendment. was to make the protections as broad as possible.  Could Judge Kavanaugh have based a negative ruling in this case on different precedent and still uphold stare decisis.  Yes, he could have, because there is so much conflicting precedent on the 4th Amendment and any constitutional concept.  That is one of the main reasons why precedent is such a flawed concept, which actually violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.  Relying on the actual text and plain meaning as understood during the drafting and ratification of the Constitution are far superior.

I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is weak on the 4th Amendment.  Based on his rulings on every other issue I’ve read so far, he is strong on all other issue.  Even with his weakness on the 4th Amendment, I still believe he is worth supporting for the Supreme Court.  Rand Paul also agrees.  Here is what he tweeted on the day I was writing this article:

“I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law….Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well established.”

Thus spake Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), according to a CNN report.

But which Roe v. Wade decision does Sen. Collins stand by? There’s the imaginary Roe, which dictates that unregulated abortion be available throughout pregnancy. Then there’s the actual Roe, which permits states to leave abortion unregulated but also permits many laws protecting the lives and safety of mother and preborn child.

Where does Sen. Collins stand on First Amendment protections for peaceful pro-life witnesses outside abortion facilities? After all, McCullen v. Coakley is “established decision, established law.” Or does she consider peaceful pro-life witness to be an attack on abortion rights?

How about restrictions on public funding of abortion and abortion counseling? The Supreme Court OK’d such restrictions decades ago. Abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU Reproductive Rights Project use terms like “gag rule” to describe efforts to keep abortion providers out of taxpayers’ wallets. In the Senator’s view, do restrictions on public funding amount to “hostility” to Roe v. Wade?

Parental notification for minors’ abortions, reflection periods before abortion, informed consent laws, restrictions on mid- and late-term abortion, protections for children who survive attempted abortion: certain forms of these laws have been found consistent with Roe. Then again, PP and ACLU consider such measures attacks on abortion rights.

The pro-Roe Senator Collins could vote with a clear conscience for a jurist who supports the abortion regulations that have been approved by the Supreme Court since Roe. Such a nominee would not be hostile to the actual Roe decision, even if that nominee displeased PP and the ACLU.

Maybe one day there will be less deference to a precedent that’s inconsistent with human dignity. For now, though, we’re left with wondering what Senator Collins means by “hostility.”

Ellen writes about the life issues at Leaven for the Loaf. 

Now’s the time to celebrate the First Amendment and support independent journalism by hitting DaTipJar. Thank you!

Anthony Kennedy has announced that he will step down from the U.S. Supreme Court on July 31, after 30 years of service. He assured himself a place in history two years ago, for good or ill, with the Obergefell decision. Aside from that, he earned a reputation as a swing (i.e. unpredictable) vote on various issues. One of those 5-4 decisions is on my mind today.

Yesterday, the court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra that pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) cannot be forced to advertise for abortion. (I’ve been watching that case ever since the litigation began.)The same case ruled that non-medical pro-life PRCs cannot be compelled to announce their non-medical nature in a manner prescribed by a pro-abortion government, when the same government doesn’t impose that requirement on similar agencies.

Justice Kennedy concurred in the 5-4 NIFLA decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas. Kennedy’s concurrence deserves more attention than it’s likely to get this week, in light of his resignation and other SCOTUS news.

NIFLA at its core was a First Amendment case: was the state of California violating the First Amendment rights of pro-life agencies by forcing those agencies to deliver pro-abortion messages? Justice Thomas carefully outlined the reasons why the answer had to be Yes. It’s astounding that four Justices would have let the California law stand. (No surprises: the minority consisted of Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.)

Here’s the bulk of Justice Kennedy’s concurrence (emphasis added). Bear in mind that this man was not exactly a lion of the pro-life movement. But the state of California’s attempt to coerce pro-life pregnancy centers to help market for abortion was too much for him to stomach.

I join the Court’s opinion in all respects.

…It does appear that viewpoint discrimination is inherent in the design and structure of this [California] Act. This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression. For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these.

And the history of the Act’s passage and its underinclusive application suggest a real possibility that these individuals were targeted because of their beliefs.

The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” App. 38–39. But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” Wooley v.Maynard, 430 U. S. 705, 715 (1977). It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come. Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.

That’s not a bad way to cap off thirty years on the Court.

Ellen Kolb is a pro-life writer and activist in New Hampshire. She writes at ellenkolb.com and Leaven for the Loaf. 

You can support independent journalism by hitting DaTipJar at DaTechGuy Blog. Thank you!

Update to a November 2017 post: California’s attorney general is on the U.S. Supreme Court’s schedule for March 20, at which time he can  explain why he should be able to tell pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortions. That ought to elicit some searching questions from the Justices.

The case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates [NIFLA] v. Becerra. NIFLA is a group of nonprofit pro-life pregnancy centers in California. Xavier Becerra is the state’s attorney general. The law in dispute is called California’s Reproductive FACT Act.  It requires that certain types of facilities post and distribute information on the availability of free or low-cost access to abortion. It’s as though business is so lousy at abortion clinics that the state has to dragoon pro-life agencies into doing their advertising for them.

The type of facility is defined in such a way that the law only applies to about 200 nonprofit pro-life clinics, not to any of the other thousands of places in California where a pregnant woman might go for assistance. From NIFLA’s brief to the Supreme Court (references omitted; emphasis added):

The legislative record expressly states that the impetus for the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency) Act…was disagreement with pro-life centers’ messages. Legislative committee reports with bill sponsor statements noted “that, unfortunately, there are nearly 200 licensed and unlicensed clinics known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in California,” which “aim to discourage and prevent women from seeking abortions.”…Although the bill sponsor claimed that these centers “often confuse [and] misinform” women,…neither the legislative history nor the record contains any objective or impartial evidence that pregnancy centers like Petitioners actually “misinform” anyone about their medical status or services[.] 

There are fines for noncompliance. Anyone who has volunteered for a pro-life pregnancy care center knows that such agencies are lean operations; a fine need not be steep to be ruinous.

This is a First Amendment case. Can the government compel a nonprofit organization to deliver a message inconsistent with the organization’s mission? California might be having financial problems, but apparently the AG’s budget includes resources to argue this case all the way to SCOTUS. NIFLA is relying on assistance from Alliance Defending Freedom, the same legal group that successfully represented Eleanor McCullen in the Massachusetts buffer zone case.

Stay tuned.

Ellen Kolb is a writer and pro-life activist based in New Hampshire. Read more at ellenkolb.com,

Let’s keep DaTechGuy up and running! Hit Da Tip Jar to support independent journalism. Thanks!

I suspect that those of us who find Trump & Hillary equally unacceptable are going to be voted off the conservative island before this election’s over. I’m being harangued by perfectly nice people saying “butbutbut HILLARY!!”, along with what’s supposed to be the clincher: “Supreme Court!” An awful prospect, to be sure. The thing is, I don’t see that Trump offers any more hope in that department. Neither candidate appears to have the constitutional moorings, never mind the pro-life moorings (since the right to life precedes any written constitution), to be sensibly guided in the choice of Justices.

That leaves the Senate as the firewall against any mischievous molding of the court that a President Clinton or President Trump might want to try.

To likeminded voters who won’t support either of the major Presidential nominees, I say go to the polls anyway. Don’t stay home in a snit on November 8. All those downballot races are going to affect how the next Chief Executive does business. And of all the downballot races, those for U.S. Senate are most critical.

Thirty-four Senate seats are up for grabs. It’s not enough for a candidate to point to the top of the ticket and say “I’m with him” or “I’m with her.” What I want to know is, are you for religious liberty? Do you recognize the right to life? How about respecting First Amendment free-speech rights for peaceful protesters with whom you disagree? Are you ready to defend and expand the Hyde Amendment?

No moot points there. The Little Sisters of the Poor are still waiting to hear if the Court will respect their religious beliefs regarding helping to procure contraception for their employees. The Hobby Lobby decision is still under fire, and so is McCullen – the former a religious liberty case,  the latter a victory for peaceful pro-life witnesses outside abortion facilities. The recent Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision has accommodated abortion providers while making substandard health care for women a constitutional right (and wasn’t that a neat trick?).

Democratic candidates for Senate seem to be consistent in praising Hellerstedt and condemning the other decisions, though I would be pleased to hear of an exception. Republicans are all over the place, to the extent that I can make no assumptions whatsoever about what an “R” means when it comes to judicial matters.

Does a candidate squirm or stand tall under questions about the Court decisions I’ve mentioned?  That’ll tell me a lot about whether I want a particular candidate in the Senate. If Trump gets elected with a bunch of Republican senators who are OK with Hellerstedt and not OK with the Little Sisters, or who are meek about either, Hillary will get the Court she seeks, even if she’s not President.

My own state is in play, with Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) being challenged by Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan. I’d much rather have Ayotte voting on judicial nominees. But will she campaign on the threat of a dangerous shift in the Supreme Court or a loss of the Hyde Amendment if Hassan gets the seat? Don’t I wish.

Frankly, in the year of Trump, Republican Senate candidates can’t trust either party’s standardbearer when it comes to the Court. It’s time to lead. Visualize a bloc of Senators telling the new President, Your nominees will have a history of respecting the right to life and the First Amendment, or they don’t stand a chance of confirmation. Better yet, visualize GOP Senate candidates saying that now, putting Dems on the defensive for once. Litmus test? You betcha.

Think about that if you’re tempted to stay home in November.

Ellen Kolb writes about the life issues at LeavenForTheLoaf.com. When she’s not writing, she’s hiking in New Hampshire. See her earlier posts for DaTechGuyBlog: Ethics and PP’s Campaign Cash, Putting a Know-Nothing in His Place, and Ads Say the Darnedest Things

A note to readers: I’m still one of DaTechGuy’s Magnificent Prospects, striving to earn your thumbs-up. DTG will be judging the entries in Da Magnificent Tryouts by hits-per-post and hits to DaTipJar. If you hit DaTipJar after reading one of my posts, please mention my name so Da Boss knows I’m earning my keep – and thank you! (Look for a tip jar link at the right side of the page if it’s not visible below.)




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Mr. Spock: This is how history went after McCoy changed it. Here, in the late 1930s. A growing pacifist movement whose influence delayed the United States’ entry into the Second World War. While peace negotiations dragged on, Germany had time to complete its heavy-water experiments.
Captain Kirk: Germany. Fascism. Hitler. They won the Second World War.
Mr. Spock: Because all this lets them develop the A-bomb first. There’s no mistake, Captain. Let me run it again. Edith Keeler. Founder of the peace movement.
Captain Kirk: But she was right. Peace was the way.
Mr. Spock: She was right, but at the wrong time. With the A-bomb, and with their V2 rockets to carry them, Germany captured the world.
Captain Kirk: No.
Mr. Spock: And all this because McCoy came back and somehow kept her from dying in a street accident as she was meant to. We must stop him, Jim.

Star Trek The City on the Edge of Forever 1967

Yesterday old friend Lonely Conservative asked a relevant question concerning Donald Trump as the GOP nominee

Trump himself isn’t giving me any reasons to vote for him. He continues to give me many reasons to stay home and not vote at all, but he hasn’t done a damned thing to earn my vote. Calling Hillary Clinton a crook doesn’t count. I know she’s horrible, but her shortcomings (for lack of a better word to describe how dreadful she is) don’t make Trump any better. As far as I’m concerned, they’re both evil. Trump hitching his wagon to the Republican Party doesn’t change who or what he is.

This type of argument has been a staple of the #nevertrump crowd and her questions about Trump as President are not without merit:

So tell me, why will Donald Trump be a great president? How is he a good man? How is he a good role model? What will he do to get the boot of the federal government off of our necks? What will he do for the free market, or to protect religious liberty? How will he restore our standing in the world? (His cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin doesn’t count, neither does his admiration of the world’s worst dictators.) How is a man whose principles change with the weather going to hold up to the pressures of the presidency?Really, I want to know how you think the orange faced wanna be dictator is going to Make America Great Again?

However while in theory, not staining oneself with a vote for Trump might make one feel better, yesterday the Supreme Court delivered the practical reality of what will happen if Hillary Clinton is elected president vs Donald Trump:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Barack Obama’s plan to spare millions of immigrants in the country illegally from deportation in a split ruling that heartened political foes who had accused him of overstepping his powers.

But the most important words concerning this result come from the very first page of the ruling:

PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

And the folks at Hotair note how much had to go right to reach that point:

A lot had to go right to get to this point. The plaintiffs ended up with a Bush appointee, Judge Andrew Hanen, at the trial level; Hanen issued a preliminary injunction against Obama’s DAPA amnesty, which granted legal status and work permits to an expanded class of illegals. The feds appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and the luck of the draw at that level produced a three-judge panel of one Reagan appointee, one Bush appointee, and one Carter appointee. Result: 2-1 to uphold Hanen’s injunction. Then the plaintiffs had to hope that Anthony Kennedy, who provided the decisive vote elsewhere this morning in upholding the University of Texas’s affirmative action scheme, would resist the urge to tilt left on this one too and form a clear 5-3 majority for O’s order in the name of providing certainty to the millions of illegals currently in DAPA limbo. The Court doesn’t say how the justices voted but it’s a safe bet that Kennedy came through.

And amid all of this, border hawks had to hope that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans would continue to hold the line and refuse to confirm Merrick Garland, who surely would have done his friend Barack a solid by providing the fifth vote to uphold his order. Everything had to go right for Texas and the other plaintiffs. It did.

Now after this election there will be a new president and that 9th seat on the Supreme Court is going to be filled.  If Hillary Clinton fills that seat Executive Amnesty will be the law of the land.

There were many arguments against nominating Donald Trump, I made some of them, there are also concerns about what a Donald Trump presidency might look like, I wrote a parody song about it but no amount of soul searching, no about of principled declarations and no about of declarations of the unfitness of Donald Trump (valid or not) will change that practical result of either staying home or voting Gary Johnson is to elect Hillary Clinton and guarantee her the ability to appoint the deciding vote on the Supreme Court.

It may be that my friend Karen, and others like Erick Erickson et/al are right, but like Edith Keeler they are right at the wrong time, because the practical result of #nevertrump is the election of Hillary Clinton and if you care about religious freedom, if you care about the 2nd Amendment, if you care about the rule of law to remain #nevertrump you have to be willing to say:

 “I am willing to give the Democrats who are willing to use the power of the government to persecute republicans,  oppressed religious believers and in total denial about Islamic Terror control of the Supreme Court for generations to come in order to keep Donald Trump from being elected.”

I suspect a lot of #nevertrump people seeing this ruling at the Supreme Court will decide this is a bridge too far for them.

Every person much make that decision on their own and I’m not going to question Karen or anyone else who decides they just can’t vote Trump, but if one makes that decision it has to be made with eyes wide open.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



gay flagBy John Ruberry

Like it or not, same-sex marriage is the law of the land. As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I favored civil unions for gays for years, in essence, marriage in all but name. What is now called traditional marriage reaches back into pre-history–social norms should not be thrown overboard so quickly.

As for the other side of the gay marriage debate, the media focus has been on what Friday’s US Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in favor of what some call marriage equality means for observant Christians who oppose it.

But what about Muslims? The Daily Beast managed to find a few Muslims who favor gay marriage, but it’s safe to say that followers of Islam overwhelmingly oppose it.

And I believe that Muslims considering emigrating to the United States–and for that matter, other Western nations–might want to consider staying home instead.

Other than our high standard of living, there is much in America for Muslims not to like. Arranged marriages are not only rare but are frowned upon. Dogs, beloved members of many American families, are viewed as only slightly better than pigs in Islamic society only because of their hunting and protection skills. As for those pigs, most Americans eat pork. Women in the United States wear whatever they want–or in some cases, how little they want. And the great majority of Americans drink alcohol–and advertisements for intoxicating beverages can be found almost everywhere. We can change our religion if we like–or, as has been happening more frequently, choose no faith at all. While somewhat controversial, religious satire is common in the USA. For the sake of brevity I’m stopping here.

Bridgeview, IL
Bridgeview, IL

And since Friday–two men, or two women, can marry each other in a government-sanctioned marriage from Portland, Maine to Honolulu, Hawaii.

Guam too.

Despite President Obama’s ridiculous claim that “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding,” there is very little Islamic about America.

And the roughly three million Muslims in America won’t be able to change that.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

It is highly unlikely that Justice Scalia dissent in Obergefell et al vs Hodges is going to get the attention that his dissent in King vs Burwell did, but there is a paragraph in this dissent that should be recited and memorized by every conservative in America:

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.  They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

This is the fundamental belief of the Baby Boomer generation, that they are in fact the greatest generation and all those who came before were dopes at best and bigots at worst.  The people dancing in front of the Supreme Court today share this belief and that ignorance & hubris is why ISIS, China, radical Islam and Putin are also celebrating today.

They know that the path we have chosen leads to their victory and they are convinced we are too lazy & stupid to get off of it.

**********************************************************************

If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Lt. Kaminsky: You wanted confirmation, Captain? Take a look! There’s your confirmation!

Tora Tora Tora 1970

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

Luke 21:33

Yesterday while most of the country was watching Baltimore the Supreme Court heard arguments to decide if the definition of marriage that had endured throughout human history was to be tossed out and redefined in a way that not only the founding fathers but most americans of a mere generation ago, would not have imagined.

Given that gay marriage only became legal in American in 2004 by a 4-3 vote in the most liberal state Supreme Court in the land (Massachusetts) and the unwillingness of Governor Mitt Romney to push back in the slightest against this idiocy,  the fact that the Supreme Court is expected to uphold the narcissistic idea that marrying within one’s own sex is a basic constitutional right is nothing short of remarkable (constant cheerleading by the entertainment/media complex not withstanding).

What’s even more remarkable in my eyes however is that events in Baltimore that have caused many eyes that would normally be on the court to be elsewhere have given the justices who will be ruling on gay marriage a look at the future they are preparing to create.

The riots give the answer to the question:  What do you get when you have a culture when the presence of both a father and mother is considered unimportant in the rearing of children?  The experience of the Black family over the last five decades  answers this question.

Consider:  At the same time that civil rights laws were freeing black Americans from centuries of legal restraints by narcissists redefining marriage (sound familiar) and humanity itself to suit their cultural desires, an event that should have been the prelude for black America to jump into a golden age,  two other forces from liberal America,  one cultural & one political,  arose that would have a catastrophic effect on the black family which had so nobly fought for the rights that were finally being acknowledged.

First came the sexual revolution that not only shattered the concept of sex within marriage as the proper moral norm but brought with it the contraceptive culture giving the illusion of divorcing sex from children (with abortion as the final card to play in an emergency).

Nearly simultaneously came the Great Society which among other things gave the poor, in the form of government cash assistance,  an incentive to abandon the family unit for single motherhood without a husband and father in the house.

This combination of incentives coming at this time of transition for the black family was the key ingredient in its destruction.  Single parent households,  abortion and absent fathers increased while marriage decreased.

The result, two generations later the norm within the black community is now the absence of an intact family with a father & mother present in the home and the further absence of a grandfather to reinforce fatherly values if accident or circumstance causes the fathers loss.

Normally the disastrous results of this, while apparent daily in the black community is invisible to society as a whole (with the exception of judges, police and social workers) but the crisis in Baltimore is giving the general population and the world a vivid view of this new cultural paradigm.  And the best illustration of this view came from an angry mother of a rioting son.

 Yesterday all over facebook and social media people cheered (with some liberal exceptions) the video of a black mother disciplining her son for taking part in riots.  In the midst of the cheering nobody seemed to ask the obvious question:

 Why was there only one mother of a rioter taking action?  Where were the rest of the mothers & fathers?

Every single one of those rioters had a mother, yet we only saw one taking actions.  Every single one of those rioters had a father, yet we didn’t see a single image of a father pulling a rioter of the street.

I submit and suggest that if black America had that same ratio of intact families with fathers and mothers in the home today as it did in the mid 50’s  the number of teens rioting would have been tiny as  their concern over the reaction of an angry father would have overridden the peer pressure to raid a mall, set fires or destroy & loot stores.

I further suggest that events in Baltimore vividly illustrate what happens to a culture when you have generations of people who do not have the traditional nuclear family to reinforce values, when the value of a male and female role models is discounted and when society or a subset of it rejects it as the desired norm.

Now in the end  the final responsibility for the actions of the rioters, the inaction of their parents, and their failure to said parents to imbue either the values or the fear that would preclude violent acts by their progeny,  lies with them.

But while theirs is the responsibility for succumb to the perverse liberal social & financial incentives society as a whole are paying the price allow with them for that choice.

It’s ironic the Supreme Court is deciding whether to allow states the choice of redefining marriage and absorbing the cultural costs that it will entail to children who will not have a father or mother or COMPEL the entire nation to follow the social paradigm of single sex parenting at the same time when while the entire nation and world are seeing the results of this cultural meme.

The justices and the people have a front role seat to the vivid warning provided by Baltimore of the results of such a decision

It’s a lesson I hope the Supreme Court pays heed to.

Let me close with this thought:

While cultures, technology, tastes as to what is socially acceptable might change (for example a century ago the elites of our land were big into the idea of eugenics until a fellow with a Charlie Chaplin mustache took the idea to its logical conclusion with horrifying results)  they don’t trump the realities of human nature and the reality is this:

When you create a culture that disregards the vital and unique role of the intact father & mother to raising of children and instead provide incentives,  both legally and culturally, to promote alternatives as equal and as healthy for the sake of a groups self-esteem  you are sowing the seeds of disaster that will bear fruit within the lifetimes of those foolishly promoting the exercise in narcissism that is gay marriage.

You have been warned.

*****************************************************

If you want journalism owned by you instead of the left elites I would ask you to hit DaTipJar and help me pay for it.

My goal is Twenty grand a year

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid.  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

We’re extending our March premium to April for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Stacy McCain’s book:  Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Subscribe at $50 or more in April and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits in April of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Among the more deranged (among many) reactions to the Supreme Court decision on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., you’ll find this:
The Uncomfortable Question: Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?

In Justice Alito’s majority opinion, he relies squarely on Catholic teaching about “complicity” to explain the supposed burden. In doing so, he reiterates the argument that the Catholic Church has made in the dozens of lawsuits it has brought challenging the contraceptive mandate. According to the Church, it violates the moral obligations of a Catholic to do anything — anything — that would “facilitate” the provision of contraception to an individual. So even if one is not using contraception oneself, if one facilitates access to contraception by others, a grave moral wrong has been committed.

The man writing that nonsense does not bother to define exactly what he means by Catholic teaching about “complicity”, and clearly ignores the fact that Hobby Lobby willingly provides insurance coverage for 16 types of contraceptives.

Princeton University professor Robert P. George addresses the uncomfortable question in this morning’s Facebook post:

It is true that six justices are (at least nominally) Catholic, though only 24% of Americans are members of that faith.

It is also true that three justices are Jewish, though less than 2% (1.7% to be exact) of the U.S. population are Jewish.

So the folks on the left who are questioning the appropriateness of having so many Catholic justices should be asked to tell us which religious group in the U.S. they believe is most highly overrepresented on the Supreme Court.

And what about underrepresentation? The largest religious group in the U.S., Evangelical Christians, are nearly 27%. The number of Evangelicals on the Supreme Court: Zero. Hmmmm . . . . What do our friends on the left who are complaining about the overrepresentation of Catholics on the Court have to say about that? Aren’t Evangelicals, if we are bean counting, entitled to at least 2 seats?

And the third largest religious group in the country are mainline Protestants, at about 18%. Shouldn’t they have a seat?

And what about the LDS Church (the Mormons)? The Mormon population in the U.S. is as large as the Jewish population and is growing faster. Do the LDS have three seats on the Supreme Court? Nope. There are no Mormons among the justices.

Well, shall we stop playing the bean counting game?

Prof. George’s commenter Lynn approaches the issue:

A solid jurist shouldn’t be judged by religious affiliation. Rather judged by judicial temperament and thorough knowledge of the laws.

Yes, but their duty is to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, to which they are bound by solemn oath. And, by the way, one of their oaths specifically states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Amen to that!

faustaFausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. & Latin American politics and culture at Fausta’s blog.